Mr. Divvie (2), if Scotland had left the UK by now, you'd be out of the EU and the remainder of the UK would be in. Which is quite ironic.
I think the point is the referendum was Cameron's idea, and his government would have collapsed if Scotland had voted for independence (as Salmond's did) so the referendum would not have happened.
That would suggest either a EU friendly Tory taking over from DC or an EU friendly Ed winning a GE. I think it's just as likely that a more right wing Brexity politics would have come to pass in an incredible, shrinking UK scenario; Brexit itself is evidence that all that stuff was bubbling under.
I think Ed Miliband could have won in 2015 had Scotland not been an issue. Don't underestimate how disliked the SNP are in England.
The key point though is that however 'Brexity' another leader might have been it would have been unlikely they would have called a referendum. That was Cameron's idea and it was controversial even among Conservatives - Osborne for example was opposed.
Do you think all that 'dislike' of the SNP (as irrational as the more extreme EUrophobia) would have suddenly switched off as these types saw one third of their land mass being snipped off their Britishness? I don't believe a kinder, gentler politics was ever on the agenda in any scenario, or in any other country as events have proved.
Dislike of the SNP is entirely rational from an English POV
They have been agitating for a break up of our Union whilst at the same time trying to do all they can to maximise subsidy of Scotland and interfere in English politics. It looks very, very ungrateful
‘Like Scotland; dislike the SNP’, is, I suspect the view of the majority of English voters.
As is hate Westminster like English the view of the majority of Scots. We would never want to enslave England though and neither would we pretend that we subsidised them when the opposite is blatantly obvious to anyone who can read. Just compare Norway and Scotland and see how much Westminster has conned out of Scotland, makes places like Zimbawe etc seem to have had model governments rather than thieving despots.
You wouldn’t want to pretend Scotland had subsidised England because it is blatantly obvious to anyone who can read that the opposite is the case?
Glad you’ve admitted that. Thanks Malc.
England does not subsidise Scotland. Scotland does not subsidise England. Our grand-children subsidise both.
Clegg did warn him, but he wouldn't listen. I guess he thought he could deliver the vote and see off the nutters in his party once and for all. Yet he has now allowed them to take over the asylum.
If the 2015 general election had seen the Tories largest party again but lacking a majority and having to do another coalition with the LDs there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would still be PM.
So ironically an EU referendum promise which was meant to strengthen Cameron by helping him get a majority in 2015 and to see off UKIP ended up shortening his premiership once the break was made with Clegg
Cameron could still be PM. The choices he made in a) the Renegotiation and then b) the Referendum campaign itself killled his career - not the break from the LibDems.
Certainly his failure to get any meaningful concessions on free movement in talks with the EU doomed the Remain campaign
What would such concessions have looked like, and what could the EU have agreed to without pi**ing off all the other member nations?
Of course there were benefits for Britain. But there were costs and the costs of free movement were neither equally shared within the EU nor within Britain itself. That sense of unfairness lay behind some of the concerns I think. That should and could have been addressed without offending the Four Freedoms theologians.
We could have addressed our benefit and welfare systems rather than blame somebody else for decisions which we are perfectly sovereign to address, perhaps.
There is the libertarian argument that we could have slashed and burned the State. That would have been fine ,within the EU, so long as we treated EU nationals exactly the same as British Nationals.
My guess is that about 2% of the voters would have been in favour
German benefits are better than those in the UK. Indeed, the same goes for Ireland.
So that is not the only reason.
You have to have worked in Germany for 5 years before you get them.
The above is what the largest pro EU country is doing with benefits for all those European Citizens that exercise their rights under Free Movement of Workers.
Clegg did warn him, but he wouldn't listen. I guess he thought he could deliver the vote and see off the nutters in his party once and for all. Yet he has now allowed them to take over the asylum.
If the 2015 general election had seen the Tories largest party again but lacking a majority and having to do another coalition with the LDs there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would still be PM.
So ironically an EU referendum promise which was meant to strengthen Cameron by helping him get a majority in 2015 and to see off UKIP ended up shortening his premiership once the break was made with Clegg
Cameron could still be PM. The choices he made in a) the Renegotiation and then b) the Referendum campaign itself killled his career - not the break from the LibDems.
Certainly his failure to get any meaningful concessions on free movement in talks with the EU doomed the Remain campaign
What would such concessions have looked like, and what could the EU have agreed to without pi**ing off all the other member nations?
Of course there were benefits for Britain. But there were costs and the costs of free movement were neither equally shared within the EU nor within Britain itself. That sense of unfairness lay behind some of the concerns I think. That should and could have been addressed without offending the Four Freedoms theologians.
We could have addressed our benefit and welfare systems rather than blame somebody else for decisions which we are perfectly sovereign to address, perhaps.
There is the libertarian argument that we could have slashed and burned the State. That would have been fine ,within the EU, so long as we treated EU nationals exactly the same as British Nationals.
My guess is that about 2% of the voters would have been in favour
German benefits are better than those in the UK. Indeed, the same goes for Ireland.
So that is not the only reason.
Neither country is a major source of immigration to the UK. (Ireland was, but 50 years ago)
You misunderstood me. Why didn't these immigrants go there instead ?
The above is what the largest pro EU country is doing with benefits for all those European Citizens that exercise their rights under Free Movement of Workers.
Of course there were benefits for Britain. But there were costs and the costs of free movement were neither equally shared within the EU nor within Britain itself. That sense of unfairness lay behind some of the concerns I think. That should and could have been addressed without offending the Four Freedoms theologians.
We could have addressed our benefit and welfare systems rather than blame somebody else for decisions which we are perfectly sovereign to address, perhaps.
There is the libertarian argument that we could have slashed and burned the State. That would have been fine ,within the EU, so long as we treated EU nationals exactly the same as British Nationals.
My guess is that about 2% of the voters would have been in favour
Plus I think there are quite a lot of voters who think that when it comes to welfare within a country it should be possible to distinguish between British nationals and others
So take child benefit: introduced to help families with the cost of childcare here in Britain. Why should it be paid to people working here for children living in another country just because they are EU nationals?
The Mastricht treaty implied that countries would have to have broadly similar welfare systems to avoid these sorts of distortions. But rather than say this expressly and get agreement to this, these sorts of changes were introduced by a side route, much like the euro was used to force economic reforms on countries. There is something underhand and undemocratic about it. But the logic of having euro citizenship is that many things which people assumed to be based on nationality suffered immense strain or effectively had to be ditched. And enough people in Britain said in the end that they did not want this.
Ironically, the endless arguments about the euro around the time of the Mastricht Treaty were, arguably, focused on the wrong thing. The implications of eurocitizenship were more important, more likely to impact on peoples’ every day lives and their perception of change within the country and have turned into the rock on which Britain’s EU membership has foundered.
Clegg did warn him, but he wouldn't listen. I guess he thought he could deliver the vote and see off the nutters in his party once and for all. Yet he has now allowed them to take over the asylum.
If the 2015 general election had seen the Tories largest party again but lacking a majority and having to do another coalition with the LDs there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would still be PM.
So ironically an EU referendum promise which was meant to strengthen Cameron by helping him get a majority in 2015 and to see off UKIP ended up shortening his premiership once the break was made with Clegg
Cameron could still be PM. The ed his career - not the break from the LibDems.
Certainly his failure
What would such concessions have looked like, and what could the EU have agreed to without pi**ing off all the other member nations?
Of course there were benefits for Britain. But there were costs and the costs of free movement were neither equally shared within the EU nor within Britain itself. That sense of unfairness lay behind some of the concerns I think. That should and could have been addressed without offending the Four Freedoms theologians.
We could have addressed our benefit and welfare systems rather than blame somebody else for decisions which we are perfectly sovereign to address, perhaps.
There is the libertarian argument that we could have slashed and burned the State. That would have been fine ,within the EU, so long as we treated EU nationals exactly the same as British Nationals.
My guess is that about 2% of the voters would have been in favour
German benefits are better than those in the UK. Indeed, the same goes for Ireland.
So that is not the only reason.
Neither country is a major source of immigration to the UK. (Ireland was, but 50 years ago)
You misunderstood me. Why didn't these immigrants go there instead ?
You don't get the benefits if you haven't contributed.
There is no comparison. Heath took Britain into Europe because asleep at the wheel.
Clegg did warn him, but he wouldn't listen. I guess he thought he could deliver the vote and see off the nutters in his party once and for all. Yet he has now allowed them to take over the asylum.
If the 2015 general election had seen the Tories largest party again but lacking a majority and having to do another coalition with the LDs there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would still be PM.
So ironically an EU referendum promise which was meant to strengthen Cameron by helping him get a majority in 2015 and to see off UKIP ended up shortening his premiership once the break was made with Clegg
Cameron could still be PM. The choices he made in a) the Renegotiation and then b) the Referendum campaign itself killled his career - not the break from the LibDems.
Certainly his failure to get any meaningful concessions on free movement in talks with the EU doomed the Remain campaign
What would such concessions have looked like, and what could the EU have agreed to without pi**ing off all the other member nations?
Of course there were benefits for Britain. But there were costs and the costs of free movement were neither equally shared within the EU nor within Britain itself. That sense of unfairness lay behind some of the concerns I think. That should and could have been addressed without offending the Four Freedoms theologians.
We could have addressed our benefit and welfare systems rather than blame somebody else for decisions which we are perfectly sovereign to address, perhaps.
There is the libertarian argument that we could have slashed and burned the State. That would have been fine ,within the EU, so long as we treated EU nationals exactly the same as British Nationals.
My guess is that about 2% of the voters would have been in favour
German benefits are better than those in the UK. Indeed, the same goes for Ireland.
So that is not the only reason.
I'm sure you'd also love the Irish health care system.
Of course there were bn fine ,within the EU, so long as we treated EU nationals exactly the same as British Nationals.
My guess is that about 2% of the voters would have been in favour
Plus I think there are quite a lot of voters who think that when it comes to welfare within a country it should be possible to distinguish between British nationals and others
So take child benefit: introduced to help families with the cost of childcare here in Britain. Why should it be paid to people working here for children living in another country just because they are EU nationals?
The Mastricht treaty implied that countries would have to have broadly similar welfare systems to avoid these sorts of distortions. But rather than say this expressly and get agreement to this, these sorts of changes were introduced by a side route, much like the euro was used to force economic reforms on countries. There is something underhand and undemocratic about it. But the logic of having euro citizenship is that many things which people assumed to be based on nationality suffered immense strain or effectively had to be ditched. And enough people in Britain said in the end that they did not want this.
Ironically, the endless arguments about the euro around the time of the Mastricht Treaty were, arguably, focused on the wrong thing. The implications of eurocitizenship were more important, more likely to impact on peoples’ every day lives and their perception of change within the country and have turned into the rock on which Britain’s EU membership has foundered.
Yes. Most of us never wanted EU citizenship, and saw it as an imposition.
I don't see what's wrong about treating your own differently from outsiders.
Please learn some history. Yes, that goes for Paxman too. And until you have done so, please refrain from making remarks that only showcase your ignorance of the subject.
Perhaps it is you who should go back to history school. Brown led the fight against the global financial crisis. Chamberlain sought peace but also began rearmament -- perhaps you have him confused with Stanley Baldwin. Goderich, your own choice, seems to have done nothing of note in his five months in Downing Street, for good or ill.
Brown was and still is an absolute dumpling, must be the worst politician never mind PM in History.
You say that only because Brown's intervention was crucial in Sindyref. The route to Scottish independence is simple: Nicola Sturgeon must investigate what has gone wrong with Scottish football, and fix it. A successful Euro or World Cup run will do wonders for Scottish national spirit. Scotland is not too wee -- Croatia is smaller and reached the World Cup final; nor is the SPL too poor, since it supplied players for many countries in Moscow. Maybe it is the schools -- anyway, football must be the SNP's priority.
Cf. Belgium. Not that it does their government much good.
Switching the entire basis of the welfare state to a contributory model would probably have done almost nothing to reduce immigration, which was of course stoked by predominantly younger people who came with job offers or were actively looking for (largely low-paid) work. I think most of us can agree that benefit scrounging was not a major factor in all of this, except perhaps in the minds of some referendum voters who erroneously believed that it was happening on a large scale.
What it would've done, on the other hand, was to strip young adults of virtually all of their entitlements - because the only way that the British Government could've got round EU rules on the equal treatment of member state citizens would've been to make its own people as well as everybody else's contribute through NI for a set period of time (e.g. 3 years) before receiving an entitlement to Income Support, JSA and other goodies. That would've been politically unsustainable.
In any event, withholding benefits would've done nothing to resolve the additional pressure on public services and especially housing imposed by a growing population.
The UK is substantially smaller than any of the rest of the EU's big 6, and almost half of it is the three Celtic nations which consist very largely of remote upland terrain quite unsuited to urban development. England alone, where the vast bulk of immigrants to the UK want to live and which is only about a fifth of the size of Metropolitan France (and which already has a higher population density than any EU state save for Malta,) could really do without having the equivalent of an extra Liverpool added to it every year, but that's what was happening by 2016. Much of the population growth was natural, but about half was down to net international migration and I'd imagine a good chunk of the extra births were to immigrant families as well.
As population grows so all of the extra people need to be housed, but space also needs to be found for their cars, extra capacity needs to be built into the public transport system as well, new places of work, schools, hospitals, shops and other amenities need to be constructed, and additional food, water and power have to be laid on. Our water resources are finite and already vulnerable to prolonged drought, and each time we accept another thousand people, and sacrifice a few more hectares of agricultural land to house them, so our dependence on expensive imported food increases.
Thus, one might conclude that voters who thought that stuffing Britain with an endless number of extra people was unsustainable - socially, economically and environmentally - had a point.
People doing low wage jobs would also benefit from tax credits. Would those jobs have been as attractive without them?
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
There is no comparison. Heath took Britain into Europe because asleep at the wheel.
Clegg did warn him, but he wouldn't listen. I guess he thought he could deliver the vote and see off the nutters in his party once and for all. Yet he has now allowed them to take over the asylum.
If the 2015 general election had seen the Tories largest party again but lacking a majority and having to do another coalition with the LDs there would have been no EU referendum and Cameron would still be PM.
So ironically an EU referendum promise which was meant to strengthen Cameron by helping him get a majority in 2015 and to see off UKIP ended up shortening his premiership once the break was made with Clegg
Cameron could still be PM. The choices he made in a) the Renegotiation and then b) the Referendum campaign itself killled his career - not the break from the LibDems.
Certainly his failure to get any meaningful concessions on free movement in talks with the EU doomed the Remain campaign
What would such concessions have looked like, and what could the EU have agreed to without pi**ing off all the other member nations?
One thing that might have worked was some sort of brake once the level of free movement went above a country’s percentage of total EU population. So I think the figures are that Britain has ca. 12% of the EU’s population but received about 40% of the free movement. Something that would have allowed a brake to get those figures more in line with each other might well have helped. Something to show that the burdens of free movement were more fairly shared might have helped. As it was, it looked to some as if the burdens were disproportionately borne by one country only.
Of course there were benefits for Britain. But there were costs and the costs of free movement were neither equally shared within the EU nor within Britain itself. That sense of unfairness lay behind some of the concerns I think. That should and could have been addressed without offending the Four Freedoms theologians.
Rationing places for Brits in the Spanish winter sunshine?
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
No, although I suspect you would wish that it was.
How you must regret having ever supported the Conservatives!
“Jeremy Corbyn must be the unluckiest anti-racist in history,” said Dave Rich, head of policy at the Community Security Trust, the charity set up to protect the Jewish community. “He repeatedly manages to get involved with organisations and people that promote antisemitism and Holocaust denial, apparently without ever noticing anything is amiss. It’s the same old excuse and it wore thin long ago.”
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Genuine question - what is your solution to address elderly social care
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
If said Poiish plumber is a net contributor and pays his taxes and doesn't do cash in hand work fine but we are as a nation spending tens of billions on welfare for working age households Including tax credits, housing benefit, child benefit and more let alone the cost of using public services like schools or the NHS. EU migrants on low incomes have been eligible for those immediately and aren't therefore paying in but taking out.
Yes pensions cost money but most of those getting them did pay into the system for 40 years - importing people who cost money from day one and aren't working or if they are are doing low skilled work isn't neceessarily helping to deal with the issue you raise.
I think the point being not all migrants are net contributors so perhaps like the Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians we should only be letting in the highly skilled or those likely to be net contributors who will help pay for the costs of our elderly. Cos a welfare system should really be mainly for the elderly and disabled - not the fit and healthy of working age who may not even be citizens.
I expect at least that is what some people who voted Brexit were voting for - an end to a free for all and we pick the migrants based on their skills and qualifications not they pick us even if they have no skills at all or may live on welfare.
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Proportion of population born in another EU country = 6%
Proportion of UK working age benefits claimaints from the EU = 2.5% (proportion even lower if you factor in pensioners)
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Genuine question - what is your solution to address elderly social care
For any good libertarian, the solution is let them starve.
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Proportion of population born in another EU country = 6%
Proportion of UK working age benefits claimaints from the EU = 2.5% (proportion even lower if you factor in pensioners)
So almost every second EU migrant claims benefits? Interesting.
That he was bigging up Tessy's train crash manifesto in the Mail just adds to the belly laughs.
It does rather show that predictions of any mass exodus are, as ever, very much unlikely to appear, since it shows how far someone can be from the direction of the party, for how long, without quitting.
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
I think the assumption no deal is off the deal relies heavily on assumptions of people not daring to go down that path, or those opposed to it being able to control a chaotic situation.
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
Here is where we differ. We participate in things that are not in our interest.
You give us the choice between continued participation, or getting a beating if we cease to do so.
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
Not entirely true even in the single market where Norway does not apply about 25% of EU law
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Genuine question - what is your solution to address elderly social care
For any good libertarian, the solution is let them starve.
Hence both libertarianism and socialism had a negative rating in last week's Opinium.
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Proportion of population born in another EU country = 6%
Proportion of UK working age benefits claimaints from the EU = 2.5% (proportion even lower if you factor in pensioners)
But the issue is that the main form of giving taxpayer cash to EU nationals is not benefits it is tax credits which are not classed as benefits.
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
It was more pressure on wages for the lower paid and on housing that drove concerns over free movement
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
Not entirely true even in the single market where Norway does not apply about 25% of EU law
100% of the law that they do apply via the EEA is dictated by the EU.
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Proportion of population born in another EU country = 6%
Proportion of UK working age benefits claimaints from the EU = 2.5% (proportion even lower if you factor in pensioners)
So almost every second EU migrant claims benefits? Interesting.
Err, no. The denominators of the two percentages are quite different.
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
Not entirely true even in the single market where Norway does not apply about 25% of EU law
100% of the law that they do apply via the EEA is dictated by the EU.
True but they do not apply all of it and even if they did they would be only one vote out of 28
Just a reminder that the bulk of welfare spending is pensions not some strawman Romanian sponger. The reason why the NHS is in crisis isn't because there's a million Polish plumbers clogging up our wards, but because successive UK governments haven't solved the elderly care crisis.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Proportion of population born in another EU country = 6%
Proportion of UK working age benefits claimaints from the EU = 2.5% (proportion even lower if you factor in pensioners)
But the issue is that the main form of giving taxpayer cash to EU nationals is not benefits it is tax credits which are not classed as benefits.
And of course why do we want any migrants who cost us money in welfare from day one - the only exceptions being those with skills in areas where we have shortages such as nurses where pay isn't high.
The proportion of non citizen migrants who get welfare on day one in a sensible society would surely ideally be zero?
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
I think the assumption no deal is off the deal relies heavily on assumptions of people not daring to go down that path, or those opposed to it being able to control a chaotic situation.
I've stated to assume that "No Deal" will happen: the Conservative MPs are too full of people who are a) dumb as shit, or b) deliberately ignorant, or c) rich enough to survive the fallout, or d) will actually gain financially from the chaos, or e) some combination of the above. The Labour MPs are the same. The rest are the same and irrelevant.
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
Here is where we differ. We participate in things that are not in our interest.
You give us the choice between continued participation, or getting a beating if we cease to do so.
I don't give anyone choices. If we are not willing to risk our lifestyles, and there is little evidence that we are, doing what we are told is the choice if we don't want to participate.
The prospect of shortages of certain foods.and medicines spooked people.
That he was bigging up Tessy's train crash manifesto in the Mail just adds to the belly laughs.
It does rather show that predictions of any mass exodus are, as ever, very much unlikely to appear, since it shows how far someone can be from the direction of the party, for how long, without quitting.
Call me a cynic (which I am of course) but I wonder if Harris might have delayed his act of renunciation a little longer if he was still an mp.
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
Here is where we differ. We participate in things that are not in our interest.
You give us the choice between continued participation, or getting a beating if we cease to do so.
I don't give anyone choices. If we are not willing to risk our lifestyles, and there is little evidence that we are, doing what we are told is the choice if we don't want to participate.
The prospect of shortages of certain foods.and medicines spooked people.
You say the prospect of food and medicines spooked people. I say they were just ignored as project fear mark 2 and the population just yawned. Who is right?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
This has been the main difference between us underpinning our predictions about how things will play out from the beginning. My view is that when faced with the real choice, too many Leavers will choose EU membership for the continuation of the project to be tenable.
Boris is still the prime candidate for a public proclamation that Brexit isn't worth it.
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
This has been the main difference between us underpinning our predictions about how things will play out from the beginning. My view is that when faced with the real choice, too many Leavers will choose EU membership for the continuation of the project to be tenable.
Boris is still the prime candidate for a public proclamation that Brexit isn't worth it.
With a gun to their head most Leavers would choose just staying in the single market over the full EU which is where we will likely end up after a few years of bringing immigration down but for the moment the vast majority of Leave voters polled back No Deal
That he was bigging up Tessy's train crash manifesto in the Mail just adds to the belly laughs.
It does rather show that predictions of any mass exodus are, as ever, very much unlikely to appear, since it shows how far someone can be from the direction of the party, for how long, without quitting.
Call me a cynic (which I am of course) but I wonder if Harris might have delayed his act of renunciation a little longer if he was still an mp.
You and me both. He'd be sitting tight like (almost all) the rest of them have, of course.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
I just made sounds that sound a lot like sex noises.
Patrick Stewart is going to reprise the role of Captain Jean-Luc Picard in a new series of Star Trek set to air on CBS All Access, the network announced Saturday.
More than 20 years after Star Trek: The Next Generation ended, the new show will focus on the "next chapter" in the life of the beloved captain of the starship Enterprise.
Alex Kurtzman, the showrunner behind the Star Trek: Discovery series currently airing on CBS All Access, announced the news at a fan convention in Las Vegas on Saturday, bringing out Stewart to a thrilled audience.
I just made sounds that sound a lot like sex noises.
Patrick Stewart is going to reprise the role of Captain Jean-Luc Picard in a new series of Star Trek set to air on CBS All Access, the network announced Saturday.
More than 20 years after Star Trek: The Next Generation ended, the new show will focus on the "next chapter" in the life of the beloved captain of the starship Enterprise.
Alex Kurtzman, the showrunner behind the Star Trek: Discovery series currently airing on CBS All Access, announced the news at a fan convention in Las Vegas on Saturday, bringing out Stewart to a thrilled audience.
It was an addiction to the original crew that turned ST:TOS into a joke, now they're going to do the same ting for TNG? Unless they do a Logan on it and turn it into an elegy for old men, it's a fucking stupid idea.
I just made sounds that sound a lot like sex noises.
Patrick Stewart is going to reprise the role of Captain Jean-Luc Picard in a new series of Star Trek set to air on CBS All Access, the network announced Saturday.
More than 20 years after Star Trek: The Next Generation ended, the new show will focus on the "next chapter" in the life of the beloved captain of the starship Enterprise.
Alex Kurtzman, the showrunner behind the Star Trek: Discovery series currently airing on CBS All Access, announced the news at a fan convention in Las Vegas on Saturday, bringing out Stewart to a thrilled audience.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
Which they won't do, especially not the sitting MPs. I think that 3 or 4 have resigned from the party or had the whip withdrawn, usually in response to serious disciplinary charges (contested or otherwise.) Margaret Hodge has picked a fight with the leadership, but she's 73 IIRC and therefore has no career left to lose. Most of them are more-or-less silent. They've given up.
The calculation of the moderates is, presumably, that if the public aren't put off Corbyn by all of this then they won't suffer any damage through association. They are going to sit it out and hope that events come to their rescue - either that Corbyn is defeated in another election and all the wind is knocked out of the revolution, or that he has some health incident that removes him from office.
The latter is very unlikely, given that he's not that old and appears to be well, and if they're putting their faith in the former then they're kidding themselves. The faith of Corbyn's followers is unshakeable, and even if he is defeated in a GE he'll either keep plodding on, or make sure that the leadership election rules guarantee the success of an ideologically approved candidate before he resigns.
The Far Left won't make the same mistakes as the Centre-Left have done: no opportunity will be afforded for a counter-revolution. The Labour Party is theirs now - permanently.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
Sky saying that Watson has declared war on Corbyn.
The crisis for labour just gets worse day by day
Frankly, about bloody time. Is this the moment?
No. Much of Corbyn’s front bench resigned two years ago and the PLP passed a vote of no confidence in him and he still survived. The moment will come only when the members turn against him.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
That he was bigging up Tessy's train crash manifesto in the Mail just adds to the belly laughs.
Who is he ?
He was SLab mp for Glasgow south and was trounced in the 2015 avalanche. He led the Vote Leave campaign in Scotland.
And since he lost his seat he has been earning a crust by writing a column for the Torygraph. It's a bit of a surprise to find he was still a Labour Party member.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
Which they won't do, especially not the sitting MPs. I think that 3 or 4 have resigned from the party or had the whip withdrawn, usually in response to serious disciplinary charges (contested or otherwise.) Margaret Hodge has picked a fight with the leadership, but she's 73 IIRC and therefore has no career left to lose. Most of them are more-or-less silent. They've given up.
The calculation of the moderates is, presumably, that if the public aren't put off Corbyn by all of this then they won't suffer any damage through association. They are going to sit it out and hope that events come to their rescue - either that Corbyn is defeated in another election and all the wind is knocked out of the revolution, or that he has some health incident that removes him from office.
The latter is very unlikely, given that he's not that old and appears to be well, and if they're putting their faith in the former then they're kidding themselves. The faith of Corbyn's followers is unshakeable, and even if he is defeated in a GE he'll either keep plodding on, or make sure that the leadership election rules guarantee the success of an ideologically approved candidate before he resigns.
The Far Left won't make the same mistakes as the Centre-Left have done: no opportunity will be afforded for a counter-revolution. The Labour Party is theirs now - permanently.
In which case whether Corbyn wins or loses the next general election a new centrist party will ultimately be inevitable
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
Jon Craig of Sky - 'This is a declaration of war against Corbyn' as he reads Tom Watson's statement to the Observer
He added 'labour mps are lining up behind Tom Watson to the anger of the hard left'
Haven't we heard this nonsense before ?
Not as it is only published in tomorrows Observer. And why is it nonsense. Tom Watson publicly taking on Corbyn is box office though expect deselection process will start soon no doubt.
Sky saying that Watson has declared war on Corbyn.
The crisis for labour just gets worse day by day
Frankly, about bloody time. Is this the moment?
No. Much of Corbyn’s front bench resigned two years ago and the PLP passed a vote of no confidence in him and he still survived. The moment will come only when the members turn against him.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
Let me ask a question: why are Frank Field, Kate Hoey, John Mann and Gavin Stringer still members of the Labour Party.
These people are traitors.
Certainly these people should be called to account for themselves but I don't think it is helpful to stoop to the level of extreme Brexiteers and use the language of treachery. Misguided and disloyal perhaps but not treasonous.
I’m not surprised Cameron isn’t a big Michael Gove fan. @Big_G_NorthWales Even in that event, if the hard left control Labour entirely at that point, Corbyn will either stay or he’ll get replaced by a candidate from the Left. The moderates are done, and they only have themselves to blame.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
Let me ask a question: why are Frank Field, Kate Hoey, John Mann and Gavin Stringer still members of the Labour Party.
These people are traitors.
Certainly these people should be called to account for themselves but I don't think it is helpful to stoop to the level of extreme Brexiteers and use the language of treachery. Misguided and disloyal perhaps but not treasonous.
They are far more loyal than Corbyn has ever been to the Labour Party. Far, far, far more.
When will they realise that a) they have been totally, comprehensively beaten and humiliated, and b) their residual loyalty to the labour party (they resign, they don't join another party) plays 100% in to Corbyn's hands.
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
That's what will happen ultimately. There isn't a viable option for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU. No Deal, which has never been workable end state, seems to have been killed off in the past couple of weeks amid talk of shortages of foods and medicines. Therefore that the terms of that close relationship will be set almost entirely by the European Union. The choice put in front of the electorate, and as understood by it, was a false one. It was never available. The actual choice is between being a member of the European Union and participating in collective decision making, influencing those decisions while being bound by them. Or being bound by decisions made by others who have absolutely no incentive to consider our interest, so we what we are told.
Given that actually IS our choice, I suspect most Leavers will opt for doing what we are told rather than participation, but they will complain bitterly about it.
BINO doesn't exist. It's Vassal State and much worse.
So, in your view, it's Alexei Sayle's choice between sticking your head in a bucket of shit, or sticking your head in a bucket of acid?
Not my view. I am in favour of participating in things that are in our interest. The point is we are not willing to take a significant cut in our prosperity and mess with the way we do things. Hence No Deal is off the table. Hence we either participate in the EU or we do what we are told. I assume Leavers will take do as we told over participation. Whatever, that's always been the choice.
Here is where we differ. We participate in things that are not in our interest.
You give us the choice between continued participation, or getting a beating if we cease to do so.
I don't give anyone choices. If we are not willing to risk our lifestyles, and there is little evidence that we are, doing what we are told is the choice if we don't want to participate.
The prospect of shortages of certain foods.and medicines spooked people.
You say the prospect of food and medicines spooked people. I say they were just ignored as project fear mark 2 and the population just yawned. Who is right?
On topic I am pretty sure the consequences of No Deal are what is motivating Theresa May and her attempts to square the Brexit circle. I don't discount the possibility of No Deal happening but I'm pretty sure it won't be a state that would last more than a few days. What is certain is that no-one is prepared to compromise on their lifestyles for Brexit.
Which they won't do, especially not the sitting MPs. I think that 3 or 4 have resigned from the party or had the whip withdrawn, usually in response to serious disciplinary charges (contested or otherwise.) Margaret Hodge has picked a fight with the leadership, but she's 73 IIRC and therefore has no career left to lose. Most of them are more-or-less silent. They've given up.
The calculation of the moderates is, presumably, that if the public aren't put off Corbyn by all of this then they won't suffer any damage through association. They are going to sit it out and hope that events come to their rescue - either that Corbyn is defeated in another election and all the wind is knocked out of the revolution, or that he has some health incident that removes him from office.
The latter is very unlikely, given that he's not that old and appears to be well, and if they're putting their faith in the former then they're kidding themselves. The faith of Corbyn's followers is unshakeable, and even if he is defeated in a GE he'll either keep plodding on, or make sure that the leadership election rules guarantee the success of an ideologically approved candidate before he resigns.
The Far Left won't make the same mistakes as the Centre-Left have done: no opportunity will be afforded for a counter-revolution. The Labour Party is theirs now - permanently.
In which case whether Corbyn wins or loses the next general election a new centrist party will ultimately be inevitable
We shall see. I'm not so sure. Problem with trying to replace Labour is that people are used to Labour. Most Labour (and Conservative) voters do it out of habit. Any new centrist party would scarcely get a look in.
That's another reason why potential Labour defectors have given up. If they leave the party they have to fight the party name. In a high-profile by-election they might stand a chance, but in a general election they'd be wiped out by the habit voters. All that would happen is they'd get an extra helping of being roasted alive by incandescent far Leftists for peeling a few thousand votes off Labour candidates here and there and letting a few dozen extra Tories in through the middle.
And yes, I know, this is all dreadfully pessimistic. But I find that if I assume the worst in situations such as these then I'm less disappointed when I'm proved right.
I’m not surprised Cameron isn’t a big Michael Gove fan. @Big_G_NorthWales Even in that event, if the hard left control Labour entirely at that point, Corbyn will either stay or he’ll get replaced by a candidate from the Left. The moderates are done, and they only have themselves to blame.
I was more taken by Liam Fox in “it’s all someone elses’ fault”. Part 74 for a long running series where leave voters and enthusasists fail to take any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Interestingly it also says Cameron holds no grudge with Boris despite his loathing for Gove and that had Remain won he expected Osborne or Boris to succeed him
@Acorn_Antiques I agree with you on a new centrist party. People are clearly attached to the Labour brand. What happened to Danczuk is a prime example.
I was more taken by Liam Fox in “it’s all someone elses’ fault”. Part 74 for a long running series where leave voters and enthusasists fail to take any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Well if I wanted to prove the idiocy of Leavers and Liam Fox I'd do the morning thread based on that front page and this quote by Dr Fox from last year.
'The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.'
Which they won't do, especially not the sitting MPs. I think that 3 or 4 have resigned from the party or had the whip withdrawn, usually in response to serious disciplinary charges (contested or otherwise.) Margaret Hodge has picked a fight with the leadership, but she's 73 IIRC and therefore has no career left to lose. Most of them are more-or-less silent. They've given up.
The calculation of the moderates is, presumably, that if the public aren't put off Corbyn by all of this then they won't suffer any damage through association. They are going to sit it out and hope that events come to their rescue - either that Corbyn is defeated in another election and all the wind is knocked out of the revolution, or that he has some health incident that removes him from office.
The latter is very unlikely, given that he's not that old and appears to be well, and if they're putting their faith in the former then they're kidding themselves. The faith of Corbyn's followers is unshakeable, and even if he is defeated in a GE he'll either keep plodding on, or make sure that the leadership election rules guarantee the success of an ideologically approved candidate before he resigns.
The Far Left won't make the same mistakes as the Centre-Left have done: no opportunity will be afforded for a counter-revolution. The Labour Party is theirs now - permanently.
In which case whether Corbyn wins or loses the next general election a new centrist party will ultimately be inevitable
We shall see. I'm not so sure. Problem with trying to replace Labour is that people are used to Labour. Most Labour (and Conservative) voters do it out of habit. Any new centrist party would scarcely get a look in.
That's another reason why potential Labour defectors have given up. If they leave the party they have to fight the party name. In a high-profile by-election they might stand a chance, but in a general election they'd be wiped out by the habit voters. All that would happen is they'd get an extra helping of being roasted alive by incandescent far Leftists for peeling a few thousand votes off Labour candidates here and there and letting a few dozen extra Tories in through the middle.
And yes, I know, this is all dreadfully pessimistic. But I find that if I assume the worst in situations such as these then I'm less disappointed when I'm proved right.
I do think your post tend on the pessimitic but thinking the worst but hoping it does not happen is maybe a very practical way of keeping sane, especially in these tumultuous times
Comments
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/04/tom-watson-labour-antisemitism-eternal-shame?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true
Scotland does not subsidise England.
Our grand-children subsidise both.
The above is what the largest pro EU country is doing with benefits for all those European Citizens that exercise their rights under Free Movement of Workers.
https://www.sochealth.co.uk/national-health-service/public-health-and-wellbeing/beveridge-report/
Our NHS is universal, as is Canada's; Germany's is contributory.
So take child benefit: introduced to help families with the cost of childcare here in Britain. Why should it be paid to people working here for children living in another country just because they are EU nationals?
The Mastricht treaty implied that countries would have to have broadly similar welfare systems to avoid these sorts of distortions. But rather than say this expressly and get agreement to this, these sorts of changes were introduced by a side route, much like the euro was used to force economic reforms on countries. There is something underhand and undemocratic about it. But the logic of having euro citizenship is that many things which people assumed to be based on nationality suffered immense strain or effectively had to be ditched. And enough people in Britain said in the end that they did not want this.
Ironically, the endless arguments about the euro around the time of the Mastricht Treaty were, arguably, focused on the wrong thing. The implications of eurocitizenship were more important, more likely to impact on peoples’ every day lives and their perception of change within the country and have turned into the rock on which Britain’s EU membership has foundered.
Blaming the perfidious foreigner for the fact that old people live too long seems a bit.. stupid? Racist? Self-defeating?
Yes. Unless Brexit is a cunning plan to make all our elderly starve. That would explain quite a lot of things the Tories are doing.
Tom Harris says decision 'feels like a bereavement' as he quits amid antisemitism row"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-minister-resigns-party-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-tom-harris-a8477456.html
How you must regret having ever supported the Conservatives!
“Jeremy Corbyn must be the unluckiest anti-racist in history,” said Dave Rich, head of policy at the Community Security Trust, the charity set up to protect the Jewish community. “He repeatedly manages to get involved with organisations and people that promote antisemitism and Holocaust denial, apparently without ever noticing anything is amiss. It’s the same old excuse and it wore thin long ago.”
Yes pensions cost money but most of those getting them did pay into the system for 40 years - importing people who cost money from day one and aren't working or if they are are doing low skilled work isn't neceessarily helping to deal with the issue you raise.
I think the point being not all migrants are net contributors so perhaps like the Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians we should only be letting in the highly skilled or those likely to be net contributors who will help pay for the costs of our elderly. Cos a welfare system should really be mainly for the elderly and disabled - not the fit and healthy of working age who may not even be citizens.
I expect at least that is what some people who voted Brexit were voting for - an end to a free for all and we pick the migrants based on their skills and qualifications not they pick us even if they have no skills at all or may live on welfare.
Proportion of UK working age benefits claimaints from the EU = 2.5% (proportion even lower if you factor in pensioners)
Fucking arsebiscuits.
'TOM HARRIS: Now we socialists have a real leader offering Left-wing policies... Theresa May'
https://tinyurl.com/y9xjtjn8
That he was bigging up Tessy's train crash manifesto in the Mail just adds to the belly laughs.
You give us the choice between continued participation, or getting a beating if we cease to do so.
Most voters are in the centre economically
Wishful thinking: number 10,344,787 in an ongoing series (sadly)
The Five Year Tractor Target is on track!
The proportion of non citizen migrants who get welfare on day one in a sensible society would surely ideally be zero?
Hey, ain't politics fun.
The prospect of shortages of certain foods.and medicines spooked people.
Druze are out in the streets to protest Israeli apartheid laws.
Who is right?
Boris is still the prime candidate for a public proclamation that Brexit isn't worth it.
Has new info. If it is true, then this story has just started...
The logic of their position is that they should fight to destroy the labour party.
Patrick Stewart is going to reprise the role of Captain Jean-Luc Picard in a new series of Star Trek set to air on CBS All Access, the network announced Saturday.
More than 20 years after Star Trek: The Next Generation ended, the new show will focus on the "next chapter" in the life of the beloved captain of the starship Enterprise.
Alex Kurtzman, the showrunner behind the Star Trek: Discovery series currently airing on CBS All Access, announced the news at a fan convention in Las Vegas on Saturday, bringing out Stewart to a thrilled audience.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/patrick-stewart-star-trek-jean-luc-picard-new-cbs?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc
As half the country is on holiday in August it is difficult to get accurate polls so those that are tend to be lifestyle or tongue in cheek
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/117c1386-96f8-11e8-8ea4-e1d7024ea98f
It was an addiction to the original crew that turned ST:TOS into a joke, now they're going to do the same ting for TNG? Unless they do a Logan on it and turn it into an elegy for old men, it's a fucking stupid idea.
Wow!
These people are traitors.
The crisis for labour just gets worse day by day
The calculation of the moderates is, presumably, that if the public aren't put off Corbyn by all of this then they won't suffer any damage through association. They are going to sit it out and hope that events come to their rescue - either that Corbyn is defeated in another election and all the wind is knocked out of the revolution, or that he has some health incident that removes him from office.
The latter is very unlikely, given that he's not that old and appears to be well, and if they're putting their faith in the former then they're kidding themselves. The faith of Corbyn's followers is unshakeable, and even if he is defeated in a GE he'll either keep plodding on, or make sure that the leadership election rules guarantee the success of an ideologically approved candidate before he resigns.
The Far Left won't make the same mistakes as the Centre-Left have done: no opportunity will be afforded for a counter-revolution. The Labour Party is theirs now - permanently.
He added 'labour mps are lining up behind Tom Watson to the anger of the hard left'
Confirms what we already knew about the modern Labour Party
Out, fucking, standing...
It is very clear who the traitors are. And it is not Field, Hoey, Mann, Stringer.
This is the summer labour tears itself apart
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1025852566406610944
@Big_G_NorthWales Even in that event, if the hard left control Labour entirely at that point, Corbyn will either stay or he’ll get replaced by a candidate from the Left. The moderates are done, and they only have themselves to blame.
You have lost the plot.
Those people you name will have done more for the Labour Party than you - an Internet warrior - have ever done.
That's another reason why potential Labour defectors have given up. If they leave the party they have to fight the party name. In a high-profile by-election they might stand a chance, but in a general election they'd be wiped out by the habit voters. All that would happen is they'd get an extra helping of being roasted alive by incandescent far Leftists for peeling a few thousand votes off Labour candidates here and there and letting a few dozen extra Tories in through the middle.
And yes, I know, this is all dreadfully pessimistic. But I find that if I assume the worst in situations such as these then I'm less disappointed when I'm proved right.
'The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.'