I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for Leavers. Up until about 3 months ago Brexit was whatever one wanted it to be; control retaken, Singapore of the North Atlantic, some pretentious reference to a battle fought by men in sandals, etc. Now Leavers are having to defend this shit show and pretend DD knows what he's doing. The actualité of it must be hard.
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.
I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is that it has shown that in the digital age the Labour party does not have to walk in fear of the right wing press. Funnily enough, it’s now much more of a straitjacket for Tory leaders - just ask Theresa May, she lives in permanent fear of it.
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
Unlike the right-wing press, and for that matter, the left-wing press, the BBC is required to be impartial.
On topic: take back control by giving away control.
Yep. Right.
This is one of memes "Remainers perennially try and troll Leavers with, thinking they're being awfully clever and ironically witty, but actually makes no sense at all.
It's not clever. It is the fundamental contradiction of the Leave position. You can have a Brexit that gives you control or you can have Brexit where you keep some of the connections and current prosperity. You can't have both. The Leave campaign promised control, more money and no change to things you like. That was their biggest lie.
There was no lie.
We will have more control, I think we will have (some) more money, there won't be big change to things we like, there will be no material impact on prosperity, and I can already see some things getting better: like agriculture and fisheries.
We *might* have less geopolitical influence in the medium-term, at least whilst we establish a new global trading web and enhanced non-European foreign policy approach.
I accept that.
"We will have more control" "I think we will have (some) more money" "there won't be big change to things we like" "there will be no material impact on prosperity"
Whilst I hope you are right, these are not certainties, especially given the ham-fisted way the government is approaching Brexit.
Nothing in life is a certainty, of course.
But I do remain fascinated by how so many on the other side of the argument believe they are absolutely right, with very little self-critique or challenge going on.
For all my faults, I am actually quite a self-aware individual and usually quite good at stripping out confirmation bias. If I wasn't, I wouldn't make any money betting.
When I get it wrong, I eat a lot of humble pie, apologise to those I mocked, and then I do a lot of extra research and analysis to try and understand what I missed, and how the conclusions I drew were wrong.
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.
I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is that it has shown that in the digital age the Labour party does not have to walk in fear of the right wing press. Funnily enough, it’s now much more of a straitjacket for Tory leaders - just ask Theresa May, she lives in permanent fear of it.
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.
I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?
It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.
I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is that it has shown that in the digital age the Labour party does not have to walk in fear of the right wing press. Funnily enough, it’s now much more of a straitjacket for Tory leaders - just ask Theresa May, she lives in permanent fear of it.
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s
Maybe
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
People are voting with their wallets not to buy the tired old rags. What's not to like, especially when they've long since stopped covering news and morphed into gossip comics?
I’m struggling with the notion that an overweening, all-powerful Daily Mail is a necessary bedrock of a functioning democracy!
You laugh, but I've defended the Guardian before to enthusiastic Tories who, at the height of Cameron's success in the 2008-2011 period, wanted to put it out of business by pulling out all public sector advertisements from it, and other such skulduggery.
As you can imagine, I'm not much of a Guardianista. But it's vital to have a press that vehemently, defiantly, and rudely challenges all of your world views and prejudices from the opposite angle, no matter what Government is in power.
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol.
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?
It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.
That's more or less it. Not many people love this Government, but it poses no threat to us.
Corbyn genuinely (and this isn't me trying to do party political spin - I really do mean genuinely) terrifies me.
Realistically, how likely is the CU amendment to pass?
I
I
U
T
Tr/
That site is pro-Brex), I would rather trust the government's report (even though they are also pro-Brexit).
(2 of 2)
"The population forecasts are based on CE’s assumptions that net migration will fall from today’s level of around 250,000 people per annum to 100,000 due to migration controls. These migration assumptions then influence the forecasts for GVA and employment. What is implicitly happening in the CE forecasts is that most of the loss of output and jobs will be due to lower migration. Since 76% of the 4.3 million extra jobs in the UK over the last 15 years were taken by workers born outside the UK, the CE forecast is on solid ground in predicting that a Brexit-related reduction of job creation would reflect a lower level of migration into the UK. The impact on jobs for indigenous workers would be relatively small."
"The UK economy is likely to be a little smaller after Brexit, mainly because lower migration will mean lower numbers of jobs and less output. We agree with CE that the living standards of the resident population are likely to be little changed."
So, basically, the UK's economy may well be a little smaller *in overall size* than it might otherwise have been by 2030, but that's because of lower net migration. It will make virtually no difference to living standards by 2030 and, in fact, per capita GDP might even be higher.
And, of course, if the UK operated a more liberal immigration policy open to the RoW under a future Government even that would go out the window.
And that's just to 2030. 12 years away. So not decades, over which time Africa and Asia will be the tigers of the future, not Europe (and 94% population and 80%+ of the world economy is non-European even today).
Think man. Don't let your pre-existing conclusions rule your head.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
On topic: take back control by giving away control.
Yep. Right.
This is one of memes "Remainers perennially try and troll Leavers with, thinking they're being awfully clever and ironically witty, but actually makes no sense at all.
It's not clever. It is the fundamental contradiction of the Leave position. You can have a Brexit that gives you control or you can have Brexit where you keep some of the connections and current prosperity. You can't have both. The Leave campaign promised control, more money and no change to things you like. That was their biggest lie.
There was no lie.
We will have more control, I think we will have (some) more money, there won't be big change to things we like, there will be no material impact on prosperity, and I can already see some things getting better: like agriculture and fisheries.
We *might* have less geopolitical influence in the medium-term, at least whilst we establish a new global trading web and enhanced non-European foreign policy approach.
I accept that.
"We will have more control" "I think we will have (some) more money" "there won't be big change to things we like" "there will be no material impact on prosperity"
Whilst I hope you are right, these are not certainties, especially given the ham-fisted way the government is approaching Brexit.
Nothing in life is a certainty, of course.
But I do remain fascinated by how so many on the other side of the argument believe they are absolutely right, with very little self-critique or challenge going on.
For all my faults, I am actually quite a self-aware individual and usually quite good at stripping out confirmation bias. If I wasn't, I wouldn't make any money betting.
When I get it wrong, I eat a lot of humble pie, apologise to those I mocked, and then I do a lot of extra research and analysis to try and understand what I missed, and how the conclusions I drew were wrong.
I don't do any of those things. I have tried a few times but I find the real world is a much less comforting place than the one I have in my head.
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?
It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.
That's more or less it. Not many people love this Government, but it poses no threat to us.
Corbyn genuinely (and this isn't me trying to do party political spin - I really do mean genuinely) terrifies me.
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.
I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?
The one absolute and undoubted benefit ofleaders - just ask Theresa May, she lives in permanent fear of it.
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?
It isn't, but that's not what you wrote.
I wrote I am glad the right wing press is less inflential than it was. Nothing more.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
I’m flattered but don’t think I really qualify as an “eminent historian”
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.
I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?
The attacks on Corbyn all seemed a bit desperate. If the Mail doesn't like someone that much, they can't be that bad.
It has less to do with the Mail and everything to do with the fact that the story seemed at best pretty thin.
I yield to no-one in my dislike of Corbyn asa politician but this allegation seemed to be all smoke, based on what I’ve read. That Corbyn was sympathetic to the Soviets is known and nothing new.
What concerns me much more is Corbyn’s approach to press regulation. He has no symapthy for press freedom and his instinct is to regulate and ban. That was the case before this story and it is one reason why I don’t want a Corbyn government.
There are numerous reasons to criticise Corbyn. This was not one of them. Wafer thin, dull and out of date.
If the allegations had said there was collusion with the CIA or Mosad that would have been a story .
Yes it is quite obvious that the fictional Trade Deals of Fox and co are not going to appeal to either Labour voters or to ex kipper economic nationalists.
Unlike the right-wing press, and for that matter, the left-wing press, the BBC is required to be impartial.
Yes. Which is why, before 07.00 yesterday morning, they had a segment discussing railway renationalisation. On it they had McDonnell (obviously pro), and Christian Wolmar (pro). They didn't even say that Wolmar had wanted to be Labour candidate for London Mayor a couple of years ago.
An 'impartial' discussion where only one side of the argument was present.
(The later segment before 09.00 was slightly better, but still a very poor, biased, discussion of the arguments).
This happens all the time. I know they say they try to get balance over their entire output, but AFAIAA they don't say how they validate this, nor does it mean much when the segments are many hours apart so the chances are no-one will hear all the segments.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
I’m flattered but don’t think I really qualify as an “eminent historian”
Yes it is quite obvious that the fictional Trade Deals of Fox and co are not going to appeal to either Labour voters or to ex kipper economic nationalists.
But also because people who really care about free trade voted Remain. If you want FTAs with people you also want the Single Market and Customs Union.
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.
I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
I genuinely don’t get Why is this wrong?
It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.
Yep, I agree a hard left government would be a disaster - for this and many other reasons.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
Eh?
As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol.
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
I
It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.
That's more or less it. Not many people love this Government, but it poses no threat to us.
Corbyn genuinely (and this isn't me trying to do party political spin - I really do mean genuinely) terrifies me.
You use that feeling to understand more how others feel when they see people talk enthusiastically about hard Brexit .
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership..
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
I genuinely don’t get the point you are trying to make. I think trying to second guess the right wing press was bad for the Labour party. I am glad it no longer has to do it. I also wish the Daily Mail had less hold over Theresa May. Why is this wrong?
It's not. I think perhaps Casino R is conflating Corbyn's insouciance in the face of press attacks (on its own fairly admirable) with his far from admirable determination to impose a degree (at present ill defined) of government control if the media, should he get into government.
That's more or less it. Not many people love this Government, but it poses no threat to us.
Corbyn genuinely (and this isn't me trying to do party political spin - I really do mean genuinely) terrifies me.
Very good comments this morning, Mr Royale.
Thanks mate. Off for a walk in the winter sun now.
Realistically, how likely is the CU amendment to pass?
I
I
U
T
Tr/
That site is pro-Brex), I would rather trust the government's report (even though they are also pro-Brexit).
(2 of 2)
"The UK economy is likely to be a little smaller after Brexit, mainly because lower migration will mean lower numbers of jobs and less output. We agree with CE that the living standards of the resident population are likely to be little changed."
So, basically, the UK's economy may well be a little smaller *in overall size* than it might otherwise have been by 2030, but that's because of lower net migration. It will make virtually no difference to living standards by 2030 and, in fact, per capita GDP might even be higher.
And, of course, if the UK operated a more liberal immigration policy open to the RoW under a future Government even that would go out the window.
And that's just to 2030. 12 years away. So not decades, over which time Africa and Asia will be the tigers of the future, not Europe (and 94% population and 80%+ of the world economy is non-European even today).
Think man. Don't let your pre-existing conclusions rule your head.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
Yet at the same time we seem to be maxing out the (non-EU) highly skilled migrant quota each month - employers are complaining.
So presumably we’re still importing a ton of low skilled non-EU, somehow.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
You laugh, but I've defended the Guardian before to enthusiastic Tories who, at the height of Cameron's success in the 2008-2011 period, wanted to put it out of business by pulling out all public sector advertisements from it, and other such skulduggery.
As you can imagine, I'm not much of a Guardianista. But it's vital to have a press that vehemently, defiantly, and rudely challenges all of your world views and prejudices from the opposite angle, no matter what Government is in power.
Yes I basically agree with you (but BTW think that ballot-spoiling might have been the right choice for you in the scenario described!). But I think the British media - including the Guardian - are indifferent to the idea of fair and balanced coverage to an absurd degree. Anyone who has had anything to do with them knows that the standard modus operandi is:
1. Glance over what's happening and decide on a theme that your readers will like. 2. Find people to give pungent quotes that mostly support that theme, with a token quote from someone who disagrees. 3. Simplify, then exagerrate. 4. Repeat until the story loses impetus.
The effect is like having parents who constantly scream contradictory things at you - it produces a sort of balance, but probably makes you unnerved and depressed. Newspapers in most countries have an agenda, but take more seriously the need to tell their readers both sides of any developing story: they are treated as adults.
What can be done about it without damaging freedom is difficult to decide, but giving a strong independent agency the power to require rebuttals of equal front-page prominence where they think the coverage was seriously misleading seems a good start. I know that the current system allows that in theory but it doesn't actually happen - instead, you get a boring and obscure statement at the bottom of page 2. I can't remember the details of Leveson 2, but if it included that, I'm for (that part of) it.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
I suppose an MA in constitutional law and structures does tend to focus you on how things are supposed to work rather than taking cheap shots
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
Eh?
As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...
Sorry, not directed at you.
Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.
The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.
Realistically, how likely is the CU amendment to pass?
I
I
U
T
Tr/
(2 of 2)
"The
So, basically, the UK's economy may well be a little smaller *in overall size* than it might otherwise have been by 2030, but that's because of lower net migration. It will make virtually no difference to living standards by 2030 and, in fact, per capita GDP might even be higher.
And, of course, if the UK operated a more liberal immigration policy open to the RoW under a future Government even that would go out the window.
And that's just to 2030. 12 years away. So not decades, over which time Africa and Asia will be the tigers of the future, not Europe (and 94% population and 80%+ of the world economy is non-European even today).
Think man. Don't let your pre-existing conclusions rule your head.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
Yet at the same time we seem to be maxing out the (non-EU) highly skilled migrant quota each month - employers are complaining.
So presumably we’re still importing a ton of low skilled non-EU, somehow.
FWIW I sat in on a very interesting discussion between the CEO of CVS and the RCVS (it was a semi public forum so I don’t mind sharing)
Simon was incredible critical of the RCVS and the EU. We used to have a huge number of vets from Australia and South Africa but the EU “tightened up” the rules to make it very difficult for them to come.
Post Brexit (partly due to FX) there are many fewer EU vets coming so we have a real shortage in the industry. (Simon’s criticism was that the RCVS has failed to get vets included on the list of “essential roles” where immigration rules are more flexible... he was particularly put out that ballet dancers were on the list...)
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
The executive is acting as if it has a mandate for the hardest possible brexit.
It doesn't.
The sovereign parliament is in the process of reminding the executive of this.
Realistically, how likely is the CU amendment to pass?
I
I
U
T
Tr/
That site is pro-Brex), I would rather trust the government's report (even though they are also pro-Brexit).
(2 of 2)
"The UK economy is likely to be a little smaller after Brexit, mainly because lower migration will mean lower numbers of jobs and less output. We agree with CE that the living standards of the resident population are likely to be little changed."
So, basically, the UK's economy may well be a little smaller *in overall size* than it might otherwise have been by 2030, but that's because of lower net migration. It will make virtually no difference to living standards by 2030 and, in fact, per capita GDP might even be higher.
And, of course, if the UK operated a more liberal immigration policy open to the RoW under a future Government even that would go out the window.
And that's just to 2030. 12 years away. So not decades, over which time Africa and Asia will be the tigers of the future, not Europe (and 94% population and 80%+ of the world economy is non-European even today).
Think man. Don't let your pre-existing conclusions rule your head.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
Yet at the same time we seem to be maxing out the (non-EU) highly skilled migrant quota each month - employers are complaining.
So presumably we’re still importing a ton of low skilled non-EU, somehow.
Yes, because of European law about family reunions from the subcontinent.
America has by far and away the highest gun ownership rates in the world but only ranks around 85th or higher in its homicide rate.
I am tempted to ask why we don't seem that interested in the other 80 and more which rank higher - many of which are Commonwealth nations with which we have close connections to in terms of historic immigration.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere as you would never get sufficient states to approve a change even if two thirds of Congress did and even if you banned all gun sales in the US tomorrow there would still be 350 million in circulation. And if any government tried to seize them there would probably be close to civil war. We will have outrage for another week - and then the world moves on as fundamentals don't change because they can't.
Perhaps if those other 80 and more nations had international news networks providing cheap feeds to our tv networks and endless coverage would we care more?
Yes I basically agree with you (but BTW think that ballot-spoiling might have been the right choice for you in the scenario described!). But I think the British media - including the Guardian - are indifferent to the idea of fair and balanced coverage to an absurd degree. Anyone who has had anything to do with them knows that the standard modus operandi is:
1. Glance over what's happening and decide on a theme that your readers will like. 2. Find people to give pungent quotes that mostly support that theme, with a token quote from someone who disagrees. 3. Simplify, then exagerrate. 4. Repeat until the story loses impetus.
The effect is like having parents who constantly scream contradictory things at you - it produces a sort of balance, but probably makes you unnerved and depressed. Newspapers in most countries have an agenda, but take more seriously the need to tell their readers both sides of any developing story: they are treated as adults.
What can be done about it without damaging freedom is difficult to decide, but giving a strong independent agency the power to require rebuttals of equal front-page prominence where they think the coverage was seriously misleading seems a good start. I know that the current system allows that in theory but it doesn't actually happen - instead, you get a boring and obscure statement at the bottom of page 2. I can't remember the details of Leveson 2, but if it included that, I'm for (that part of) it.
One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.
I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.
Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
Eh?
As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...
Sorry, not directed at you.
Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.
The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.
No - I was criticising this amendment because Parliament is overstepping its role. The detail of treaty negotiations are rightly a matter for the executive. Almost by definition contradictory “noises off” will undermine the negotiators position and result in an outcome that is less aligned with their objectives than otherwise
The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
The executive is acting as if it has a mandate for the hardest possible brexit.
It doesn't.
The sovereign parliament is in the process of reminding the executive of this.
You’ve completely ignored the facts of the constitutional position. Parliament is not sovereign. The Executive can do what the f**k it likes subject to parliamentary scrutiny (*not interference*) and electoral consequences.
The only instruction the British people has provided is that we should leave the EU. The details are up to the Executive.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
Yes, I agree with Simon. It's really high time we stopped bringing in ballet dancers from the continent, and started training unemployed steel workers from Teesside and south Wales in the pas de deux.
Yes, I agree with Simon. It's really high time we stopped bringing in ballet dancers from the continent, and started training unemployed steel workers from Teesside and south Wales in the pas de deux.
Billy Elliott did it...
(But the ballet dancers are from outside the EU because they are on the essential jobs list)
Yes it is quite obvious that the fictional Trade Deals of Fox and co are not going to appeal to either Labour voters or to ex kipper economic nationalists.
But also because people who really care about free trade voted Remain. If you want FTAs with people you also want the Single Market and Customs Union.
And to take that thought a bit further. Being outside the CU allows Leavers to imagine a "control" of trade policy, which by and large they don't care about anyway.
"The population forecasts are based on CE’s assumptions that net migration will fall from today’s level of around 250,000 people per annum to 100,000 due to migration controls. These migration assumptions then influence the forecasts for GVA and employment. What is implicitly happening in the CE forecasts is that most of the loss of output and jobs will be due to lower migration. Since 76% of the 4.3 million extra jobs in the UK over the last 15 years were taken by workers born outside the UK, the CE forecast is on solid ground in predicting that a Brexit-related reduction of job creation would reflect a lower level of migration into the UK. The impact on jobs for indigenous workers would be relatively small."
"The UK economy is likely to be a little smaller after Brexit, mainly because lower migration will mean lower numbers of jobs and less output. We agree with CE that the living standards of the resident population are likely to be little changed."
So, basically, the UK's economy may well be a little smaller *in overall size* than it might otherwise have been by 2030, but that's because of lower net migration. It will make virtually no difference to living standards by 2030 and, in fact, per capita GDP might even be higher.
And, of course, if the UK operated a more liberal immigration policy open to the RoW under a future Government even that would go out the window.
And that's just to 2030. 12 years away. So not decades, over which time Africa and Asia will be the tigers of the future, not Europe (and 94% population and 80%+ of the world economy is non-European even today).
Think man. Don't let your pre-existing conclusions rule your head.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
There is a very close correlation between the highest Leave voting areas and immigration from Eastern Europe.
Yes I basically agree with you (but BTW think that ballot-spoiling might have been the right choice for you in the scenario described!). But I think the British media - including the Guardian - are indifferent to the idea of fair and balanced coverage to an absurd degree. Anyone who has had anything to do with them knows that the standard modus operandi is:
1. Glance over what's happening and decide on a theme that your readers will like. 2. Find people to give pungent quotes that mostly support that theme, with a token quote from someone who disagrees. 3. Simplify, then exagerrate. 4. Repeat until the story loses impetus.
The effect is like having parents who constantly scream contradictory things at you - it produces a sort of balance, but probably makes you unnerved and depressed. Newspapers in most countries have an agenda, but take more seriously the need to tell their readers both sides of any developing story: they are treated as adults.
What can be done about it without damaging freedom is difficult to decide, but giving a strong independent agency the power to require rebuttals of equal front-page prominence where they think the coverage was seriously misleading seems a good start. I know that the current system allows that in theory but it doesn't actually happen - instead, you get a boring and obscure statement at the bottom of page 2. I can't remember the details of Leveson 2, but if it included that, I'm for (that part of) it.
One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.
I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.
Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.
Investigative journalism doesn’t sell newspapers. It’s that simple. The headlines that such journalism produces might mean the odd one-off spike, but no more - and that doesn’t justify the investment from a business perspective.
Yes, I agree with Simon. It's really high time we stopped bringing in ballet dancers from the continent, and started training unemployed steel workers from Teesside and south Wales in the pas de deux.
Billy Elliott did it...
(But the ballet dancers are from outside the EU because they are on the essential jobs list)
If the Royal Ballet wants to maintain its unique global reputation it really has to be able to employ the best dancers, regardless of their nationality. With all due respect to veterinary surgeons, we're not talking about quite the same levels of skill.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
The executive is acting as if it has a mandate for the hardest possible brexit.
It doesn't.
The sovereign parliament is in the process of reminding the executive of this.
You’ve completely ignored the facts of the constitutional position. Parliament is not sovereign. The Executive can do what the f**k it likes subject to parliamentary scrutiny (*not interference*) and electoral consequences.
The only instruction the British people has provided is that we should leave the EU. The details are up to the Executive.
The Executive is comprised of Ministers selected from the party or parties which command a majority in the House of Commons. So by definition Parliament must be overall supportive and complicit - as if it wasn't the government would soon fall.
Perhaps we get the debate wrong anyway - shouldn't the people be sovereign?
Yes I basically agree with you (but BTW think that ballot-spoiling might have been the right choice for you in the scenario described!). But I think the British media - including the Guardian - are indifferent to the idea of fair and balanced coverage to an absurd degree. Anyone who has had anything to do with them knows that the standard modus operandi is:
1. Glance over what's happening and decide on a theme that your readers will like. 2. Find people to give pungent quotes that mostly support that theme, with a token quote from someone who disagrees. 3. Simplify, then exagerrate. 4. Repeat until the story loses impetus.
The effect is like having parents who constantly scream contradictory things at you - it produces a sort of balance, but probably makes you unnerved and depressed. Newspapers in most countries have an agenda, but take more seriously the need to tell their readers both sides of any developing story: they are treated as adults.
What can be done about it without damaging freedom is difficult to decide, but giving a strong Leveson 2, but if it included that, I'm for (that part of) it.
One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.
I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.
Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.
Investigative journalism doesn’t sell newspapers. It’s that simple. The headlines that such journalism produces might mean the odd one-off spike, but no more - and that doesn’t justify the investment from a business perspective.
In the age of the Internet newspapers are not very good at covering news. So they've become full of reaction, comment and bile. They really shouldn't be called newspapers at all.
Yes, I agree with Simon. It's really high time we stopped bringing in ballet dancers from the continent, and started training unemployed steel workers from Teesside and south Wales in the pas de deux.
Billy Elliott did it...
(But the ballet dancers are from outside the EU because they are on the essential jobs list)
If the Royal Ballet wants to maintain its unique global reputation it really has to be able to employ the best dancers, regardless of their nationality. With all due respect to veterinary surgeons, we're not talking about quite the same levels of skill.
In terms of social good... too few vets is a bad thing... the industry has one of the highest suicide rates of any profession (alongside dentistry) and excessive hours because of bureaucracy isn’t helping
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
The executive is acting as if it has a mandate for the hardest possible brexit.
It doesn't.
The sovereign parliament is in the process of reminding the executive of this.
You’ve completely ignored the facts of the constitutional position. Parliament is not sovereign. The Executive can do what the f**k it likes subject to parliamentary scrutiny (*not interference*) and electoral consequences.
The only instruction the British people has provided is that we should leave the EU. The details are up to the Executive.
The Executive is comprised of Ministers selected from the party or parties which command a majority in the House of Commons. So by definition Parliament must be overall supportive and complicit - as if it wasn't the government would soon fall.
Perhaps we get the debate wrong anyway - shouldn't the people be sovereign?
Yes - but this amendment is Parliament trying to insert themselves into the negotiations in a public fashion.
(Sovereignty does originally come from the people)
Taking back control from the EU does not mean parliament or anyone else ignoring and frustrating the will of the People in a democratic referendum. The People voted for the UK to be independent of the EU empire. The article is the weakest and most disingenuous argument that I have heard yet. Remoaners really must do better than this. Time is running out for you. And for Anna Soubrey who is betraying her constituents who voted leave, they will vote her out at the next election.
One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.
I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.
Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.
I largely agree (and foreign coverage is indeed generally crap). Bu it's also a question of will. It would be perfectly possible to present an "on the one hand, on the other hand" balanced piece on most issues merely by looking up secondary sources and assembling a balanced range of comments. That's what the BBC tries to do, not always successfully. But the press generally don't want to: rather, they think a "themed" article presenting one particular view is what readers want.
And perhaps they're right? But it does seem to me odd that there is no market at all for a newspaper like USA Today which as a matter of editorial policy routinely presents both sides of major controversies. It's admittedly not a very exciting paper to read. But it does fill you in, in a way that any one British newspaper does not.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
A large proportion of non EU immigration over the last 20 years has been due to family reunification - bringing spouses and relatives. They certainly aren't all doctors and engineers - it's been as much if not more about marriage and other family connections than merit.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
Eh?
As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...
Sorry, not directed at you.
Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.
The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.
No - I was criticising this amendment because Parliament is overstepping its role. The detail of treaty negotiations are rightly a matter for the executive. Almost by definition contradictory “noises off” will undermine the negotiators position and result in an outcome that is less aligned with their objectives than otherwise
The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election
Yes. What’s really getting to a lot of Parliamentarians is that the Brexit negotiations are an international Treaty which is for negotiation by the Executive. Parliament will have the option to ratify the Treaty, or turn it down in its entirety, but can’t amend it.
All the posturing about amendments to tie the government into some sort of “soft” Brexit just ensures the EU offer us a one-sided, 11th-hour take-it-or-leave-it deal which is the worst of all worlds.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
Eh?
As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...
Sorry, not directed at you.
Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.
The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.
No - I was criticising this amendment because Parliament is overstepping its role. The detail of treaty negotiations are rightly a matter for the executive. Almost by definition contradictory “noises off” will undermine the negotiators position and result in an outcome that is less aligned with their objectives than otherwise
The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election
You are mistaking what is in effect a profound transformation of the country’s legal and economic settlement with “a treaty”. This is a long, multi-part process, parliament must have its say.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
A large proportion of non EU immigration over the last 20 years has been due to family reunification - bringing spouses and relatives. They certainly aren't all doctors and engineers - it's been as much if not more about marriage and other family connections than merit.
I'd like to see some statistics on that if that's the case it seems odd. My understanding was that family reunification was tightly controlled: For spouses and children only.
Looks like the shops might have started their sales of anti-freeze etc too early.
My birthday is on the back end of that week. It snowed in some way on my birthday every year from 2007ish through to 2012 - and I only stop there as I was posted overseas in 2013.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
Eh?
As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...
Sorry, not directed at you.
Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.
The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.
No - I was criticising this amendment because Parliament is overstepping its role. The detail of treaty negotiations are rightly a matter for the executive. Almost by definition contradictory “noises off” will undermine the negotiators position and result in an outcome that is less aligned with their objectives than otherwise
The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election
You are mistaking what is in effect a profound transformation of the country’s legal and economic settlement with “a treaty”. This is a long, multi-part process, parliament must have its say.
Parliament voted on Article 50 and will have the opportunity to ratify the final treaty.
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Our “sovereign parliament” has forgotten its role and purpose
“Parliament” is not sovereign - the “Crown-in-Parliament” is. All it means is that the Sovereign authority of the Crown is exercised by the Executive (subject to oversight by the Legislature).
The issue we have is that too many MPs are trying to govern - usurping the role of the executive - rather than fulfilling their proper purpose
+1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
Brexiters don’t like it when the natives get restless.
Eh?
As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...
Sorry, not directed at you.
Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.
The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.
No - I was criticising this amendment because Parliament is overstepping its role. The detail of treaty negotiations are rightly a matter for the executive. Almost by definition contradictory “noises off” will undermine the negotiators position and result in an outcome that is less aligned with their objectives than otherwise
The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election
You are mistaking what is in effect a profound transformation of the country’s legal and economic settlement with “a treaty”. This is a long, multi-part process, parliament must have its say.
Parliament is free to vote against the government on this. They shouldn't be amending when treaty negotiations are ongoing, though.
One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.
I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.
Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.
Investigative journalism doesn’t sell newspapers. It’s that simple. The headlines that such journalism produces might mean the odd one-off spike, but no more - and that doesn’t justify the investment from a business perspective.
Sadly true. Apart from the Times and the Guardian no-one is doing proper investigations any more. To think it was only a decade ago that the Telegraph got the MPs’ Expenses scoop, what a shadow of its former self that title has become.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
I actually thet are actually worried about
The spiralling costs of rents and buying a home - if not for them for their kids. Anyone on an average wage has zero chance of buying a home in large parts of the country unless mummy and daddy have a spare £50k to lend them.
No real term rises in wages for many for a decade or more
Increasing overcrowding and congestion on transport and roads
Having to wait up to 3 weeks to see a GP for a non emergency appointment
Long waits for NHS treatment and emergency departments which resemble war zones in winter and weekends
Difficulties in getting school places for their kids etc etc
An apparently polarising society - in terms of wealth, culture and values. Also rising crime and a breakdown of a sense of community.
Maybe not an issue for the I am alright Jack sneering Waitrose shopping London property owning classes who dominate public debate. But a very real concern about the country and what future it holds for their kids - caused largely to successive governments failing to invest in housing and infrastucture etc to meet the needs of the growing population they in no small part created.
Looks like the shops might have started their sales of anti-freeze etc too early.
My birthday is on the back end of that week. It snowed in some way on my birthday every year from 2007ish through to 2012 - and I only stop there as I was posted overseas in 2013.
As a kid, March was grey, at best.
Odd.
This particular event is happening because of a sudden stratospheric warming. It's been suggested that these will become more frequent as the Arctic warms, because that destabilises the Arctic night time polar vortex. Though this is currently plausible rather than proven. It could just be that there's lots of random fluctuations.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
A large proportion of non EU immigration over the last 20 years has been due to family reunification - bringing spouses and relatives. They certainly aren't all doctors and engineers - it's been as much if not more about marriage and other family connections than merit.
Skilled visas are capped (at 40 000 I recall - we have had doctors in shortage specialities refused). The remainder come in other categories. The biggest change was a reduction in Non EU outflow.
I remember when the Tory press used to throw up their hands in horror at such numbers. It is clearly progress that they are no longer concerned.
Early kick off today, so laters! We have Stoke to relegate in the Midland Derby.
One of the reasons what you descibe happens is because newspapers have stopped employing researchers and others who actually search out the facts and check what is written. Some of them have stopped employing journalists. Real ones. This sort of work is time-consuming and expensive. It no longer happens. So it is easier and cheaper to write stories which are little more than opinion columns dressed up as news.
I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.
Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.
Investigative journalism doesn’t sell newspapers. It’s that simple. The headlines that such journalism produces might mean the odd one-off spike, but no more - and that doesn’t justify the investment from a business perspective.
Sadly true. Apart from the Times and the Guardian no-one is doing proper investigations any more. To think it was only a decade ago that the Telegraph got the MPs’ Expenses scoop, what a shadow of its former self that title has become.
IIRC I think the Telegraph just bought the data from someone who had copied it (after other papers had turned it down). No-one really understood the scale of the 'scoop' until The People starting reacting to the claims.
In the age of the Internet newspapers are not very good at covering news. So they've become full of reaction, comment and bile. They really shouldn't be called newspapers at all.
Loo roll perhaps? Hard loo roll (the unpopular stuff)
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.
She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
I actually thet are actually worried about
The spiralling costs of rents and buying a home - if not for them for their kids. Anyone on an average wage has zero chance of buying a home in large parts of the country unless mummy and daddy have a spare £50k to lend them.
No real term rises in wages for many for a decade or more
Increasing overcrowding and congestion on transport and roads
Having to wait up to 3 weeks to see a GP for a non emergency appointment
Long waits for NHS treatment and emergency departments which resemble war zones in winter and weekends
Difficulties in getting school places for their kids etc etc
An apparently polarising society - in terms of wealth, culture and values. Also rising crime and a breakdown of a sense of community.
Maybe not an issue for the I am alright Jack sneering Waitrose shopping London property owning classes who dominate public debate. But a very real concern about the country and what future it holds for their kids - caused largely to successive governments failing to invest in housing and infrastucture etc to meet the needs of the growing population they in no small part created.
Sometime before the referendum, I made a comment that high house prices would mean that Leave could win.
In the age of the Internet newspapers are not very good at covering news. So they've become full of reaction, comment and bile. They really shouldn't be called newspapers at all.
Loo roll perhaps? Hard loo roll (the unpopular stuff)
Very good for forming the base of a fire. Half a dozen scrunched pages of the Telegraph, some cardboard (loo roll inserts or cornflake packets) some old broken fence panelling for kindling and then the first proper wood on top.
But it definitely needs the Newspaper at the bottom. Nothing quite like it as the basis of a good fire.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.
She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour.
I can have a double badge then, with Africans on one side and Poles on the other. Do Scousers count? There are a few of them around as well.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.
She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour.
Ultimately that’s not about race, it’s about age/demographic profile. Part of the challenge is the character of Romanian immigration is young, single men willing to live cheaply to send money home
I don't think May personally has a problem with staying in the Customs Union, it is only hard Brexiteers on her backbenches who oppose remaining in it.
If she remains committed to leaving it until Parliament votes to stay in she can say she has done everything she can but in the end had to bow to the sovereign will of Parliament.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.
She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour.
People tend to become less supportive of change when its 'people like me' being adversely affected and no longer only 'people like them'.
Yes. What’s really getting to a lot of Parliamentarians is that the Brexit negotiations are an international Treaty which is for negotiation by the Executive. Parliament will have the option to ratify the Treaty, or turn it down in its entirety, but can’t amend it.
All the posturing about amendments to tie the government into some sort of “soft” Brexit just ensures the EU offer us a one-sided, 11th-hour take-it-or-leave-it deal which is the worst of all worlds.
But whether you believe that or not - whether you think it will be good or bad for the negotiations, or the country, or the Tory party - it is the job of Parliament to hold the executive to account. The prerogative powers were always an anachronism and we have slowly - and quite rightly- be denuding them over the last couple of decades.
Parliament is supposed to be the representative body of the people directing the Government on what it can and cannot do. The Government only governs with Parliamentary consent. Why should that apply to domestic issues but not to international ones which arguably are even more important given the difficulty in later changing them.
Do I want Parliament to vote for us to stay in the Customs Union? No of course not. But do I think they should have the right to do so if they see fit? Yes absolutely. As should everyone who voted for Brexit for constitutional rather than immigration reasons.
Only 8 per cent of voters think worse of the Labour leader since the furore over his contact with a Czechoslovakian spy masquerading as a diplomat. Most of these were Tory supporters.
The YouGov poll for The Times found that 64 per cent said it made no difference to their view of Mr Corbyn, while 6 per cent said it made them think better of him, mostly Labour voters.
Lol. The Sun. The Mail. The Telegraph. The Times. The Express. All those trees dying in vain.
I'm intrigued about 6% feeling that the allegation makes them think better of him. That's about 3 million people. Who knew that the 1980 Czech Secret Service had so many fans?
The one absolute and undoubted benefit of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is that it has shown that in the digital age the Labour party does not have to walk in fear of the right wing press. Funnily enough, it’s now much more of a straitjacket for Tory leaders - just ask Theresa May, she lives in permanent fear of it.
Whilst the neutering of the right wing press is a good thing, it remains to be seen if we're better off overall.
It’s not neutered - it continues to dictate the Tory world view. Theresa May’s entire decision making process is framed around how it will be reported in the Mail.
Maybe we should just ban any press that doesn't agree with you, and advocation of the Tory world view too for good measure?
If only the Leader of the Opposition was thinking along those lines.. *sighs*
Oh.. wait a minute.
Why would I want to ban things I don’t agree with?
You and Jonathan seem to think neutering of the right wing press is a good thing.
It's a very worrying thing to hear you say, from the two Labour posters I respect the most.
I think it’s good that the market forces I believe in mean the right wing press is less influential than it was. That is a long way from wanting to ban it.
I'd love the BBC to be less politically influential than it is. Or does the influence argument apply only to the right-wing press?
Unlike the right-wing press, and for that matter, the left-wing press, the BBC is required to be impartial.
lol, it wants to try a bit then. In Scotland at least it is just a Westminster unionist propaganda outfit.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
I actually thet are actually worried about
The spiralling costs of rents and buying a home - if not for them for their kids. Anyone on an average wage has zero chance of buying a home in large parts of the country unless mummy and daddy have a spare £50k to lend them.
No real term rises in wages for many for a decade or more
Increasing overcrowding and congestion on transport and roads
Having to wait up to 3 weeks to see a GP for a non emergency appointment
Long waits for NHS treatment and emergency departments which resemble war zones in winter and weekends
Difficulties in getting school places for their kids etc etc
An apparently polarising society - in terms of wealth, culture and values. Also rising crime and a breakdown of a sense of community.
Maybe not an issue for the I am alright Jack sneering Waitrose shopping London property owning classes who dominate public debate. But a very real concern about the country and what future it holds for their kids - caused largely to successive governments failing to invest in housing and infrastucture etc to meet the needs of the growing population they in no small part created.
Sometime before the referendum, I made a comment that high house prices would mean that Leave could win.
I was derided at the time.
Leave voting was highest in areas of low house prices, Remain in high house price areas. An inverse relationship, probably reflecting economic position. Older home owners voted Leave.
I don't think May personally has a problem with staying in the Customs Union, it is only hard Brexiteers on her backbenches who oppose remaining in it.
If she remains committed to leaving it until Parliament votes to stay in she can say she has done everything she can but in the end had to bow to the sovereign will of Parliament.
Looks like the shops might have started their sales of anti-freeze etc too early.
My birthday is on the back end of that week. It snowed in some way on my birthday every year from 2007ish through to 2012 - and I only stop there as I was posted overseas in 2013.
As a kid, March was grey, at best.
Odd.
This particular event is happening because of a sudden stratospheric warming. It's been suggested that these will become more frequent as the Arctic warms, because that destabilises the Arctic night time polar vortex. Though this is currently plausible rather than proven. It could just be that there's lots of random fluctuations.
There's also a history of inaccurate forecasts because freak weather sells newspapers. This was for 2014-15
Unless the organisation issuing the forecast has a requirement to be impartial or is paid by subscribers to be accurate as possible, one now doubts all of it.
The Met. Office forecasts some snow up to next w/e, but it's not yet a forecast for continuous snow for 24-48 hours or more as we had in December 2017.
Maybe Piers Corbyn is issuing an accurate forecast to his subscribers ...
I don't think May personally has a problem with staying in the Customs Union, it is only hard Brexiteers on her backbenches who oppose remaining in it.
If she remains committed to leaving it until Parliament votes to stay in she can say she has done everything she can but in the end had to bow to the sovereign will of Parliament.
take the easy option and blame others, how Tory.
It is not 'blaming' others it would be respecting the will of Parliament
Ultimately that’s not about race, it’s about age/demographic profile. Part of the challenge is the character of Romanian immigration is young, single men willing to live cheaply to send money home
Yes, interesting point (with the obvious reservation that all groups come in nicer and less nice versions). If we had lots of elderly immigrants pottering in alloments rather than lots of young men, I suspect reactions would alter. Employers, of course, would generally rather have the young blokes.
We will have more control, I think we will have (some) more money, there won't be big change to things we like, there will be no material impact on prosperity, and I can already see some things getting better: like agriculture and fisheries.
Interesting to see that it was net non EU immigration that was keeping the figures high in the latest ONS stats, at a net increase of 205 000, mostly from Asia and Africa.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
I couldn't care less. Do you care? Do you view non EU migration as bad or worse because they're not ethnically Europeans?
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
Immigration fears were a great driver of Brexit voting. I can see that many will be disappointed if net non EU migration remainsrabove 200 000. A new city the size of Leicester every two years.
People are more concerned about Romanians moving to their street than they are Africans moving to London.
Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.
She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour.
Ultimately that’s not about race, it’s about age/demographic profile. Part of the challenge is the character of Romanian immigration is young, single men willing to live cheaply to send money home
This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with HMO's and how they are regulated. You could quite easily substitute 'romanians' with 'english students' in the post above.
I don't think May personally has a problem with staying in the Customs Union, it is only hard Brexiteers on her backbenches who oppose remaining in it.
If she remains committed to leaving it until Parliament votes to stay in she can say she has done everything she can but in the end had to bow to the sovereign will of Parliament.
take the easy option and blame others, how Tory.
Her problem is that the hard Brexiteers are in the cabinet, not just on the backbenches. Fox, Johnson, Gove etc.
Ultimately that’s not about race, it’s about age/demographic profile. Part of the challenge is the character of Romanian immigration is young, single men willing to live cheaply to send money home
Yes, interesting point (with the obvious reservation that all groups come in nicer and less nice versions). If we had lots of elderly immigrants pottering in alloments rather than lots of young men, I suspect reactions would alter. Employers, of course, would generally rather have the young blokes.
Not all employers - but employers of cheap unskilled/semiskilled employees do.
To put it in perspective, one of my colleagues mentioned yesterday that her cleaner has a PhD in Economics from Kiev, but can earn more over here as a cleaner than she can there as an economist
Comments
But I do remain fascinated by how so many on the other side of the argument believe they are absolutely right, with very little self-critique or challenge going on.
For all my faults, I am actually quite a self-aware individual and usually quite good at stripping out confirmation bias. If I wasn't, I wouldn't make any money betting.
When I get it wrong, I eat a lot of humble pie, apologise to those I mocked, and then I do a lot of extra research and analysis to try and understand what I missed, and how the conclusions I drew were wrong.
https://twitter.com/mikelovestweets/status/967095392465801216?ref_src=twcamp^share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^1
I wonder if a series of lectures by eminent historians should be a mandatory induction process to parliament!
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/967074179270012928
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/967074814077886464
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/967075480351531019
@rcs1000 - thanks for continually pushing The National. Finally started listening this morning and it really is beautiful music
Corbyn genuinely (and this isn't me trying to do party political spin - I really do mean genuinely) terrifies me.
Lots more than the "tens of thousands" Tory pledge. It is quite likely that the only difference Brexit makes to immigration is making it less European, with the numbers much the same.
To a lot of people "taking back control of our borders" will look illusory, or even fraudulent.
If the allegations had said there was collusion with the CIA or Mosad that would have been a story .
An 'impartial' discussion where only one side of the argument was present.
(The later segment before 09.00 was slightly better, but still a very poor, biased, discussion of the arguments).
This happens all the time. I know they say they try to get balance over their entire output, but AFAIAA they don't say how they validate this, nor does it mean much when the segments are many hours apart so the chances are no-one will hear all the segments.
As an historian, it saddens me when people don't understand/deliberately misuse concepts from the past...
So presumably we’re still importing a ton of low skilled non-EU, somehow.
Non European migrants are entering the country on merit due to the standards we set not because of free movement.
1. Glance over what's happening and decide on a theme that your readers will like.
2. Find people to give pungent quotes that mostly support that theme, with a token quote from someone who disagrees.
3. Simplify, then exagerrate.
4. Repeat until the story loses impetus.
The effect is like having parents who constantly scream contradictory things at you - it produces a sort of balance, but probably makes you unnerved and depressed. Newspapers in most countries have an agenda, but take more seriously the need to tell their readers both sides of any developing story: they are treated as adults.
What can be done about it without damaging freedom is difficult to decide, but giving a strong independent agency the power to require rebuttals of equal front-page prominence where they think the coverage was seriously misleading seems a good start. I know that the current system allows that in theory but it doesn't actually happen - instead, you get a boring and obscure statement at the bottom of page 2. I can't remember the details of Leveson 2, but if it included that, I'm for (that part of) it.
Charles seems to be blaming bad Brexit on uppity parliamentarians. I guess he prefers untrammelled power for his friends in the Executive.
The problem is not constitutional ignorance, the problem is Brexit.
Simon was incredible critical of the RCVS and the EU. We used to have a huge number of vets from Australia and South Africa but the EU “tightened up” the rules to make it very difficult for them to come.
Post Brexit (partly due to FX) there are many fewer EU vets coming so we have a real shortage in the industry. (Simon’s criticism was that the RCVS has failed to get vets included on the list of “essential roles” where immigration rules are more flexible... he was particularly put out that ballet dancers were on the list...)
It doesn't.
The sovereign parliament is in the process of reminding the executive of this.
I am tempted to ask why we don't seem that interested in the other 80 and more which rank higher - many of which are Commonwealth nations with which we have close connections to in terms of historic immigration.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere as you would never get sufficient states to approve a change even if two thirds of Congress did and even if you banned all gun sales in the US tomorrow there would still be 350 million in circulation. And if any government tried to seize them there would probably be close to civil war. We will have outrage for another week - and then the world moves on as fundamentals don't change because they can't.
Perhaps if those other 80 and more nations had international news networks providing cheap feeds to our tv networks and endless coverage would we care more?
Non American lives matter?
I don’t think your solution will really address the problem. The answer is to have proper, thorough well-funded investigative journalism which establishes facts rather than stories which scream propaganda.
Whether this is possible or, even how to get there, I really don’t know. But we have lost something valuable in not having newspapers which, with honourable exceptions (Andrew Norfolk in the Times, for instance) no longer do this, certainly not as they used to. Look, for instance, at the very poor foreign coverage in most newspapers.
The right response for an MP who doesn’t agree with the objective is to withdraw their support for the executive; for a voter the opportunity comes at the next election
The only instruction the British people has provided is that we should leave the EU. The details are up to the Executive.
Yes, I agree with Simon. It's really high time we stopped bringing in ballet dancers from the continent, and started training unemployed steel workers from Teesside and south Wales in the pas de deux.
(But the ballet dancers are from outside the EU because they are on the essential jobs list)
Perhaps we get the debate wrong anyway - shouldn't the people be sovereign?
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/967299903293739008
Once it breaks, we can expect to see some fairly major political violence as the thousands of hard right nutters up and down the country lash out.
https://twitter.com/theiaincameron/status/967314768938897408
(Sovereignty does originally come from the people)
Remoaners really must do better than this. Time is running out for you. And for Anna Soubrey who is betraying her constituents who voted leave, they will vote her out at the next election.
And perhaps they're right? But it does seem to me odd that there is no market at all for a newspaper like USA Today which as a matter of editorial policy routinely presents both sides of major controversies. It's admittedly not a very exciting paper to read. But it does fill you in, in a way that any one British newspaper does not.
Only half joking...
All the posturing about amendments to tie the government into some sort of “soft” Brexit just ensures the EU offer us a one-sided, 11th-hour take-it-or-leave-it deal which is the worst of all worlds.
As a kid, March was grey, at best.
Odd.
The spiralling costs of rents and buying a home - if not for them for their kids. Anyone on an average wage has zero chance of buying a home in large parts of the country unless mummy and daddy have a spare £50k to lend them.
No real term rises in wages for many for a decade or more
Increasing overcrowding and congestion on transport and roads
Having to wait up to 3 weeks to see a GP for a non emergency appointment
Long waits for NHS treatment and emergency departments which resemble war zones in winter and weekends
Difficulties in getting school places for their kids etc etc
An apparently polarising society - in terms of wealth, culture and values. Also rising crime and a breakdown of a sense of community.
Maybe not an issue for the I am alright Jack sneering Waitrose shopping London property owning classes who dominate public debate. But a very real concern about the country and what future it holds for their kids - caused largely to successive governments failing to invest in housing and infrastucture etc to meet the needs of the growing population they in no small part created.
It seems that sovereignty should only rest in whoever supports Brexit.....
I remember when the Tory press used to throw up their hands in horror at such numbers. It is clearly progress that they are no longer concerned.
Early kick off today, so laters! We have Stoke to relegate in the Midland Derby.
https://twitter.com/eurocrat/status/967348426072559618
https://twitter.com/TimmermansEU/status/966996904847532033
IIRC I think the Telegraph just bought the data from someone who had copied it (after other papers had turned it down). No-one really understood the scale of the 'scoop' until The People starting reacting to the claims.
Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.
She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour.
Sometime before the referendum, I made a comment that high house prices would mean that Leave could win.
I was derided at the time.
But it definitely needs the Newspaper at the bottom. Nothing quite like it as the basis of a good fire.
If she remains committed to leaving it until Parliament votes to stay in she can say she has done everything she can but in the end had to bow to the sovereign will of Parliament.
But whether you believe that or not - whether you think it will be good or bad for the negotiations, or the country, or the Tory party - it is the job of Parliament to hold the executive to account. The prerogative powers were always an anachronism and we have slowly - and quite rightly- be denuding them over the last couple of decades.
Parliament is supposed to be the representative body of the people directing the Government on what it can and cannot do. The Government only governs with Parliamentary consent. Why should that apply to domestic issues but not to international ones which arguably are even more important given the difficulty in later changing them.
Do I want Parliament to vote for us to stay in the Customs Union? No of course not. But do I think they should have the right to do so if they see fit? Yes absolutely. As should everyone who voted for Brexit for constitutional rather than immigration reasons.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/534304/Winter-weather-forecast-UK-heavy-snow-months-polar-vortex
Unless the organisation issuing the forecast has a requirement to be impartial or is paid by subscribers to be accurate as possible, one now doubts all of it.
The Met. Office forecasts some snow up to next w/e, but it's not yet a forecast for continuous snow for 24-48 hours or more as we had in December 2017.
Maybe Piers Corbyn is issuing an accurate forecast to his subscribers ...
Every word of what you just said was wrong.
To put it in perspective, one of my colleagues mentioned yesterday that her cleaner has a PhD in Economics from Kiev, but can earn more over here as a cleaner than she can there as an economist