Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An unconventional carry-on

1235»

Comments

  • Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

    I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.

    What?

    Two seconds thought please.... a migrant coming from a poor part of the world to better their circumstances is looking for affordable housing. Will they choose a somewhat run-down area where they can manage to get somewhere? Or will they choose an area where a month's rent would cost them a year's wages?

    Migrants are going where they can afford to go. That is why the only migrants in Mayfair are multi-millionaires
    Which is the point I've been making here for over a decade.

    The cost-benefit breakdown of uncontrolled immigration varies from location to location.

    And its the poorer areas in the UK which attract the least desirable migrants.

    Now lets think how attitudes to immigration might change if those poorer areas didn't receive those least desirable migrants and they were instead housed in nice upper middle class areas.

    I suggest that the poorer areas would be less concerned about immigration and the nice upper middle class areas would instead become strongly opposed about allowing the 'wrong' sort of migration.

    I sometimes think you have never visited London, Richard.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,741
    edited August 2019
    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:


    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

    Really !!!!
    Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

    Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.
    It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
    Hard to see it not being a win-win.
    8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.
    How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

    The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.
    If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it
    Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.
    You can never be 100% sure of that
    Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

    Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.
    Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?
    Don’t we currently cover Irish airspace?
    We are not obliged to as Ireland is not in NATO
    The fact that the EU and NATO don't properly overlap is one of the simple reasons why the EU should never have had ambitions to be more than a FTA.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Except if Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer beats Trudeau in November's Canadian election it would be full speed ahead for a UK and Canada FTA.

    Polls currently put it neck and neck

    https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/05/scheer-off-to-london-to-lay-groundwork-for-canada-uk-free-trade-deal/#.XU6yrcnTW7O

    That article was written long before before the UK government announced the No Deal tariffs which led the Canadian government to decide it had no need to roll-over CETA.

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that if the Canadian Tories win November's Canadian election and beat Trudeau's Liberals it would be full speed ahead to a Canada UK FTA.

    Polls currently have it neck and neck between the Tories and Liberals in Canada

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election

    Why does Canada need an FTA with the UK if the UK has already unilaterally decided to make it easier for Canadian companies to trade with the UK?

    On WTO terms it would not be without a FTA and Scheer has committed to speed up FTA talks unlike Trudeau as I said

    The UK has announced it will be unilaterally reducing almost all the tariffs that Canadian companies currently face when exporting to the UK. So why does Canada need an FTA on top? We are giving them what they want without asking for anything back.

    Not true any longer, before he left office Fox confirmed tariffs would only be reduced if reciprocated plus under WTO terms we have to treat all countries the same unless we have a FTA
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited August 2019
    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Except if Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer beats Trudeau in November's Canadian election it would be full speed ahead for a UK and Canada FTA.

    Polls currently put it neck and neck

    https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/05/scheer-off-to-london-to-lay-groundwork-for-canada-uk-free-trade-deal/#.XU6yrcnTW7O

    That article was written long before before the UK government announced the No Deal tariffs which led the Canadian government to decide it had no need to roll-over CETA.

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that if the Canadian Tories win November's Canadian election and beat Trudeau's Liberals it would be full speed ahead to a Canada UK FTA.

    Polls currently have it neck and neck between the Tories and Liberals in Canada

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election
    Same question as with the US.

    What would the U.K. objectives be in seeking an FTA with Canada, and what would they be offering the Canadians in return? Honestly most of the time with you I get the impression that simply the existence of an FTA is sufficient, regardless of what it says. Which is bizarre because the answer that Brexiteers usually give when challenged on all the FTAs that the U.K. benefitted from through the EU was that they weren’t sufficiently directed to U.K. objectives.

    But then you aren’t a Brexiteer so maybe you have different answers...
    Canada exports more to the UK than the UK exports to Canada (the reverse of the US) so they need a FTA more than us
    Why? I thought we were looking to significantly grow our exports to replace those that will be lost through leaving the EU/Single Market. Whereas for Canada it’s much more of a “nice to have”.

    We need FTAs with Switzerland (basically done), the US, Saudi Arabia and China more as we export more to them than Canada

    Surely we need FTAs the most in the areas where having them will deliver the most growth in trade? That got nothing to do with where we export to now. What benefits would we get to an FTA with Saudi Arabia???

    Why is the EU not on your list?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,103
    alex. said:



    Don’t we currently cover Irish airspace?


    No. Irish airspace is strictly out of bounds to UK mil traffic. The only way to get a bigger bollocking is to violate Israeli airspace. There have been high level discussions about what would happen in the highly unlikely event of a 911 on the Liffey scenario that would involve an RAF interception but the UK QRA zone specifically excludes Irish airspace.

    During the infamous Tornado emergency diversion the crew had to fly back to the UK on a commercial flight wearing ill fitting civvies hastily purchased from the local Dunne's.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,580

    Anecdote alert: I came across my first Leaver to Remainer convert this morning. I have to say my jaw dropped when my mother spontaneously announced this. She liked Theresa May and really dislikes Boris Johnson.

    Very close anecdote here. My mother was a remainer - albeit only after I corrected some factual errors she had absorbed from a lifetime of reading the Daily Express - but carried on supporting the Tories because she liked Mrs May. Her take on it was that the PM was getting the job done while the men around her were all talk. Given that she remains the only UK politician who has ever come up with an actual practical plan to leave the EU she had a good point. Getting rid of May and replacing her with the archetypal useless male overprivileged prick has finally cured her of voting Conservative. I've been trying to do that since I was a teenager with no luck at all.
    All these anecdotes clearly eexplain why the Tories have tanked in the polls since Boris took over...oh...wait.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:


    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

    Really !!!!
    Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

    Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.
    It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
    Hard to see it not being a win-win.
    8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.
    How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

    The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.
    If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and d it
    Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.
    You can never be 100% sure of that
    Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

    Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.
    Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?
    Don’t we currently cover Irish airspace?
    We are not obliged to as Ireland is not in NATO
    The fact that the EU and NATO don't properly overlap is one of the simple reasons it should never have had ambitions to be more than a FTA. How can France have a common defence interest with Ireland or Sweden?

    Unless there is a single European army it can't as both are outside NATO
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,426
    edited August 2019

    Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

    I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.

    What?

    Two seconds thought please.... a migrant coming from a poor part of the world to better their circumstances is looking for affordable housing. Will they choose a somewhat run-down area where they can manage to get somewhere? Or will they choose an area where a month's rent would cost them a year's wages?

    Migrants are going where they can afford to go. That is why the only migrants in Mayfair are multi-millionaires
    Which is the point I've been making here for over a decade.

    The cost-benefit breakdown of uncontrolled immigration varies from location to location.

    And its the poorer areas in the UK which attract the least desirable migrants.

    Now lets think how attitudes to immigration might change if those poorer areas didn't receive those least desirable migrants and they were instead housed in nice upper middle class areas.

    I suggest that the poorer areas would be less concerned about immigration and the nice upper middle class areas would instead become strongly opposed about allowing the 'wrong' sort of migration.

    I sometimes think you have never visited London, Richard.

    A quite common theme from those further to the right on PB is that educated middle class and ethnic minority areas in London are wildly separate.

    There are in fact a number of ethnically mixed areas in inner london that the educated middle class are moving *into* in greater numbers, rather than fleeing. As I've mentioned before this ranges from old mainstays like camden, islington and brixton to new areas like holloway.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Dura_Ace said:

    alex. said:



    Don’t we currently cover Irish airspace?


    No. Irish airspace is strictly out of bounds to UK mil traffic. The only way to get a bigger bollocking is to violate Israeli airspace. There have been high level discussions about what would happen in the highly unlikely event of a 911 on the Liffey scenario that would involve an RAF interception but the UK QRA zone specifically excludes Irish airspace.

    During the infamous Tornado emergency diversion the crew had to fly back to the UK on a commercial flight wearing ill fitting civvies hastily purchased from the local Dunne's.
    Ok thanks.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,103
    HYUFD said:


    We only need nukes for our defence, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only needed to defend other NATO members, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar or to undertake overseas military action with the USA or UN peacekeeping missions

    Airmen? It's 2019.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389
    edited August 2019
    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Except if Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer beats Trudeau in November's Canadian election it would be full speed ahead for a UK and Canada FTA.

    Polls currently put it neck and neck

    https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/05/scheer-off-to-london-to-lay-groundwork-for-canada-uk-free-trade-deal/#.XU6yrcnTW7O

    That article was written long before before the UK government announced the No Deal tariffs which led the Canadian government to decide it had no need to roll-over CETA.

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that if the Canadian Tories win November's Canadian election and beat Trudeau's Liberals it would be full speed ahead to a Canada UK FTA.

    Polls currently have it neck and neck between the Tories and Liberals in Canada

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election
    Same question as with the US.

    What would the U.K. objectives be in seeking an FTA with Canada, and what would they be offering the Canadians in return? Honestly most of the time with you I get the impression that simply the existence of an FTA is sufficient, regardless of what it says. Which is bizarre because the answer that Brexiteers usually give when challenged on all the FTAs that the U.K. benefitted from through the EU was that they weren’t sufficiently directed to U.K. objectives.

    But then you aren’t a Brexiteer so maybe you have different answers...
    Canada exports more to the UK than the UK exports to Canada (the reverse of the US) so they need a FTA more than us
    Why? I thought we were looking to significantly grow our exports to replace those that will be lost through leaving the EU/Single Market. Whereas for Canada it’s much more of a “nice to have”.

    We need FTAs with Switzerland (basically done), the US, Saudi Arabia and China more as we export more to them than Canada

    Surely we need FTAs the most in the areas where having them will deliver the most growth in trade? That got nothing to do with where we export to now. What benefits would we get to an FTA with Saudi Arabia???

    Why is the EU not on your list?
    Of course they do as the Saudi and US and Chinese economies will keep growing and more than the EU economy.

    The fastest growing economy we will trade with is likely Nigeria where FTA talks are well under way

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1071282/brexit-news-britain-trade-deal-nigeria
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Except if Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer beats Trudeau in November's Canadian election it would be full speed ahead for a UK and Canada FTA.

    Polls currently put it neck and neck

    https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/05/scheer-off-to-london-to-lay-groundwork-for-canada-uk-free-trade-deal/#.XU6yrcnTW7O

    That article was written long before before the UK government announced the No Deal tariffs which led the Canadian government to decide it had no need to roll-over CETA.

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that if the Canadian Tories win November's Canadian election and beat Trudeau's Liberals it would be full speed ahead to a Canada UK FTA.

    Polls currently have it neck and neck between the Tories and Liberals in Canada

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election

    Why does Canada need an FTA with the UK if the UK has already unilaterally decided to make it easier for Canadian companies to trade with the UK?

    On WTO terms it would not be without a FTA and Scheer has committed to speed up FTA talks unlike Trudeau as I said

    The UK has announced it will be unilaterally reducing almost all the tariffs that Canadian companies currently face when exporting to the UK. So why does Canada need an FTA on top? We are giving them what they want without asking for anything back.

    Not true any longer, before he left office Fox confirmed tariffs would only be reduced if reciprocated plus under WTO terms we have to treat all countries the same unless we have a FTA

    That's interesting. I had missed that. So we are now looking at our No Deal Brexit not only leading to shortages, but also much higher prices. It's getting better every day.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,198
    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,518
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:



    Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

    Bear in mind that NATO is merely an instrument of US foreign and security policy. If the US wants the GIUK air policed then there will be an appropriate NATO mission to do so as there is in Iceland, the Baltic and Montenegro. None of them pay "significant fees".
    Given Trump can't stand Sturgeon and Salmond unlikely while he remains POTUS
    I doubt they think much of him like very many people on the British isles who can’t stand the man
  • Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

    I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.

    What?

    Two seconds thought please.... a migrant coming from a poor part of the world to better their circumstances is looking for affordable housing. Will they choose a somewhat run-down area where they can manage to get somewhere? Or will they choose an area where a month's rent would cost them a year's wages?

    Migrants are going where they can afford to go. That is why the only migrants in Mayfair are multi-millionaires
    Which is the point I've been making here for over a decade.

    The cost-benefit breakdown of uncontrolled immigration varies from location to location.

    And its the poorer areas in the UK which attract the least desirable migrants.

    Now lets think how attitudes to immigration might change if those poorer areas didn't receive those least desirable migrants and they were instead housed in nice upper middle class areas.

    I suggest that the poorer areas would be less concerned about immigration and the nice upper middle class areas would instead become strongly opposed about allowing the 'wrong' sort of migration.

    I sometimes think you have never visited London, Richard.

    A quite common theme from those further to the right on PB is that educated middle class and ethnic minority areas in London are wildly separate.

    There are in fact a number of ethnically mixed areas in inner london that the educated middle class are moving *into* in greater numbers, rather than fleeing. As I've mentioned before this ranges from old mainstays like camden and islington to areas like holloway.

    Yep, my sister has a very nice (ex-council) flat near Queen's Crescent right next to the pub she runs and across the road from an estate on which Somali gang violence is rife.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,771
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:



    Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

    Bear in mind that NATO is merely an instrument of US foreign and security policy. If the US wants the GIUK air policed then there will be an appropriate NATO mission to do so as there is in Iceland, the Baltic and Montenegro. None of them pay "significant fees".
    Given Trump can't stand Sturgeon and Salmond unlikely while he remains POTUS
    Just like his good pal Kim Jong-un, Trump isn't happy about US-S.Korea joint exercises but they're going ahead anyway. There's a pretty good case to be made that the US military doesn't give a feck what Trumpy thinks.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,561
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    malcolmg said:


    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

    Really !!!!
    Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

    Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.
    It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
    Hard to see it not being a win-win.
    8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.
    How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

    The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.
    If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it
    Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.
    You can never be 100% sure of that
    Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

    Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.
    Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?
    Because it is in their interests.
    In your Dan Brown scenario, where Putin somehow decides it worth his while (ie he goes completely bonkers), and somehow cobbles together an amphibious assault force capable of invading Scotland, would it really be in English interests to have him as a neighbour ?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    felix said:

    Anecdote alert: I came across my first Leaver to Remainer convert this morning. I have to say my jaw dropped when my mother spontaneously announced this. She liked Theresa May and really dislikes Boris Johnson.

    Very close anecdote here. My mother was a remainer - albeit only after I corrected some factual errors she had absorbed from a lifetime of reading the Daily Express - but carried on supporting the Tories because she liked Mrs May. Her take on it was that the PM was getting the job done while the men around her were all talk. Given that she remains the only UK politician who has ever come up with an actual practical plan to leave the EU she had a good point. Getting rid of May and replacing her with the archetypal useless male overprivileged prick has finally cured her of voting Conservative. I've been trying to do that since I was a teenager with no luck at all.
    All these anecdotes clearly eexplain why the Tories have tanked in the polls since Boris took over...oh...wait.
    The anecdotes on here were a way better guide to the result of the 2017 General Election than the polls.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 17,473
    edited August 2019

    Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

    I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.

    What?

    Two seconds thought please.... a migrant coming from a poor part of the world to better their circumstances is looking for affordable housing. Will they choose a somewhat run-down area where they can manage to get somewhere? Or will they choose an area where a month's rent would cost them a year's wages?

    Migrants are going where they can afford to go. That is why the only migrants in Mayfair are multi-millionaires
    Which is the point I've been making here for over a decade.

    The cost-benefit breakdown of uncontrolled immigration varies from location to location.

    And its the poorer areas in the UK which attract the least desirable migrants.

    Now lets think how attitudes to immigration might change if those poorer areas didn't receive those least desirable migrants and they were instead housed in nice upper middle class areas.

    I suggest that the poorer areas would be less concerned about immigration and the nice upper middle class areas would instead become strongly opposed about allowing the 'wrong' sort of migration.

    I sometimes think you have never visited London, Richard.

    Says the man who moved from London to Royal Leamington Spa.

    :wink:
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    dixiedean said:

    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.

    That will launch dozens more conspiracy theories.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,561
    edited August 2019
    dixiedean said:

    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.

    Remarkably convenient for a lot of rich and powerful people.
    Including Trump.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,771
    dixiedean said:

    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.

    Wow, convenient.

    Wasn't there an earlier incident in custody? You'd have thought he'd have been on 24 hr watch.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 15,044

    dixiedean said:

    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.

    That will launch dozens more conspiracy theories.
    Certainly the kind of thing thar might make you conspiracy theory aligned.
  • Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

    I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.

    What?

    Two seconds thought please.... a migrant coming from a poor part of the world to better their circumstances is looking for affordable housing. Will they choose a somewhat run-down area where they can manage to get somewhere? Or will they choose an area where a month's rent would cost them a year's wages?

    Migrants are going where they can afford to go. That is why the only migrants in Mayfair are multi-millionaires
    Which is the point I've been making here for over a decade.

    The cost-benefit breakdown of uncontrolled immigration varies from location to location.

    And its the poorer areas in the UK which attract the least desirable migrants.

    Now lets think how attitudes to immigration might change if those poorer areas didn't receive those least desirable migrants and they were instead housed in nice upper middle class areas.

    I suggest that the poorer areas would be less concerned about immigration and the nice upper middle class areas would instead become strongly opposed about allowing the 'wrong' sort of migration.

    I sometimes think you have never visited London, Richard.

    A quite common theme from those further to the right on PB is that educated middle class and ethnic minority areas in London are wildly separate.

    There are in fact a number of ethnically mixed areas in inner london that the educated middle class are moving *into* in greater numbers, rather than fleeing. As I've mentioned before this ranges from old mainstays like camden, islington and brixton to new areas like holloway.
    Some parts of London certainly but there are still strong socioeconomic differences across London.

    For example between SW London and the old east end.

    And gentrification includes debt laden graduates renting a room in Walthamstow.
  • felix said:

    Anecdote alert: I came across my first Leaver to Remainer convert this morning. I have to say my jaw dropped when my mother spontaneously announced this. She liked Theresa May and really dislikes Boris Johnson.

    Very close anecdote here. My mother was a remainer - albeit only after I corrected some factual errors she had absorbed from a lifetime of reading the Daily Express - but carried on supporting the Tories because she liked Mrs May. Her take on it was that the PM was getting the job done while the men around her were all talk. Given that she remains the only UK politician who has ever come up with an actual practical plan to leave the EU she had a good point. Getting rid of May and replacing her with the archetypal useless male overprivileged prick has finally cured her of voting Conservative. I've been trying to do that since I was a teenager with no luck at all.
    All these anecdotes clearly eexplain why the Tories have tanked in the polls since Boris took over...oh...wait.
    The anecdotes on here were a way better guide to the result of the 2017 General Election than the polls.
    One or two might have been but others weren't.

    And its been the same way at previous elections.

    Choosing which anecdotes to trust is the tricky part.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,177
    The great Marina Litvinenko on Sky News.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,052

    dixiedean said:

    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.

    That will launch dozens more conspiracy theories.
    I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but...
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,329

    ...Getting rid of May and replacing her with the archetypal useless male overprivileged prick ...

    Post of the day :D:D:dizzy:

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,329
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We only need nukes for our defence, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only needed to defend other NATO members, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar or to undertake overseas military action with the USA or UN peacekeeping missions

    Airmen? It's 2019.
    Is it Airpeople these days? :dizzy:

    (I know it is "Aircrew" but I could not resist")
  • Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We only need nukes for our defence, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only needed to defend other NATO members, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar or to undertake overseas military action with the USA or UN peacekeeping missions

    Airmen? It's 2019.
    Is it Airpeople these days? :dizzy:

    (I know it is "Aircrew" but I could not resist")
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,939
    IanB2 said:

    Is HY predicting that Putin invades Scotland before or after we’ve declared war on Iran? It would be helpful if he could sort all his predictions into some sort of time order.

    And I still wonder where his NI-only referendum fits into all this?

    Is it any wonder Scots want independence when you see nutters like HYFUD and the absolute bilge they come out with
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,382
    edited August 2019
    Labour selection for Stockport

    Navendu Mishra 338 votes
    Julie Reid 218
    Fiona Dent 23
    Mike Cain 12

    Mishra is a member of the NEC (for the Corbyn's slate). He stood in Hazel Grove in 2017 GE.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,658

    dixiedean said:

    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.

    That will launch dozens more conspiracy theories.
    I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but...
    We hardly need a conspiracy theory to explain why Epstein was under so much pressure at the thought of trial.

    The US should hold an inquiry so that his death doesn't prevent other crimes coming to light.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,329

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We only need nukes for our defence, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only needed to defend other NATO members, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar or to undertake overseas military action with the USA or UN peacekeeping missions

    Airmen? It's 2019.
    Is it Airpeople these days? :dizzy:

    (I know it is "Aircrew" but I could not resist")
    The RAF post-Brexit?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,939
    dixiedean said:

    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.

    How very convenient , was he close to cutting a deal and naming names
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,939

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We only need nukes for our defence, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only needed to defend other NATO members, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar or to undertake overseas military action with the USA or UN peacekeeping missions

    Airmen? It's 2019.
    Is it Airpeople these days? :dizzy:

    (I know it is "Aircrew" but I could not resist")
    Need to be more abstract than that nowadays peter , Airthingymabobs sounds more PC
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,687

    felix said:

    Anecdote alert: I came across my first Leaver to Remainer convert this morning. I have to say my jaw dropped when my mother spontaneously announced this. She liked Theresa May and really dislikes Boris Johnson.

    Very close anecdote here. My mother was a remainer - albeit only after I corrected some factual errors she had absorbed from a lifetime of reading the Daily Express - but carried on supporting the Tories because she liked Mrs May. Her take on it was that the PM was getting the job done while the men around her were all talk. Given that she remains the only UK politician who has ever come up with an actual practical plan to leave the EU she had a good point. Getting rid of May and replacing her with the archetypal useless male overprivileged prick has finally cured her of voting Conservative. I've been trying to do that since I was a teenager with no luck at all.
    All these anecdotes clearly eexplain why the Tories have tanked in the polls since Boris took over...oh...wait.
    The anecdotes on here were a way better guide to the result of the 2017 General Election than the polls.
    One or two might have been but others weren't.

    And its been the same way at previous elections.

    Choosing which anecdotes to trust is the tricky part.
    I think David Herdson on eve of poll nailed it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,941

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We only need nukes for our defence, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only needed to defend other NATO members, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar or to undertake overseas military action with the USA or UN peacekeeping missions

    Airmen? It's 2019.
    Is it Airpeople these days? :dizzy:

    (I know it is "Aircrew" but I could not resist")
    Airscrew?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,941

    dixiedean said:

    ABC reporting Epstein commits suicide.

    Wow, convenient.

    Wasn't there an earlier incident in custody? You'd have thought he'd have been on 24 hr watch.

    He was.

    Er, what was that about conspiracy theories?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,162

    Not sure I buy the argument that the WWC voted Brexit in significantly greater numbers than anyone else. In my WWC family it was a straight split on age lines. Given that a lot of younger WWC don't do fit the sociologists' categories neatly I'd assert that class had almost nothing to do with it.

    Yes I think you're right. The class aspect is overplayed - perhaps to lend cred. Age was a bigger factor.
  • kjh said:

    felix said:

    Anecdote alert: I came across my first Leaver to Remainer convert this morning. I have to say my jaw dropped when my mother spontaneously announced this. She liked Theresa May and really dislikes Boris Johnson.

    Very close anecdote here. My mother was a remainer - albeit only after I corrected some factual errors she had absorbed from a lifetime of reading the Daily Express - but carried on supporting the Tories because she liked Mrs May. Her take on it was that the PM was getting the job done while the men around her were all talk. Given that she remains the only UK politician who has ever come up with an actual practical plan to leave the EU she had a good point. Getting rid of May and replacing her with the archetypal useless male overprivileged prick has finally cured her of voting Conservative. I've been trying to do that since I was a teenager with no luck at all.
    All these anecdotes clearly eexplain why the Tories have tanked in the polls since Boris took over...oh...wait.
    The anecdotes on here were a way better guide to the result of the 2017 General Election than the polls.
    One or two might have been but others weren't.

    And its been the same way at previous elections.

    Choosing which anecdotes to trust is the tricky part.
    I think David Herdson on eve of poll nailed it.
    Actually he didn't.

    He had a bad canvassing experience a few days before the poll but had a much better one on the eve of poll itself.

    So it really was the case of choosing which anecdote to trust.
This discussion has been closed.