London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?
Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
Pensioners don't want to migrate.
Two changes from Osborne have made matters worse. 1. Higher stamp duty on higher priced houses hits London owning pensioners. Disincentive to downsize and move. 2. IHT changes encouraging London pensioners to remain in their principle residence in case they die after downsizing after a set period.
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
Pensioners don't want to migrate.
They do but not to London or Scotland.
London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
.
I see that you ignored the point I was making.
And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.
Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.
The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
You're turning into John Galt here... Aren't you a Labour supporter?
Not a Labour supporter, though I'd consider voting for them if they dumped Jeremy Corbyn.
I do, however, find it a bit rich that pampered pensioners in the back of beyond expect to dictate social policy to those who underwrite their lifestyle.
That's the price one pays for living in a liberal democracy. The franchise is no longer restricted to the rich.
Why only the price one pays for living in a liberal democracy - why not for living in a democracy?
Mr. Borough, same fellow: twitter.com/TotalPolitics/status/895212135164325888
The UK political scene is ripe for a new party of centrists [that said, I think it'd be seen either as right or left, the idea of being precisely middle-of-the-road is mealy-mouthed]. Labour's led by a far left fool, the Conservatives are becalmed in disarray, and UKIP has withered. Good potential for a new party.
I would certainly be interested in such a party as neither the current Tory party nor Corbyn/McDonnell appeal and the LDs seem to be a local govt party more than a Westminster one.
If some of the "wetter" Tories left and joined this new party then the rTory party would be composed of the swivel-eyed headbangers and those who tolerate them - a sort of respectable UKIP-lite?
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?
Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
Pensioners don't want to migrate.
Two changes from Osborne have made matters worse. 1. Higher stamp duty on higher priced houses hits London owning pensioners. Disincentive to downsize and move. 2. IHT changes encouraging London pensioners to remain in their principle residence in case they die after downsizing.
Hmm I'm not sure that is right (intuitively). For 1. if you have made a ton of money, as will have many London owning pensioners, a few percent here or there really isn't going to make a difference. As for 2. very few people structure decisions "in case they die". IHT planning is one thing, but that is a different matter to pondering your own death in terms of any potential impact on your family's wealth.
The UK political scene is ripe for a new party of centrists [that said, I think it'd be seen either as right or left, the idea of being precisely middle-of-the-road is mealy-mouthed]. Labour's led by a far left fool, the Conservatives are becalmed in disarray, and UKIP has withered. Good potential for a new party.
I don't think the time is ripe for a centrist party, despite the headbangers taking over both parties.
Labour policy is pretty centrist nowadays despite all the guff about Corbyn being a Marxist.
Ruth, Hammond, Rudd... The point is still the same, as long as one Brexiteer finishes up on the final ballot that's who Con members will vote for in the end in the Con leadership contest (as it will be the only way of securing Brexit during the transition period)
Which Conservative Brexiteer will be the first to say that the idea was good but May/Davis/Boris/Fox screwed it up?
At present May and Hammond are regarded as causing problems with the implementation of Brexit by most Conservative party members. Both are Remainers. Just not trusted.
The UK political scene is ripe for a new party of centrists [that said, I think it'd be seen either as right or left, the idea of being precisely middle-of-the-road is mealy-mouthed]. Labour's led by a far left fool, the Conservatives are becalmed in disarray, and UKIP has withered. Good potential for a new party.
I remember the journey of the SDP from the Dimbleby Lecture given by Jenkins in late 1979 through to the Limehouse Declaration and it was fraught and on any number of occasions it might have been stopped in its tracks.
For a new Party to succeed it needs luck more than anything else. It needs some "identity" - were the opening Press Conference to be led by George Osborne and David Miliband for example, despite all the snide comments there would be on here, they would have some "recognition".
Is it going to be a single-issue Party, a kind of reverse UKIP, or will it seek to be a home where Blairites, Orange Book Liberals and Liberal Conservatives can all get together and work out a common policy platform ?
it should also be remembered that 2/3 of the original SDP membership hadn't belonged to any party so "the market" for a new party may be far more than just Westminster ? Will it attract local Councillors and can it get the big prize of MPs to defect ? Although it attracted many Conservatives at local level, the SDP couldn't get any Conservative MPs to defect apart from Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler.
Inevitably, the name will be an issue as will relations with the Liberal Democrats.
Perhaps it's the one development which could really alter the Westminster geography though the chances are it won't.
"Recovering @dailymailUK pol ed. Osborne's right hand man. FoG chair. Ex-DEXEU chief of staff (let's gloss over that). Trainee Guardianista. Citizen of the world"
If it's only or predominantly ex-Conservatives then it'll be seen as a bluer shade of pale. There needs to be at least a mix. I think the Conservatives, as such, would remain and not become composed solely/mostly of the right.
A problem would be that Labour MPs are far less likely (historically) to defect. If they don't in at least some numbers, then the new party would just split the Conservative/centrist vote, and make life much easier for Corbyn (unless the new party disintegrates).
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?
Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
Pensioners don't want to migrate.
Two changes from Osborne have made matters worse. 1. Higher stamp duty on higher priced houses hits London owning pensioners. Disincentive to downsize and move. 2. IHT changes encouraging London pensioners to remain in their principle residence in case they die after downsizing.
Hmm I'm not sure that is right (intuitively). For 1. if you have made a ton of money, as will have many London owning pensioners, a few percent here or there really isn't going to make a difference. As for 2. very few people structure decisions "in case they die". IHT planning is one thing, but that is a different matter to pondering your own death in terms of any potential impact on your family's wealth.
Well, all this rain, while very good for my garden, is somewhat tiresome.
I hope it deters our local fox, though, which a couple of weeks ago got into the house late at night and crept upstairs (or more likely was chased by the cat) into the bathroom where it proceeded to make the most almighty racket as it tried to escape while hurling shampoo bottles around with gay abandon.
Well, that is more exciting than our fox which just snoozes under the big conifer at the end of the garden
Thank God for the beer festival later this week and my visit to the a safe and exotic part of the Mediterranean next week, from where I shall report - @SeanT style - on my adventures!
It is about time we had some gender equality on here! I was tempted readdress the SeanT balance by reporting on my rampant sexual adventures until I realised that I totally lack such adventures
It would also be nice if when youngsters apply for jobs, even short-term ones, employers bothered to reply (a polite "no thanks" would be nice). All very well complaining about our young and why Eastern Europeans are more amenable but some emplyers don't even bother to give youngsters here a chance. This plea is entirely connected to the difficulties my son, who has had serious health issues making his CV rather less "vanilla" than some, has had in getting a hearing from possible employers. Not everyone has a well-formed out career plan from birth. Without actually trying a variety of jobs how do you know what you would like or be good at? Grrrr.....
One method I have heard of is people offering their services for a week or two as a form of interview. It is a low-risk method for employers to see whether someone is a good fit. Having said that Trump & Sugar have demonstrated the dangers with this approach on their TV shows many, many times.
If he keeps at it he will succeed because it is a numbers game at the end of the day, but it can be so disheartening. Good luck to him!
On point 2 - trust me - I give advice on estate planning!
But your point 2 presupposes that pensioners are holding on to their London properties while getting a second home outside London. That's not downsizing. In economic terms it's going even longer on the property market than they were before.
If it's only or predominantly ex-Conservatives then it'll be seen as a bluer shade of pale. There needs to be at least a mix. I think the Conservatives, as such, would remain and not become composed solely/mostly of the right.
It is about time we had some gender equality on here! I was tempted readdress the SeanT balance by reporting on my rampant sexual adventures until I realised that I totally lack such adventures
The UK political scene is ripe for a new party of centrists [that said, I think it'd be seen either as right or left, the idea of being precisely middle-of-the-road is mealy-mouthed]. Labour's led by a far left fool, the Conservatives are becalmed in disarray, and UKIP has withered. Good potential for a new party.
I don't think the time is ripe for a centrist party, despite the headbangers taking over both parties.
Labour policy is pretty centrist nowadays despite all the guff about Corbyn being a Marxist.
You think a 50% increase in business tax rates is "pretty centrist"? You think nationalising entire industries (without any costings to do so) is "pretty centrist"?
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?
Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
Pensioners don't want to migrate.
Two changes from Osborne have made matters worse. 1. Higher stamp duty on higher priced houses hits London owning pensioners. Disincentive to downsize and move. 2. IHT changes encouraging London pensioners to remain in their principle residence in case they die after downsizing.
Hmm I'm not sure that is right (intuitively). For 1. if you have made a ton of money, as will have many London owning pensioners, a few percent here or there really isn't going to make a difference. As for 2. very few people structure decisions "in case they die". IHT planning is one thing, but that is a different matter to pondering your own death in terms of any potential impact on your family's wealth.
It is about time we had some gender equality on here! I was tempted readdress the SeanT balance by reporting on my rampant sexual adventures until I realised that I totally lack such adventures
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
While 99% is surely an exaggeration, I think it is quite high. Lots of higher education colleges explicitly advertise the number of hours you are allowed to legally work when recruiting students from Asia. Go and take a walk around parts of East London (and I suspect the same is true around e.g. Brent and Ealing though it's been longer since I've been there) and you can see big posters proclaiming boldly "Legally work in the UK" and then if you check the small print you see you have to be doing a course at the same time, as a kind of compulsory extra. NB not generally universities advertising this, but smaller "private colleges". The kind you find on the first floor above takeaway restaurants. Many London suburban residents will know the kind I mean. I remember a particularly fun exchange with Dr Sunil about his favourite college names - often far more grandiose than the "proper" universities, sufficiently disproportionately so as to be a source of great humour for the cynically inclined.
If it's only or predominantly ex-Conservatives then it'll be seen as a bluer shade of pale. There needs to be at least a mix. I think the Conservatives, as such, would remain and not become composed solely/mostly of the right.
A problem would be that Labour MPs are far less likely (historically) to defect. If they don't in at least some numbers, then the new party would just split the Conservative/centrist vote, and make life much easier for Corbyn (unless the new party disintegrates).
It was LAB MPs who split in the early 80s to join the SDP. As I recall there as only one CON MP defection.
If it's only or predominantly ex-Conservatives then it'll be seen as a bluer shade of pale. There needs to be at least a mix. I think the Conservatives, as such, would remain and not become composed solely/mostly of the right.
A problem would be that Labour MPs are far less likely (historically) to defect. If they don't in at least some numbers, then the new party would just split the Conservative/centrist vote, and make life much easier for Corbyn (unless the new party disintegrates).
It was LAB MPs who split in the early 80s to join the SDP. As I recall there as only one CON MP defection.
Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler was the Mark Reckless de nos jours.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
While 99% is surely an exaggeration, I think it is quite high. Lots of higher education colleges explicitly advertise the number of hours you are allowed to legally work when recruiting students from Asia. Go and take a walk around parts of East London (and I suspect the same is true around e.g. Brent and Ealing though it's been longer since I've been there) and you can see big posters proclaiming boldly "Legally work in the UK" and then if you check the small print you see you have to be doing a course at the same time, as a kind of compulsory extra. NB not generally universities advertising this, but smaller "private colleges". The kind you find on the first floor above takeaway restaurants. Many London suburban residents will know the kind I mean. I remember a particularly fun exchange with Dr Sunil about his favourite college names - often far more grandiose than the "proper" universities, sufficiently disproportionately so as to be a source of great humour for the cynically inclined.
Am not au fait with the situation in London so will not disagree. However, if you were to look at the NE, which attracts the largest proportion of Chinese students in the country, the money they bring into Newcastle and Sunderland is a major driver of economic regeneration. Am not really aware of any private colleges up here for work purposes, but do see large buildings being erected on derelict land to accommodate and educate, making the city much more pleasant to be in.
The UK political scene is ripe for a new party of centrists [that said, I think it'd be seen either as right or left, the idea of being precisely middle-of-the-road is mealy-mouthed]. Labour's led by a far left fool, the Conservatives are becalmed in disarray, and UKIP has withered. Good potential for a new party.
I don't think the time is ripe for a centrist party, despite the headbangers taking over both parties.
Labour policy is pretty centrist nowadays despite all the guff about Corbyn being a Marxist.
You think a 50% increase in business tax rates is "pretty centrist"? You think nationalising entire industries (without any costings to do so) is "pretty centrist"?
Such policies are in the mainstream of postwar British politics. Hardly the liquidisation of the Kulaks or cultural revolution.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
While 99% is surely an exaggeration, I think it is quite high. Lots of higher education colleges explicitly advertise the number of hours you are allowed to legally work when recruiting students from Asia. Go and take a walk around parts of East London (and I suspect the same is true around e.g. Brent and Ealing though it's been longer since I've been there) and you can see big posters proclaiming boldly "Legally work in the UK" and then if you check the small print you see you have to be doing a course at the same time, as a kind of compulsory extra. NB not generally universities advertising this, but smaller "private colleges". The kind you find on the first floor above takeaway restaurants. Many London suburban residents will know the kind I mean. I remember a particularly fun exchange with Dr Sunil about his favourite college names - often far more grandiose than the "proper" universities, sufficiently disproportionately so as to be a source of great humour for the cynically inclined.
Am not au fait with the situation in London so will not disagree. However, if you were to look at the NE, which attracts the largest proportion of Chinese students in the country, the money they bring into Newcastle and Sunderland is a major driver of economic regeneration. Am not really aware of any private colleges up here for work purposes, but do see large buildings being erected on derelict land to accommodate and educate, making the city much more pleasant to be in.
Ditto here in Leicester. Lots of rather nice new accommodation particularly around the West End. Several new Korean and Sushi restaurants are opening too.
If it's only or predominantly ex-Conservatives then it'll be seen as a bluer shade of pale. There needs to be at least a mix. I think the Conservatives, as such, would remain and not become composed solely/mostly of the right.
A problem would be that Labour MPs are far less likely (historically) to defect. If they don't in at least some numbers, then the new party would just split the Conservative/centrist vote, and make life much easier for Corbyn (unless the new party disintegrates).
It was LAB MPs who split in the early 80s to join the SDP. As I recall there as only one CON MP defection.
Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler was the Mark Reckless de nos jours.
If it's only or predominantly ex-Conservatives then it'll be seen as a bluer shade of pale. There needs to be at least a mix. I think the Conservatives, as such, would remain and not become composed solely/mostly of the right.
A problem would be that Labour MPs are far less likely (historically) to defect. If they don't in at least some numbers, then the new party would just split the Conservative/centrist vote, and make life much easier for Corbyn (unless the new party disintegrates).
It was LAB MPs who split in the early 80s to join the SDP. As I recall there as only one CON MP defection.
Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler was the Mark Reckless de nos jours.
He ultimately ended up joining Labour in the 90s.
Leurs surely not nos?
Can I blame auto-correct and the fact I have a cold/virus that is making me feel like patient zero for the virus that will wipe out 99% of humanity.
If it's only or predominantly ex-Conservatives then it'll be seen as a bluer shade of pale. There needs to be at least a mix. I think the Conservatives, as such, would remain and not become composed solely/mostly of the right.
A problem would be that Labour MPs are far less likely (historically) to defect. If they don't in at least some numbers, then the new party would just split the Conservative/centrist vote, and make life much easier for Corbyn (unless the new party disintegrates).
It was LAB MPs who split in the early 80s to join the SDP. As I recall there as only one CON MP defection.
Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler was the Mark Reckless de nos jours.
He ultimately ended up joining Labour in the 90s.
Leurs surely not nos?
Can I blame auto-correct and the fact I have a cold/virus that is making me feel like patient zero for the virus that will wipe out 99% of humanity.
It was LAB MPs who split in the early 80s to join the SDP. As I recall there as only one CON MP defection.
I fear Mr Dancer is a little young to remember that!
Having said that, I suspect he might be right about more recent history: post-1990, say. The Wikipedia list is rather jumbled by various cases of scandal and whip withdrawal rather than party-switching. I have tried to remove clear-cut cases of scandal followed by whip withdrawal or resignation and a muted parliamentary disappearance, but have been rather inclusive including people who either pledged to stand against their former party, or who supported another outcome at the next election.
Con to Lab: Alan Howarth (1995), Peter Temple-Morris (left Con 1997 as "One Nation" Tory, joined Lab 1998), Shaun Woodward (1999, various factors including Section 28), Robert Jackson (2005, HE funding), Quentin Davies (2007, anti-Cameroon) Con to Lib Dem: Emma Nicholson (1995), Peter Thurnham (1996) Con to anti-EU: John Browne (1992 after deselection, stood unsuccessfully at 1992 GE as Independent Conservative and 1992 European Election as "Conservative against European Union") , Sir George Gardiner (1997 as "Referendum"), arguably Charles Wardle (was standing down anyway, but whip removed in 2001 for supporting UKIP in election to replace him), Bob Spink (left Tories 2008, associated with UKIP 2008-9, stood unsuccessfully as "Independent Save our Green Belt" in 2010), Douglas Carswell (2014, successfully held seat at 2014 by-election and in 2015 GE), Mark Reckless (2014, successfully held seat at 2014 by-election but lost in 2015 GE) Con to DUP: Andrew Hunter (left to support DUP 2002, joined DUP 2004) Con to Independent: Andrew Pelling (whip suspended 2007 over allegations of assault, "Independent Conservative" til 2008 and then "Independent", included in this list as he contested the 2010 election as an independent)
Lab to Lib Dem: Paul Marsden (2001, over invasion of Afghanistan, but see later). Brian Sedgemore (was standing down in 2005 anyway) Lab to Respect: George Galloway (expelled 2003, Respect from 2004) Lab to Independent: Dave Nellist (1991 suspended over Militant, unsuccessfully ran as Independent in 1992 GE), Terry Fields (1991 suspended over Militant, unsuccessfully ran as Independent in 1992 GE), Dennis Canavan (1999, left parliament 2000 to pursue career as independent MSP), Ken Livingstone (2000, stood down in 2001 to pursue career as independent Mayor of London), Clare Short (resigned whip 2006 over policy differences, stood down in 2010 but supporting hung parliament), Bob Wareing (resigned whip 2007 following deselection for next election, intended to contest next GE as independent but in 2010 decided not to), Simon Danczuk (originally suspended 2015 over lewd text messages, stood unsuccessfully as independent 2017 GE) Lab to SNP: Dick Douglas (1990, felt Labour insufficiently opposed to poll tax)
Lib Dem to Labour: Paul Marsden (was standing down in 2005, declared support for Labour to replace him),
UUP to DUP: Jeffrey Donaldson (resigned whip 2003, joined DUP 2004) UUP to Independent: Sylvia, Lady Hermon (2010, opposed Tory-UUP pact)
There does seem to have been more willingness of wet Tories to switch party in the conventional sense, than there has been of Labour MPs who disagree with the direction of their party.
Am not au fait with the situation in London so will not disagree. However, if you were to look at the NE, which attracts the largest proportion of Chinese students in the country, the money they bring into Newcastle and Sunderland is a major driver of economic regeneration. Am not really aware of any private colleges up here for work purposes, but do see large buildings being erected on derelict land to accommodate and educate, making the city much more pleasant to be in.
Yes am not critical of migration per se, and there has been a big clamp-down on the dodgiest private colleges (I have an interesting post about personal experience with one somewhere in my archives). Funnily enough, though, I did know a lass from a wealthy Chinese family studying a high-flying Finance degree at Durham ... but the international course fees were still rather steep for her, so she actually worked cash-in-hand selling black market DVDs. Believe that some older Chinese local sorted her out with the work, and would transport her and a bunch of other Chinese students around the NE for street market work. So even up there it's not immune.
I think the student numbers should be taken out of the cap, for what it's worth, but I do think people should be less naive about it. For many people, part of the attraction of coming here is the hope of either being able to work while studying, or to stay on and migrate either permanently or for a couple of years at the end of the degree.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
I think it's changing fast... the UK is losing ground among South Asian students to Canada and US and other countries where immigration policies are more welcoming.
"Changes in UK visa regulations have led to a fall in the number of Indian students in the UK, as highlighted in the 2014 Trends report, in contrast to the USA where more than half of all international students come from India"
It is about time we had some gender equality on here! I was tempted readdress the SeanT balance by reporting on my rampant sexual adventures until I realised that I totally lack such adventures
There's a solution to that.
But not on PB
Not unless the pursuit of such experiences involves fifty-somethings rather than twenty-somethings, one suspects...
As I might have mentioned in the past, I work in the print industry. Earlier this week we had occasion to courier a job to an NHS hospital in the Midlands.
The recipient decided it was a good use of resources to type an acknowledgement letter, print it and return it to us by first class post.
It's a good job the NHS isn't at all short of resources!
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
How did you ascertain this info?
What that many, many Indian and Pakistani students are only here for work.
Because it is widely known in my community.....I didn't think pb was so naive.
Not a Labour supporter, though I'd consider voting for them if they dumped Jeremy Corbyn.
I do, however, find it a bit rich that pampered pensioners in the back of beyond expect to dictate social policy to those who underwrite their lifestyle.
Yes I know you aren't a Corbyn fan. He'll win you over eventually I'm sure
I have more sympathy for the pensioners - they've lived through some pretty seismic changes in their lifetimes... have seen Britain go from probably the world's foremost power to a modern, wealthy, much more diverse country.
What grates a little is when they tell me they voted for Brexit/Tories to help me/my generation - but it certainly doesn't feel that way!
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
I think it's changing fast... the UK is losing ground among South Asian students to Canada and US and other countries where immigration policies are more welcoming.
"Changes in UK visa regulations have led to a fall in the number of Indian students in the UK, as highlighted in the 2014 Trends report, in contrast to the USA where more than half of all international students come from India"
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
How did you ascertain this info?
What that many, many Indian and Pakistani students are only here for work.
Because it is widely known in my community.....I didn't think pb was so naive.
It was widely known on these pages that nobody would ever vote for Corbyn unless they were on weed.
So either our received wisdom on Corbyn was wrong, or government figures on cannabis use are wrong.
Merely because something is received wisdom doesn't make it true.
I think it's changing fast... the UK is losing ground among South Asian students to Canada and US and other countries where immigration policies are more welcoming.
"Changes in UK visa regulations have led to a fall in the number of Indian students in the UK, as highlighted in the 2014 Trends report, in contrast to the USA where more than half of all international students come from India"
They aren't fake students - they do study, and aspire to high-paid jobs in my experience. It costs a lot to come and study here. They do often work side jobs to get by in the mean time and make ends meet.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level 99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
How did you ascertain this info?
What that many, many Indian and Pakistani students are only here for work.
Because it is widely known in my community.....I didn't think pb was so naive.
It was widely known on these pages that nobody would ever vote for Corbyn unless they were on weed.
So either our received wisdom on Corbyn was wrong, or government figures on cannabis use are wrong.
Merely because something is received wisdom doesn't make it true.
No that was a prediction, this is actually happening now, including my own cousins. Perhaps 99% was an exaggeration on my part.
"However, the system suffered from a chronic lack of control and there is concrete evidence of abuse of the route. The National Audit Office estimated in 2012 that in the first year of the PBS between 40,000 and 50,000 students may have entered the UK for work rather than study."
Ruth, Hammond, Rudd... The point is still the same, as long as one Brexiteer finishes up on the final ballot that's who Con members will vote for in the end in the Con leadership contest (as it will be the only way of securing Brexit during the transition period) So in many ways this is all pointless as none of these people will be leading the Party in the end. Ruth's fall back down to Earth during the leadership contest will be quite amusing though...
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level 99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so yets.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakiset.
?
What that many, many Indian and Pakistani students are only here for work.
Because it is widely known in my community.....I didn't think pb was so naive.
It was widely known on these pages that nobody would ever vote for Corbyn unless they were on weed.
So either our received wisdom on Corbyn was wrong, or government figures on cannabis use are wrong.
Merely because something is received wisdom doesn't make it true.
No that was a prediction, this is actually happening now, including my own cousins. Perhaps 99% was an exaggeration on my part.
"However, the system suffered from a chronic lack of control and there is concrete evidence of abuse of the route. The National Audit Office estimated in 2012 that in the first year of the PBS between 40,000 and 50,000 students may have entered the UK for work rather than study."
"The pilot found that 59% of those interviewed would potentially be refused on credibility grounds, suggesting that abuse of this route in India is significant."
A man has been shot and arrested in the search for the driver responsible for this morning's suspected terrorist attack in Paris, which saw six soldiers injured.
The man, aged in his late 30s, was intercepted north of the French capital driving towards the northern port of Calais, in the BMW used to run over the soldiers, security sources said.
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
I think it's changing fast... the UK is losing ground among South Asian students to Canada and US and other countries where immigration policies are more welcoming.
"Changes in UK visa regulations have led to a fall in the number of Indian students in the UK, as highlighted in the 2014 Trends report, in contrast to the USA where more than half of all international students come from India"
Regarding what nunu said: there's nothing to stop us from counting people towards migration targets at the point they stay, rather than the point where they arrive for studies. Not the way international comparisons are calculated but we are entitled to design our own statistics to be more useful for our policy.
But it's very naive to think that you can get around the fundamental issue just by changing what box we tick, or the time we tick it. If policy is designed to cut immigration, and consequently degrees become a less attractive work and migration route, then the (not insignificant) portion of students coming to use it as one will decline: clamping down at the end of the degree will reduce numbers coming at the start.
The UK political scene is ripe for a new party of centrists [that said, I think it'd be seen either as right or left, the idea of being precisely middle-of-the-road is mealy-mouthed]. Labour's led by a far left fool, the Conservatives are becalmed in disarray, and UKIP has withered. Good potential for a new party.
I don't think the time is ripe for a centrist party, despite the headbangers taking over both parties.
Labour policy is pretty centrist nowadays despite all the guff about Corbyn being a Marxist.
You think a 50% increase in business tax rates is "pretty centrist"? You think nationalising entire industries (without any costings to do so) is "pretty centrist"?
Such policies are in the mainstream of postwar British politics. Hardly the liquidisation of the Kulaks or cultural revolution.
If they're so mainstream when was the last time vast industries were nationalised? When was the last time business taxes were increased by 50%?
99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.
The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
Er.....yes in 20 years things have changed a lot. Nowadays Indian and Pakistani "students" use student visa's as an easy access route to work and settle here. I personally know many such people who do this. It's an open secret.
I think it's changing fast... the UK is losing ground among South Asian students to Canada and US and other countries where immigration policies are more welcoming.
"Changes in UK visa regulations have led to a fall in the number of Indian students in the UK, as highlighted in the 2014 Trends report, in contrast to the USA where more than half of all international students come from India"
Regarding what nunu said: there's nothing to stop us from counting people towards migration targets at the point they stay, rather than the point where they arrive for studies. Not the way international comparisons are calculated but we are entitled to design our own statistics to be more useful for our policy.
But it's very naive to think that you can get around the fundamental issue just by changing what box we tick, or the time we tick it. If policy is designed to cut immigration, and consequently degrees become a less attractive work and migration route, then the (not insignificant) portion of students coming to use it as one will decline: clamping down at the end of the degree will reduce numbers coming at the start.
Yes - I agree. I think our stated aim on immigration will be very damaging to our economy.
If they're so mainstream when was the last time vast industries were nationalised? When was the last time business taxes were increased by 50%?
Putting corporation tax back to 2011 levels? We were nationalising banks in 2008, Railtrack in 2001, loads of stuff in the 70s and even a few things in the 80s....
Am not au fait with the situation in London so will not disagree. However, if you were to look at the NE, which attracts the largest proportion of Chinese students in the country, the money they bring into Newcastle and Sunderland is a major driver of economic regeneration. Am not really aware of any private colleges up here for work purposes, but do see large buildings being erected on derelict land to accommodate and educate, making the city much more pleasant to be in.
Yes am not critical of migration per se, and there has been a big clamp-down on the dodgiest private colleges (I have an interesting post about personal experience with one somewhere in my archives). Funnily enough, though, I did know a lass from a wealthy Chinese family studying a high-flying Finance degree at Durham ... but the international course fees were still rather steep for her, so she actually worked cash-in-hand selling black market DVDs. Believe that some older Chinese local sorted her out with the work, and would transport her and a bunch of other Chinese students around the NE for street market work. So even up there it's not immune.
I think the student numbers should be taken out of the cap, for what it's worth, but I do think people should be less naive about it. For many people, part of the attraction of coming here is the hope of either being able to work while studying, or to stay on and migrate either permanently or for a couple of years at the end of the degree.
I guess this is a microcosm of the "Scotland needs migrants, the SE doesn't" debate. There is a big difference between someone paying hefty fees to study in an area whilst earning a few dodgy quid cash in hand on the side, (which will get recycled into the local economy anyway), and signing up for a dodgy course purely to work. In these Brexity times it seems madness to crack down on one of our major export industries (students), and one of our most important sources of soft power. Of course, distinguishing between the two groups takes effort and organisation. Far easier for any government to introduce an arbitrary "cap" and gain easy headlines!
Am not au fait with the situation in London so will not disagree. However, if you were to look at the NE, which attracts the largest proportion of Chinese students in the country, the money they bring into Newcastle and Sunderland is a major driver of economic regeneration. Am not really aware of any private colleges up here for work purposes, but do see large buildings being erected on derelict land to accommodate and educate, making the city much more pleasant to be in.
Yes am not critical of migration per se, and there has been a big clamp-down on the dodgiest private colleges (I have an interesting post about personal experience with one somewhere in my archives). Funnily enough, though, I did know a lass from a wealthy Chinese family studying a high-flying Finance degree at Durham ... but the international course fees were still rather steep for her, so she actually worked cash-in-hand selling black market DVDs. Believe that some older Chinese local sorted her out with the work, and would transport her and a bunch of other Chinese students around the NE for street market work. So even up there it's not immune.
I think the student numbers should be taken out of the cap, for what it's worth, but I do think people should be less naive about it. For many people, part of the attraction of coming here is the hope of either being able to work while studying, or to stay on and migrate either permanently or for a couple of years at the end of the degree.
I guess this is a microcosm of the "Scotland needs migrants, the SE doesn't" debate. There is a big difference between someone paying hefty fees to study in an area whilst earning a few dodgy quid cash in hand on the side, (which will get recycled into the local economy anyway), and signing up for a dodgy course purely to work. In these Brexity times it seems madness to crack down on one of our major export industries (students), and one of our most important sources of soft power. Of course, distinguishing between the two groups takes effort and organisation. Far easier for any government to introduce an arbitrary "cap" and gain easy headlines!
Is it really that hard to distinguish? Surely a cap of top 100 universities, or fees over 8k or something like that would weed this out pretty well?
Who would pay 10k or so to work in a low-paid job... surely no one or am I missing something?
Can anyone explain how removing students from migration numbers reduces immigration.
Student comes to the UK = one immigrant Student leaves UK = one emigrant
Right, so if Brexit, visa requirements etc are reducing the number of people studying in Britain, keeping them in the numbers helps the government meet the targets.
However, ministers responsible for creating jobs or making British universities better will still want them removed from the targets, because having them in there still incentivizes other parts of the government to try to stop people coming.
I guess this is a microcosm of the "Scotland needs migrants, the SE doesn't" debate. There is a big difference between someone paying hefty fees to study in an area whilst earning a few dodgy quid cash in hand on the side, (which will get recycled into the local economy anyway), and signing up for a dodgy course purely to work. In these Brexity times it seems madness to crack down on one of our major export industries (students), and one of our most important sources of soft power. Of course, distinguishing between the two groups takes effort and organisation. Far easier for any government to introduce an arbitrary "cap" and gain easy headlines!
Is it really that hard to distinguish? Surely a cap of top 100 universities, or fees over 8k or something like that would weed this out pretty well?
Who would pay 10k or so to work in a low-paid job... surely no one or am I missing something?
It can be though. I give you South Tyneside College, a run-of-the-mill FE college in many ways, teaching childcare and beauty courses, etc. However, it grew out of the old shipbuilding technical college. Its course on Maritime Engineering is one of the world's best, and attracts students from all over the world. It should not be beyond the wit of man, I agree, to make such distinctions, but it appears to be beyond the wit of politicians!
I see Dominic Grieve has said the ECJ will retain a 'dominant presence' in our lives after Brexit and pointed out some major issues with the Great Repeal Bill.
I see Dominic Grieve has said the ECJ will retain a 'dominant presence' in our lives after Brexit and pointed out some major issues with the Great Repeal Bill.
What does he mean by "dominant presence in our lives"?
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?
Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
Pensioners don't want to migrate.
They do but not to London or Scotland.
In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.
Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.
As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.
London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
I see that you ignored the point I was making.
So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.
And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.
Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.
The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
I don't want to get into the yokels vs London argument again. But I recall reading a while back a summary of a report (apologies cannot recall the citation) which calculated what the benefits to the finance industry were of the government's implicit guarantee - a subsidy if you will. If that subsidy were removed I wonder how profitable financial services and the London economy would be.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
A gang has been convicted of abusing girls plied with alcohol and drugs and then forced to have sex in Newcastle.
The victims, some as young as 14, were often from a troubled background and at least one was in care.
In four separate trials, the 17 men and one women were found guilty of, or admitted, offences including conspiracy to incite prostitution, rape and drugs.
It emerged during the investigation police paid a convicted child rapist £10,000 to act as an informant.
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?
Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
Pensioners don't want to migrate.
They do but not to London or Scotland.
In
London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
I see that you ignored the point I was making.
So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.
And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.
Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.
The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
I don't want to get into the yokels vs London argument again. But I recall reading a while back a summary of a report (apologies cannot recall the citation) which calculated what the benefits to the finance industry were of the government's implicit guarantee - a subsidy if you will. If that subsidy were removed I wonder how profitable financial services and the London economy would be.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
I'm sure the Masters of the Universe consider that to be an entitlement, not a subsidy.
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
They do but not to London or Scotland.
In any case its not pensioners you say you want but
GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
I see that you ignored the point I was making.
So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.
And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.
Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.
The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
I don't want to get into the yokels vs London argument again. But I recall reading a while back a summary of a report (apologies cannot recall the citation) which calculated what the benefits to the finance industry were of the government's implicit guarantee - a subsidy if you will. If that subsidy were removed I wonder how profitable financial services and the London economy would be.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
Indeed.
Had dinner with several fervent Remainers on Sunday. They're still in the anger stage; I expect little reasonableness from Remainers until the chance, however limited (FWIW I'd say it currently ranks at around 2%) of staying in has disappeared.
Closure is needed for the acceptance stage to begin.
Ruth, Hammond, Rudd... The point is still the same, as long as one Brexiteer finishes up on the final ballot that's who Con members will vote for in the end in the Con leadership contest (as it will be the only way of securing Brexit during the transition period) So in many ways this is all pointless as none of these people will be leading the Party in the end. Ruth's fall back down to Earth during the leadership contest will be quite amusing though...
Big fish in a very small pond, would you say?
These comments are, I am afraid to say, very English. Ruth has no plans to head UK PM at the moment but does want to be Scottish first minister. She has got were she is by largely ignoring Tory head office. I have the election leaflet sent out for my ward. There was not a single mention of Brexit or Theresa May on the leaflet.
The Scottish Tories are as honour bound to follow the Scottish Conservative vote base as English Tories are to follow their vote base and they are different. If the two clash on Brexit the Scottish Tories will ignore the Tory whip even if it means another election. The only fear they face is going into the next election with a hard Brexit shambles around them.
Ruth is very media savy (ex BBC). The headlines about her supporting Rudd are a shot across the bows of TM and the hard brexiters. They will be much harder to buy off than the DUP.
I don't want to get into the yokels vs London argument again. But I recall reading a while back a summary of a report (apologies cannot recall the citation) which calculated what the benefits to the finance industry were of the government's implicit guarantee - a subsidy if you will. If that subsidy were removed I wonder how profitable financial services and the London economy would be.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
You need to remember that those who voted Leave are immoral.
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
They do but not to London or Scotland.
In any case its not pensioners you say you want but
GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
I see that you ignored the point I was making.
So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.
And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.
Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.
The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
I don't want to get into the yokels vs London argument again. But I recall reading a while back a summary of a report (apologies cannot recall the citation) which calculated what the benefits to the finance industry were of the government's implicit guarantee - a subsidy if you will. If that subsidy were removed I wonder how profitable financial services and the London economy would be.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
Indeed.
Had dinner with several fervent Remainers on Sunday. They're still in the anger stage; I expect little reasonableness from Remainers until the chance, however limited (FWIW I'd say it currently ranks at around 2%) of staying in has disappeared.
Closure is needed for the acceptance stage to begin.
What did you rate the chance at 6 months ago? 0.1%?
Ruth, Hammond, Rudd... The point is still the same, as long as one Brexiteer finishes up on the final ballot that's who Con members will vote for in the end in the Con leadership contest (as it will be the only way of securing Brexit during the transition period) So in many ways this is all pointless as none of these people will be leading the Party in the end. Ruth's fall back down to Earth during the leadership contest will be quite amusing though...
Big fish in a very small pond, would you say?
These comments are, I am afraid to say, very English. Ruth has no plans to head UK PM at the moment but does want to be Scottish first minister. She has got were she is by largely ignoring Tory head office. I have the election leaflet sent out for my ward. There was not a single mention of Brexit or Theresa May on the leaflet.
The Scottish Tories are as honour bound to follow the Scottish Conservative vote base as English Tories are to follow their vote base and they are different. If the two clash on Brexit the Scottish Tories will ignore the Tory whip even if it means another election. The only fear they face is going into the next election with a hard Brexit shambles around them.
Ruth is very media savy (ex BBC). The headlines about her supporting Rudd are a shot across the bows of TM and the hard brexiters. They will be much harder to buy off than the DUP.
No way Ruth risks a Corbyn government. Worst 'her' MPs (and remember several are not really hers) would do is abstain.
London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
They do but not to London or Scotland.
In any case its not pensioners you say you want but
GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
I see that you ignored the point I was making.
So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.
And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.
Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.
The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
I don't want to get into the yokels vs London argument again. But I recall reading a while back a summary of a report (apologies cannot recall the citation) which calculated what the benefits to the finance industry were of the government's implicit guarantee - a subsidy if you will. If that subsidy were removed I wonder how profitable financial services and the London economy would be.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
Indeed.
Had dinner with several fervent Remainers on Sunday. They're still in the anger stage; I expect little reasonableness from Remainers until the chance, however limited (FWIW I'd say it currently ranks at around 2%) of staying in has disappeared.
Closure is needed for the acceptance stage to begin.
What did you rate the chance at 6 months ago? 0.1%?
Six months ago, before article 50 had been triggered, about 10%.
Just thinking about it more. Taking down a hard brexit Tory party would make Ruth the hero of Scotland and a shoo in as the next first minister. The question must be why she would not do it.
Just thinking about it more. Taking down a hard brexit Tory party would make Ruth the hero of Scotland and a shoo in as the next first minister. The question must be why she would not do it.
File with other 'cloud cuckoo land' ideas.
It would lead to the break up of the UK and possibly the Tory party.
Just thinking about it more. Taking down a hard brexit Tory party would make Ruth the hero of Scotland and a shoo in as the next first minister. The question must be why she would not do it.
What do you think her end game would be as far as the UK constitution is concerned? Could she be a closet federalist?
Just thinking about it more. Taking down a hard brexit Tory party would make Ruth the hero of Scotland and a shoo in as the next first minister. The question must be why she would not do it.
File with other 'cloud cuckoo land' ideas.
It would lead to the break up of the UK and possibly the Tory party.
The importance of good punctuation in that sentence;
For a moment I thought it meant; 'UKIP leadership hopeful gay people were sexually abused as children.'
Then I realised it was; 'UKIP leadership hopeful: gay people were sexually abused as children.'
Which is still a very stupid thing to say, but not nearly as spiteful as the former would be.
Sadly I can't use the best example when teaching: the man who complained "Labour voters consist of 'I vote Labour because my dad did sheep." The fairly significant missing inverted comma turning it from the abusive to the surreal.
The importance of good punctuation in that sentence;
For a moment I thought it meant; 'UKIP leadership hopeful gay people were sexually abused as children.'
Then I realised it was; 'UKIP leadership hopeful: gay people were sexually abused as children.'
Which is still a very stupid thing to say, but not nearly as spiteful as the former would be.
Sadly I can't use the best example when teaching: the man who complained "Labour voters consist of 'I vote Labour because my dad did sheep." The fairly significant missing inverted comma turning it from the abusive to the surreal.
Or even "UKIP leadership: hopeful gay people were..etc" which is perhaps slightly more surreal ?
The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
I don't want to get into the yokels vs London argument again. But I recall reading a while back a summary of a report (apologies cannot recall the citation) which calculated what the benefits to the finance industry were of the government's implicit guarantee - a subsidy if you will. If that subsidy were removed I wonder how profitable financial services and the London economy would be.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
I'm sure the Masters of the Universe consider that to be an entitlement, not a subsidy.
It was, from memory, quite interesting because it seemed to say that bankers added zero or little value to their clients, that - in effect - their profitability came from the government subsidy rather than any real value they added and that the main thing bankers had been very good at was taking the bulk of the profits just earned for themselves rather than for their shareholders.
I'm sure bankers would disagree but the growth in the "look at me" financial sector has, to my mind, rather obscured what the proper purpose of a financial sector in a modern economy should be and whether our current one is really fit for that purpose.
Even 10 years after the start of the financial crisis that debate has not really been had. And a significant proportion of the financial sector is not really profitable at all.
London may subsidise the rest of the country but London's economy rests, to a degree which is perhaps dangerous, on a sector, whose profitability and overall contribution, including implicit subsidies, has not been forensically assessed.
I think Mr Meeks is being a tad provocative and perhaps a little simplistic in saying that London earns and showers everyone else with benefits. A more in depth analysis is needed, I think - though he may well be right on the overall conclusion.
Still, that raises quite other questions: if we're going to have a "rainmaker" approach to the economy as Mr M seems to suggest, why have a welfare state at all?
I don't know either - but it would have enlivened an already mind-boggling thread, had you waited 24 hours. I wonder what tomorrow will bring ?
The biggest difficulty about putting that thread together was editing it down.
On reflection, I think this is good news for his chances. Consider this. UKIP members were always highly culturally conservative. Membership seems to be in freefall as many have drifted back to the Conservative party. The remnants are in all probability the ultras. Being the leading anti-woofter candidate (and reminding the electorate that the two front runners both bat for the other side) looks a handy piece of campaign positioning.
The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
I don't want to get into the yokels vs London argument again. But I recall reading a while back a summary of a report (apologies cannot recall the citation) which calculated what the benefits to the finance industry were of the government's implicit guarantee - a subsidy if you will. If that subsidy were removed I wonder how profitable financial services and the London economy would be.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
I'm sure the Masters of the Universe consider that to be an entitlement, not a subsidy.
It was, from memory, quite interesting because it seemed to say that bankers added zero or little value to their clients, that - in effect - their profitability came from the government subsidy rather than any real value they added and that the main thing bankers had been very good at was taking the bulk of the profits just earned for themselves rather than for their shareholders.
I'm sure bankers would disagree but the growth in the "look at me" financial sector has, to my mind, rather obscured what the proper purpose of a financial sector in a modern economy should be and whether our current one is really fit for that purpose.
Even 10 years after the start of the financial crisis that debate has not really been had. And a significant proportion of the financial sector is not really profitable at all.
London may subsidise the rest of the country but London's economy rests, to a degree which is perhaps dangerous, on a sector, whose profitability and overall contribution, including implicit subsidies, has not been forensically assessed.
I think Mr Meeks is being a tad provocative and perhaps a little simplistic in saying that London earns and showers everyone else with benefits. A more in depth analysis is needed, I think - though he may well be right on the overall conclusion.
Still, that raises quite other questions: if we're going to have a "rainmaker" approach to the economy as Mr M seems to suggest, why have a welfare state at all?
Just thinking about it more. Taking down a hard brexit Tory party would make Ruth the hero of Scotland and a shoo in as the next first minister. The question must be why she would not do it.
File with other 'cloud cuckoo land' ideas.
It would lead to the break up of the UK and possibly the Tory party.
In descending order of importance?
To me, Yes. The Union is more important than the party.
I don't know either - but it would have enlivened an already mind-boggling thread, had you waited 24 hours. I wonder what tomorrow will bring ?
The biggest difficulty about putting that thread together was editing it down.
On reflection, I think this is good news for his chances. Consider this. UKIP members were always highly culturally conservative. Membership seems to be in freefall as many have drifted back to the Conservative party. The remnants are in all probability the ultras. Being the leading anti-woofter candidate (and reminding the electorate that the two front runners both bat for the other side) looks a handy piece of campaign positioning.
Yes, but surely you wouldn't have edited that out ???
'Bat for the other side'.... Have you been working in the UKIP press office ?
Comments
1. Higher stamp duty on higher priced houses hits London owning pensioners. Disincentive to downsize and move.
2. IHT changes encouraging London pensioners to remain in their principle residence in case they die after downsizing after a set period.
If some of the "wetter" Tories left and joined this new party then the rTory party would be composed of the swivel-eyed headbangers and those who tolerate them - a sort of respectable UKIP-lite?
Labour policy is pretty centrist nowadays despite all the guff about Corbyn being a Marxist.
For a new Party to succeed it needs luck more than anything else. It needs some "identity" - were the opening Press Conference to be led by George Osborne and David Miliband for example, despite all the snide comments there would be on here, they would have some "recognition".
Is it going to be a single-issue Party, a kind of reverse UKIP, or will it seek to be a home where Blairites, Orange Book Liberals and Liberal Conservatives can all get together and work out a common policy platform ?
it should also be remembered that 2/3 of the original SDP membership hadn't belonged to any party so "the market" for a new party may be far more than just Westminster ? Will it attract local Councillors and can it get the big prize of MPs to defect ? Although it attracted many Conservatives at local level, the SDP couldn't get any Conservative MPs to defect apart from Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler.
Inevitably, the name will be an issue as will relations with the Liberal Democrats.
Perhaps it's the one development which could really alter the Westminster geography though the chances are it won't.
If it's only or predominantly ex-Conservatives then it'll be seen as a bluer shade of pale. There needs to be at least a mix. I think the Conservatives, as such, would remain and not become composed solely/mostly of the right.
A problem would be that Labour MPs are far less likely (historically) to defect. If they don't in at least some numbers, then the new party would just split the Conservative/centrist vote, and make life much easier for Corbyn (unless the new party disintegrates).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/stamp-duty-exacerbating-housing-crisis-stopping-elderly-moving/ and the volume of housing being offered for sale has slumped.
On point 2 - trust me - I give advice on estate planning!
It is about time we had some gender equality on here! I was tempted readdress the SeanT balance by reporting on my rampant sexual adventures until I realised that I totally lack such adventures
What a superb idea!
One method I have heard of is people offering their services for a week or two as a form of interview. It is a low-risk method for employers to see whether someone is a good fit. Having said that Trump & Sugar have demonstrated the dangers with this approach on their TV shows many, many times.
If he keeps at it he will succeed because it is a numbers game at the end of the day, but it can be so disheartening. Good luck to him!
We are all doomed as Private Fraser used to say
You think nationalising entire industries (without any costings to do so) is "pretty centrist"?
He ultimately ended up joining Labour in the 90s.
Having said that, I suspect he might be right about more recent history: post-1990, say. The Wikipedia list is rather jumbled by various cases of scandal and whip withdrawal rather than party-switching. I have tried to remove clear-cut cases of scandal followed by whip withdrawal or resignation and a muted parliamentary disappearance, but have been rather inclusive including people who either pledged to stand against their former party, or who supported another outcome at the next election.
Con to Lab: Alan Howarth (1995), Peter Temple-Morris (left Con 1997 as "One Nation" Tory, joined Lab 1998), Shaun Woodward (1999, various factors including Section 28), Robert Jackson (2005, HE funding), Quentin Davies (2007, anti-Cameroon)
Con to Lib Dem: Emma Nicholson (1995), Peter Thurnham (1996)
Con to anti-EU: John Browne (1992 after deselection, stood unsuccessfully at 1992 GE as Independent Conservative and 1992 European Election as "Conservative against European Union") , Sir George Gardiner (1997 as "Referendum"), arguably Charles Wardle (was standing down anyway, but whip removed in 2001 for supporting UKIP in election to replace him), Bob Spink (left Tories 2008, associated with UKIP 2008-9, stood unsuccessfully as "Independent Save our Green Belt" in 2010), Douglas Carswell (2014, successfully held seat at 2014 by-election and in 2015 GE), Mark Reckless (2014, successfully held seat at 2014 by-election but lost in 2015 GE)
Con to DUP: Andrew Hunter (left to support DUP 2002, joined DUP 2004)
Con to Independent: Andrew Pelling (whip suspended 2007 over allegations of assault, "Independent Conservative" til 2008 and then "Independent", included in this list as he contested the 2010 election as an independent)
Lab to Lib Dem: Paul Marsden (2001, over invasion of Afghanistan, but see later). Brian Sedgemore (was standing down in 2005 anyway)
Lab to Respect: George Galloway (expelled 2003, Respect from 2004)
Lab to Independent: Dave Nellist (1991 suspended over Militant, unsuccessfully ran as Independent in 1992 GE), Terry Fields (1991 suspended over Militant, unsuccessfully ran as Independent in 1992 GE), Dennis Canavan (1999, left parliament 2000 to pursue career as independent MSP), Ken Livingstone (2000, stood down in 2001 to pursue career as independent Mayor of London), Clare Short (resigned whip 2006 over policy differences, stood down in 2010 but supporting hung parliament), Bob Wareing (resigned whip 2007 following deselection for next election, intended to contest next GE as independent but in 2010 decided not to), Simon Danczuk (originally suspended 2015 over lewd text messages, stood unsuccessfully as independent 2017 GE)
Lab to SNP: Dick Douglas (1990, felt Labour insufficiently opposed to poll tax)
Lib Dem to Labour: Paul Marsden (was standing down in 2005, declared support for Labour to replace him),
UUP to DUP: Jeffrey Donaldson (resigned whip 2003, joined DUP 2004)
UUP to Independent: Sylvia, Lady Hermon (2010, opposed Tory-UUP pact)
There does seem to have been more willingness of wet Tories to switch party in the conventional sense, than there has been of Labour MPs who disagree with the direction of their party.
I think the student numbers should be taken out of the cap, for what it's worth, but I do think people should be less naive about it. For many people, part of the attraction of coming here is the hope of either being able to work while studying, or to stay on and migrate either permanently or for a couple of years at the end of the degree.
"Changes in UK visa regulations have led to a fall in the number of Indian students in the UK, as highlighted in the 2014 Trends report, in contrast to the USA where more than half of all international students come from India"
https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/International Trends in Higher Education 2015.pdf
The recipient decided it was a good use of resources to type an acknowledgement letter, print it and return it to us by first class post.
It's a good job the NHS isn't at all short of resources!
Because it is widely known in my community.....I didn't think pb was so naive.
I have more sympathy for the pensioners - they've lived through some pretty seismic changes in their lifetimes... have seen Britain go from probably the world's foremost power to a modern, wealthy, much more diverse country.
What grates a little is when they tell me they voted for Brexit/Tories to help me/my generation - but it certainly doesn't feel that way!
So either our received wisdom on Corbyn was wrong, or government figures on cannabis use are wrong.
Merely because something is received wisdom doesn't make it true.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/09/greggs-map-pies-north-south-divide
The man, aged in his late 30s, was intercepted north of the French capital driving towards the northern port of Calais, in the BMW used to run over the soldiers, security sources said.
Regarding what nunu said: there's nothing to stop us from counting people towards migration targets at the point they stay, rather than the point where they arrive for studies. Not the way international comparisons are calculated but we are entitled to design our own statistics to be more useful for our policy.
But it's very naive to think that you can get around the fundamental issue just by changing what box we tick, or the time we tick it. If policy is designed to cut immigration, and consequently degrees become a less attractive work and migration route, then the (not insignificant) portion of students coming to use it as one will decline: clamping down at the end of the degree will reduce numbers coming at the start.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/juncker-spent-24000-private-flight-rome/
We were nationalising banks in 2008, Railtrack in 2001, loads of stuff in the 70s and even a few things in the 80s....
In these Brexity times it seems madness to crack down on one of our major export industries (students), and one of our most important sources of soft power.
Of course, distinguishing between the two groups takes effort and organisation. Far easier for any government to introduce an arbitrary "cap" and gain easy headlines!
Surely a cap of top 100 universities, or fees over 8k or something like that would weed this out pretty well?
Who would pay 10k or so to work in a low-paid job... surely no one or am I missing something?
However, ministers responsible for creating jobs or making British universities better will still want them removed from the targets, because having them in there still incentivizes other parts of the government to try to stop people coming.
(ducks)
I guess this is a microcosm of the "Scotland needs migrants, the SE doesn't" debate. There is a big difference between someone paying hefty fees to study in an area whilst earning a few dodgy quid cash in hand on the side, (which will get recycled into the local economy anyway), and signing up for a dodgy course purely to work.
In these Brexity times it seems madness to crack down on one of our major export industries (students), and one of our most important sources of soft power.
Of course, distinguishing between the two groups takes effort and organisation. Far easier for any government to introduce an arbitrary "cap" and gain easy headlines!
Is it really that hard to distinguish?
Surely a cap of top 100 universities, or fees over 8k or something like that would weed this out pretty well?
Who would pay 10k or so to work in a low-paid job... surely no one or am I missing something?
It can be though. I give you South Tyneside College, a run-of-the-mill FE college in many ways, teaching childcare and beauty courses, etc. However, it grew out of the old shipbuilding technical college. Its course on Maritime Engineering is one of the world's best, and attracts students from all over the world.
It should not be beyond the wit of man, I agree, to make such distinctions, but it appears to be beyond the wit of politicians!
I hope you liked my Kylie reference in the London elections thread - I've just put up another for your consideration with TWO Kylie references.
I expect better from you.
On a much more serious topic:
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/childrens-services-breaking-point?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
CIPFA aren't ones to cry wolf but there's an emerging problem and crisis for a number of authorities here.
God built the high moors and Stanage Edge to prevent His best creations from being polluted by Sheffield.
So will the BBC, and constipation.
If subsidies are to be removed then they should be removed from all sectors not just those who have voted in a way we don't like, no?
The victims, some as young as 14, were often from a troubled background and at least one was in care.
In four separate trials, the 17 men and one women were found guilty of, or admitted, offences including conspiracy to incite prostitution, rape and drugs.
It emerged during the investigation police paid a convicted child rapist £10,000 to act as an informant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40879427
The Telegraph a bit more forthcoming with who this gang was....
Police paid convicted child rapist £10,000 to spy on Asian grooming gang
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/police-paid-convicted-child-rapist-10000-spy-asian-grooming/
Had dinner with several fervent Remainers on Sunday. They're still in the anger stage; I expect little reasonableness from Remainers until the chance, however limited (FWIW I'd say it currently ranks at around 2%) of staying in has disappeared.
Closure is needed for the acceptance stage to begin.
I was also going to make a joke about Derbyshire having Hope and Yorkshire having no Hope, but I assumed it had been done before...
These comments are, I am afraid to say, very English. Ruth has no plans to head UK PM at the moment but does want to be Scottish first minister. She has got were she is by largely ignoring Tory head office. I have the election leaflet sent out for my ward. There was not a single mention of Brexit or Theresa May on the leaflet.
The Scottish Tories are as honour bound to follow the Scottish Conservative vote base as English Tories are to follow their vote base and they are different. If the two clash on Brexit the Scottish Tories will ignore the Tory whip even if it means another election. The only fear they face is going into the next election with a hard Brexit shambles around them.
Ruth is very media savy (ex BBC). The headlines about her supporting Rudd are a shot across the bows of TM and the hard brexiters. They will be much harder to buy off than the DUP.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/08/09/ukip-leadership-hopeful-gay-people-were-sexually-abused-as-children-and-i-want-to-ban-same-sex-marriage/?utm_source=PNT&utm_content=ND
It would lead to the break up of the UK and possibly the Tory party.
https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/nogoogle-should-not-have-fired-the-anti-diversity-.html
For a moment I thought it meant; 'UKIP leadership hopeful gay people were sexually abused as children.'
Then I realised it was; 'UKIP leadership hopeful: gay people were sexually abused as children.'
Which is still a very stupid thing to say, but not nearly as spiteful as the former would be.
Sadly I can't use the best example when teaching: the man who complained "Labour voters consist of 'I vote Labour because my dad did sheep." The fairly significant missing inverted comma turning it from the abusive to the surreal.
I'm sure bankers would disagree but the growth in the "look at me" financial sector has, to my mind, rather obscured what the proper purpose of a financial sector in a modern economy should be and whether our current one is really fit for that purpose.
Even 10 years after the start of the financial crisis that debate has not really been had. And a significant proportion of the financial sector is not really profitable at all.
London may subsidise the rest of the country but London's economy rests, to a degree which is perhaps dangerous, on a sector, whose profitability and overall contribution, including implicit subsidies, has not been forensically assessed.
I think Mr Meeks is being a tad provocative and perhaps a little simplistic in saying that London earns and showers everyone else with benefits. A more in depth analysis is needed, I think - though he may well be right on the overall conclusion.
Still, that raises quite other questions: if we're going to have a "rainmaker" approach to the economy as Mr M seems to suggest, why have a welfare state at all?
On reflection, I think this is good news for his chances. Consider this. UKIP members were always highly culturally conservative. Membership seems to be in freefall as many have drifted back to the Conservative party. The remnants are in all probability the ultras. Being the leading anti-woofter candidate (and reminding the electorate that the two front runners both bat for the other side) looks a handy piece of campaign positioning.
'Bat for the other side'.... Have you been working in the UKIP press office ?