Mr. Foremain, I have a lot of sympathy with that perspective. I do think some (many, perhaps) on the Remain side, particularly politicians, underestimate or aren't even aware of the substantial political risks/consequences if we do end up staying.
That's rather a good picture of Boris. Nice smile, tie done up, hair more or less under control. Interestingly he does not look tired which is somewhat surprising given the events of the last few weeks. Perhaps Carrie is making sure he gets to bed nice and early.
Surly at his age that might tire him, too!
He's quite keen on bikes 😉
Probably mildly slanderous about some of his companions!
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
My sauces say the same 😞
This is why I'm not keen on an election anytime soon.
'They' always say things like that. Then in the polling booth the pencil hesitates. And hesitates.....
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
Tell me this isn't happening.
Oh you can find any opinion you like on the doorstep and there will be attrition in all sorts of directions. Your friendly local Conservative canvasser is /less/ likely to mention the doors he's knocked and people have said "fuck off mate, I voted for you last time but this is a clusterfuck". On top of that, even people who flirt with the idea of defecting usually don't. In the end, I just cannot reconcile the two opposing stories that Tories are trying to tell: that Labour Leavers are going to abandon Labour because it's moved too far towards Remain, and that the Lib Dems' firm Remain stance is going to drag Labour Remainers away. These two effects pull in opposite directions, and even though you'll find examples of both when door knocking, the numbers will probably end up somewhat cancelling each other out, and won't be as dramatic as many suspect.
More Meeks' bullshit trying to defend the indefensible. Trying to second guess the result in favour of Remain and put interpretations on the vote which are completely unjustified thtough partial and warped rewriting of history.
Richard, the ERG, and even TMay's government have been putting interpretations on the result that were completely unjustified, partic in the light of the prospectus laid out in Meek's article. Compromise should have been the order of the day. A soft Brexit that reflected the result. Instead, those that wish to take a hard line Remain position are given justification to not "respect" the result by the hardline leavers who have shown equal disrespect for the remainder of the electorate that did not vote for this debacle.
That's rather a good picture of Boris. Nice smile, tie done up, hair more or less under control. Interestingly he does not look tired which is somewhat surprising given the events of the last few weeks. Perhaps Carrie is making sure he gets to bed nice and early.
Surly at his age that might tire him, too!
He's quite keen on bikes 😉
Probably mildly slanderous about some of his companions!
It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.
What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.
Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.
Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.
Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.
So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.
There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.
There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.
We made them illegal for Johnny Hun when we wrote his constitution for him. Praps we could now do ourselves the same favour.
That's rather a good picture of Boris. Nice smile, tie done up, hair more or less under control. Interestingly he does not look tired which is somewhat surprising given the events of the last few weeks. Perhaps Carrie is making sure he gets to bed nice and early.
Surly at his age that might tire him, too!
He's quite keen on bikes 😉
Some Tories are quite into antique European bicycles. At least, I heard a few of them are fans of 1930s German Raleighs.
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
They won't vote Tory. They will see the logo, and think "nah", that is, even if said "multiple people" ( I am sure there is a joke in there) either exist at all or are actually willing to go in a polling booth. Bozo apologists are kidding themselves.
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
They won't vote Tory. They will see the logo, and think "nah", that is, even if said "multiple people" ( I am sure there is a joke in there) either exist at all or are actually willing to go in a polling booth. Bozo apologists are kidding themselves.
Political sands can move fast. I cite Scotland as an example (or Italy or Greece).
It is well within the bounds of possibilities that either Tory or Labour could be decimated (and I do mean left with 10% of the seats) depending on outcomes and black swans.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
Tell me this isn't happening.
Why do you think hes not being attacked by his own team despite 'everything'? They get the doorstep feedback
Better public speaker than Javid based on the little I have seen.
I thought Javid was crap yesterday. Very stunted. Rubbish jokes.
Patel is much more fluent (and visually attractive - she is a very pretty lady), always has been, But you do get the impression she'd bring back hanging and firing squads.
Mr. Foremain, I have a lot of sympathy with that perspective. I do think some (many, perhaps) on the Remain side, particularly politicians, underestimate or aren't even aware of the substantial political risks/consequences if we do end up staying.
Possibly, but seeing as there are 50% (+/- a bit) who either want to stay or don't care I think these risks are greatly exaggerated. Anyone doing a genuine risk assessment would say the risk is heavily on the side of change rather than the conservative position (note the true meaning of the word folks!). As many of us believe a compromise position is the way to go. Those that want a more "pure" version of whatever their wet dream is should be made to unambiguously persuade the electorate, and do so with slightly more than a few percent difference.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
In the reliability stakes, hopefully your friend's name is not Martin Day.
I get this. But I also think stuff is so volatile that trying to read anything into it is pretty futile.
Boris will unquestionably get a higher than normal 'personal' vote ("like the cut of his jib.. don't care about the policies"). He'll also alienate quite a few Tory remainers.
And in any case, look at how party fortunes changed during the campaign in 2017. Chuck in even-more polarised positions on both sides of Brexit and the awkward configuration of which parties are "leave" or "remain" Then imagine how some massive news story in the run-up to polling could change opinions either way this time.
When the election is called, it'll be time to chuck the cards in the air and see where they end up. Massive uncertainty IMO
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
Tell me this isn't happening.
Why do you think hes not being attacked by his own team despite 'everything'? They get the doorstep feedback
Above all else the Conservative Party wants winners. It's why Boris beat Hunt (they looked at the polling) and why they continue to back Boris e'en unto now.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
Tell me this isn't happening.
Oh you can find any opinion you like on the doorstep and there will be attrition in all sorts of directions. Your friendly local Conservative canvasser is /less/ likely to mention the doors he's knocked and people have said "fuck off mate, I voted for you last time but this is a clusterfuck". On top of that, even people who flirt with the idea of defecting usually don't. In the end, I just cannot reconcile the two opposing stories that Tories are trying to tell: that Labour Leavers are going to abandon Labour because it's moved too far towards Remain, and that the Lib Dems' firm Remain stance is going to drag Labour Remainers away. These two effects pull in opposite directions, and even though you'll find examples of both when door knocking, the numbers will probably end up somewhat cancelling each other out, and won't be as dramatic as many suspect.
+1 I agree. I cannot see Labour voters crossing to the Tories. I suspect if an election is called Boris's leadership ratings will nose dive and the Tories numbers will probably follow.
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
They won't vote Tory. They will see the logo, and think "nah", that is, even if said "multiple people" ( I am sure there is a joke in there) either exist at all or are actually willing to go in a polling booth. Bozo apologists are kidding themselves.
Political sands can move fast. I cite Scotland as an example (or Italy or Greece).
It is well within the bounds of possibilities that either Tory or Labour could be decimated (and I do mean left with 10% of the seats) depending on outcomes and black swans.
“Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change. Then, if you look back ten years later, there will have been some change, and if you look back 15 years later there will have been some."
You wonder why M&S is in a mess? Because he ran that business just as ineptly (I was a supplier throughout his mismanagement).
And you do realise that - just maybe - some of the Leavers made their decisions after carefully reading the Remain case first. And that Farage's obsession about Establishment plots to undermine the country may have some basis.
With Cameron and Rose making the case for economic stability, is it any wonder the disaster capitalists were the more persuasive?
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
In the reliability stakes, hopefully your friend's name is not Martin Day.
I get this. But I also think stuff is so volatile that trying to read anything into it is pretty futile.
Boris will unquestionably get a higher than normal 'personal' vote ("like the cut of his jib.. don't care about the policies"). He'll also alienate quite a few Tory remainers.
And in any case, look at how party fortunes changed during the campaign in 2017. Chuck in even-more polarised positions on both sides of Brexit and the awkward configuration of which parties are "leave" or "remain" Then imagine how some massive news story in the run-up to polling could change opinions either way this time.
When the election is called, it'll be time to chuck the cards in the air and see where they end up. Massive uncertainty IMO
Strangely I agree entirely about massive uncertainty but still think a hung parliament is very likely. More votes will be up for grabs than any previous election, but it seems harder than ever to get one group behind you without alienating another.
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
They won't vote Tory. They will see the logo, and think "nah", that is, even if said "multiple people" ( I am sure there is a joke in there) either exist at all or are actually willing to go in a polling booth. Bozo apologists are kidding themselves.
Political sands can move fast. I cite Scotland as an example (or Italy or Greece).
It is well within the bounds of possibilities that either Tory or Labour could be decimated (and I do mean left with 10% of the seats) depending on outcomes and black swans.
Possible, but very unlikely.
*pedant* Left with 90 per cent, shurely? (Not that one in ten of them will be stabbed with a sword)
Mr. Foremain, I have a lot of sympathy with that perspective. I do think some (many, perhaps) on the Remain side, particularly politicians, underestimate or aren't even aware of the substantial political risks/consequences if we do end up staying.
Possibly, but seeing as there are 50% (+/- a bit) who either want to stay or don't care I think these risks are greatly exaggerated. Anyone doing a genuine risk assessment would say the risk is heavily on the side of change rather than the conservative position (note the true meaning of the word folks!). As many of us believe a compromise position is the way to go. Those that want a more "pure" version of whatever their wet dream is should be made to unambiguously persuade the electorate, and do so with slightly more than a few percent difference.
I disagree on several levels.
A compromise isn't always the best solution, it can be a mish mash of positions that don't work in practice.
Remain is putting us back in the same place that generated the anti EU movement. There will be more fuel for those who want to stoke the anti EU fires as the core Euro zone countries will rightly follow programs that protect the currency. There is likely to be further integration, giving additional ammunition to the naesayers. Speaking of ammunition there may be a controversial (to the UK) move to an EU army.
Revoke only hard wires the current points of aggravation that spawned Euroscepticism and does nothing to reduce them. Remaining in a semi detached half in half out position can only stop wounds from healing and allow them to fester.
Revoke is one of the worst conclusions. Followed by No Deal Followed by Deal Followed by in the Euro / Schengen and full membership. Possibly.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
Tell me this isn't happening.
Why do you think hes not being attacked by his own team despite 'everything'? They get the doorstep feedback
Above all else the Conservative Party wants winners. It's why Boris beat Hunt (they looked at the polling) and why they continue to back Boris e'en unto now.
Until they realise he is actually a loser, then he will be discarded as quickly as one of Bozo's latest love interests.
Surely any poster on here knows the truism that 95% of the public are not aware of, let alone fully up to speed with, the details of Westminster politics.
is it therefore fanciful surely to try and argue that everyone who voted leave had absorbed and held in their head such detailed argument as is in the post header. Surely the vast majority of Leave voters had no interest in the details, they just wanted to Leave. they did not vote "Leave but only with a deal".
Almost everyone i speak to is fed up with this now. We need to leave, then we can go about negotiating trade deals, customs details and other things on which we can co-operate again. No it's not ideal, but ignoring the result is way worse.
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
They won't vote Tory. They will see the logo, and think "nah", that is, even if said "multiple people" ( I am sure there is a joke in there) either exist at all or are actually willing to go in a polling booth. Bozo apologists are kidding themselves.
Political sands can move fast. I cite Scotland as an example (or Italy or Greece).
It is well within the bounds of possibilities that either Tory or Labour could be decimated (and I do mean left with 10% of the seats) depending on outcomes and black swans.
Possible, but very unlikely.
*pedant* Left with 90 per cent, shurely? (Not that one in ten of them will be stabbed with a sword)
*even more pedant* Clubbed to death, shurely, by their fellows?
Surely any poster on here knows the truism that 95% of the public are not aware of, let alone fully up to speed with, the details of Westminster politics.
is it therefore fanciful surely to try and argue that everyone who voted leave had absorbed and held in their head such detailed argument as is in the post header. Surely the vast majority of Leave voters had no interest in the details, they just wanted to Leave. they did not vote "Leave but only with a deal".
Almost everyone i speak to is fed up with this now. We need to leave, then we can go about negotiating trade deals, customs details and other things on which we can co-operate again. No it's not ideal, but ignoring the result is way worse.
+1
But in 10 years time clever, wealthy, sneery people will still be arguing over the small print of the Leave campaign... saying their European identity was stolen by a bunch of knucklescraping racists who can't think for themselves.
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
They won't vote Tory. They will see the logo, and think "nah", that is, even if said "multiple people" ( I am sure there is a joke in there) either exist at all or are actually willing to go in a polling booth. Bozo apologists are kidding themselves.
Political sands can move fast. I cite Scotland as an example (or Italy or Greece).
It is well within the bounds of possibilities that either Tory or Labour could be decimated (and I do mean left with 10% of the seats) depending on outcomes and black swans.
Possible, but very unlikely.
*pedant* Left with 90 per cent, shurely? (Not that one in ten of them will be stabbed with a sword)
Nice one. I like a bit of pedantry. It it's literal form a decimation (without the sword bit) of either party in the current conditions would probably be seen as a good result for either. Ah, well, we only lost 10% of our members. Bozo has managed almost that recently.
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
They won't vote Tory. They will see the logo, and think "nah", that is, even if said "multiple people" ( I am sure there is a joke in there) either exist at all or are actually willing to go in a polling booth. Bozo apologists are kidding themselves.
Political sands can move fast. I cite Scotland as an example (or Italy or Greece).
It is well within the bounds of possibilities that either Tory or Labour could be decimated (and I do mean left with 10% of the seats) depending on outcomes and black swans.
Possible, but very unlikely.
*pedant* Left with 90 per cent, shurely? (Not that one in ten of them will be stabbed with a sword)
I may well be wrong, as I often am, but for some reason I thought it was to leave 10%. When all is peaceful I will look it up.
Not sure whether posted yet - big change today on Betfair re date of next GE.
Nov 5.6 Dec 2.24 2020 or later 2.52
Nov was under 3 yesterday - expectations increasing of delay!
Expectations clearly increasing of an extension. Therefore, November election not that important. Let Johnson stew. I feel the EU are going to give a much longer extension conditional on it being the last one.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
In the reliability stakes, hopefully your friend's name is not Martin Day.
Haha - it's not Martin no, but he does tend to be somewhat of an optimist. As others have said it's just an anecdote, no more no less. I side with the view that Labour supporters when it come to it will stick with Labour, and have bet accordingly, but there does seem to be a bullishness amongst Tories (Nick Palmer commented similarly last night) and after Trump I'm leery of pooh poohing the celebrity aspect, unfathomable as I may find it.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application. So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire. On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application. So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire. On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
America has high levels of high-skilled migration despite the byzantine immigration process. It's annoying, but it won't put people off if they have a job lined up.
Surely any poster on here knows the truism that 95% of the public are not aware of, let alone fully up to speed with, the details of Westminster politics.
is it therefore fanciful surely to try and argue that everyone who voted leave had absorbed and held in their head such detailed argument as is in the post header. Surely the vast majority of Leave voters had no interest in the details, they just wanted to Leave. they did not vote "Leave but only with a deal".
Almost everyone i speak to is fed up with this now. We need to leave, then we can go about negotiating trade deals, customs details and other things on which we can co-operate again. No it's not ideal, but ignoring the result is way worse.
+1
But in 10 years time clever, wealthy, sneery people will still be arguing over the small print of the Leave campaign... saying their European identity was stolen by a bunch of knucklescraping racists who can't think for themselves.
And that'll just be the leave voters. Imagine how the remain voters will feel.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application. So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire. On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
America has high levels of high-skilled migration despite the byzantine immigration process. It's annoying, but it won't put people off if they have a job lined up.
Byzantine but it works. I have gone blue in the face on here explaining that we already have an “Australian style” points based system, it was introduced by Gordon Brown, and it doesn’t work.
Surely any poster on here knows the truism that 95% of the public are not aware of, let alone fully up to speed with, the details of Westminster politics.
is it therefore fanciful surely to try and argue that everyone who voted leave had absorbed and held in their head such detailed argument as is in the post header. Surely the vast majority of Leave voters had no interest in the details, they just wanted to Leave. they did not vote "Leave but only with a deal".
Almost everyone i speak to is fed up with this now. We need to leave, then we can go about negotiating trade deals, customs details and other things on which we can co-operate again. No it's not ideal, but ignoring the result is way worse.
+1
But in 10 years time clever, wealthy, sneery people will still be arguing over the small print of the Leave campaign... saying their European identity was stolen by a bunch of knucklescraping racists who can't think for themselves.
No, you don't understand, we are saying that already. Good self awareness on your part though, with respect to your own identified group, well done.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application. So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire. On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
America has high levels of high-skilled migration despite the byzantine immigration process. It's annoying, but it won't put people off if they have a job lined up.
Byzantine but it works. I have gone blue in the face on here explaining that we already have an “Australian style” points based system, it was introduced by Gordon Brown, and it doesn’t work.
There's a piece in today's Guardian about it's failings.
Almost everyone i speak to is fed up with this now. We need to leave, then we can go about negotiating trade deals, customs details and other things on which we can co-operate again. No it's not ideal, but ignoring the result is way worse.
We had better not Brexit in that case. Leaving is only the start of the process. Trade deals, cutomes deals, etc, will occupy the UK for decades to come.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application. So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire. On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
America has high levels of high-skilled migration despite the byzantine immigration process. It's annoying, but it won't put people off if they have a job lined up.
It will put people off even if they have a job lined up. I speak from first- and second-hand experience. Not, it won't put everyone off, of course it won't. But the harder you make the process, the more people will not bother. And that's the key. If you're a top academic with a brilliant research proposal, and your pick of universities to go to, one of your main criteria will be can I hire from a competitive pool of talent there? This policy will create barriers to entry for graduates from overseas, which will deter investment. The USA can get away with it because of its size. The UK has little hope of matching that kind of critical mass in most fields. We will be forced to specialise, which will mean exporting jobs and losing talent in the short term, with the benefits of specialisation accruing somewhat later, if at all.
Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined
Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?
According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...
Tell me this isn't happening.
Why do you think hes not being attacked by his own team despite 'everything'? They get the doorstep feedback
Above all else the Conservative Party wants winners. It's why Boris beat Hunt (they looked at the polling) and why they continue to back Boris e'en unto now.
Until they realise he is actually a loser, then he will be discarded as quickly as one of Bozo's latest love interests.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application.
On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
America has high levels of high-skilled migration despite the byzantine immigration process. It's annoying, but it won't put people off if they have a job lined up.
It will put people off even if they have a job lined up. I speak from first- and second-hand experience. Not, it won't put everyone off, of course it won't. But the harder you make the process, the more people will not bother. And that's the key. If you're a top academic with a brilliant research proposal, and your pick of universities to go to, one of your main criteria will be can I hire from a competitive pool of talent there? This policy will create barriers to entry for graduates from overseas, which will deter investment. The USA can get away with it because of its size. The UK has little hope of matching that kind of critical mass in most fields. We will be forced to specialise, which will mean exporting jobs and losing talent in the short term, with the benefits of specialisation accruing somewhat later, if at all.
TBH, it rather looks as if the 'top academic with a brilliant research proposal' will also have to ask themselves; can I bring my spouse and children here?
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application.
On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
America has high levels of high-skilled migration despite the byzantine immigration process. It's annoying, but it won't put people off if they have a job lined up.
It will put people off even if they have a job lined up. I speak from first- and second-hand experience. Not, it won't put everyone off, of course it won't. But the harder you make the process, the more people will not bother. And that's the key. If you're a top academic with a brilliant research proposal, and your pick of universities to go to, one of your main criteria will be can I hire from a competitive pool of talent there? This policy will create barriers to entry for graduates from overseas, which will deter investment. The USA can get away with it because of its size. The UK has little hope of matching that kind of critical mass in most fields. We will be forced to specialise, which will mean exporting jobs and losing talent in the short term, with the benefits of specialisation accruing somewhat later, if at all.
TBH, it rather looks as if the 'top academic with a brilliant research proposal' will also have to ask themselves; can I bring my spouse and children here?
This is fairly weak sauce from Mr Meeks, who is usually excellent but who has a bit of a blind spot for Brexit.
Any version of leaving the EU is a valid interpretation of the referendum result. Making the legal form argument is drawing a distinction without a difference. If the politicians cannot agree on a form of leaving, this is regrettable, but no blame could realistically be placed on anyone who has voted for the WA.
To hold VL responsible for the actions (sequencing, Chequers, WA, cont p94) of a government it did not form, and from which a number of its members resigned, seems congenitally churlish.
Remember, too, that the remain campaign's projections (a year-long recession, a million extra unemployed, breakdown of civilization, war in Europe, cont p94) have also been poor facsimiles of the reality.
And it's impossible, and I think unfair, to hold the a manifesto pledge to the same account as a float prospectus, contractual obligation, or solicitors' undertaking. Politicans, certainly in this country, with its avowedly party political framework, are responsible for 'the artof the possible'. A certain amount of fudge is often necessary and desirable in order to maintain broad consensus and legitimacy.
Finally, and I am not trying to make Premain and Cameremain 'happen',* the result of revoking A50, whether before or after a second referendum, is not the same as a 2016 remain outcome. Precisely nobody voted for that.
Any form of leave, in short, is legitimate. And no form of remain is.
It will put people off even if they have a job lined up. I speak from first- and second-hand experience. Not, it won't put everyone off, of course it won't. But the harder you make the process, the more people will not bother. And that's the key. If you're a top academic with a brilliant research proposal, and your pick of universities to go to, one of your main criteria will be can I hire from a competitive pool of talent there? This policy will create barriers to entry for graduates from overseas, which will deter investment. The USA can get away with it because of its size. The UK has little hope of matching that kind of critical mass in most fields. We will be forced to specialise, which will mean exporting jobs and losing talent in the short term, with the benefits of specialisation accruing somewhat later, if at all.
The effect must be minor, otherwise the US wouldn't be considering placing further restrictions on high-skilled immigration. As for academic hires, I would have thought the biggest worry would be funding. The cost (to the grant) of hiring staff will be very small in comparison to equipment/salary.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application.
On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
America has high levels of high-skilled migration despite the byzantine immigration process. It's annoying, but it won't put people off if they have a job lined up.
Not, it won't put everyone off, of course it won't. But the harder you make the process, the more people will not bother. And that's the key. If you're a top academic with a brilliant research proposal, and your pick of universities to go to, one of your main criteria will be can I hire from a competitive pool of talent there? This policy will create barriers to entry for graduates from overseas, which will deter investment. The USA can get away with it because of its size. The UK has little hope of matching that kind of critical mass in most fields. We will be forced to specialise, which will mean exporting jobs and losing talent in the short term, with the benefits of specialisation accruing somewhat later, if at all.
TBH, it rather looks as if the 'top academic with a brilliant research proposal' will also have to ask themselves; can I bring my spouse and children here?
The UK has already lost out when it comes to Academia. As soon as the Brexit vote happened, the large EU-funded projects started to dry up, The UK just couldn't bid for EU money, and the large, trans-national research projects that they fund, because 1) it was unclear if they'd be entitled tot he money and 2) the difficulty of recruiting.
This is fairly weak sauce from Mr Meeks, who is usually excellent but who has a bit of a blind spot for Brexit.
Any version of leaving the EU is a valid interpretation of the referendum result. Making the legal form argument is drawing a distinction without a difference. If the politicians cannot agree on a form of leaving, this is regrettable, but no blame could realistically be placed on anyone who has voted for the WA.
To hold VL responsible for the actions (sequencing, Chequers, WA, cont p94) of a government it did not form, and from which a number of its members resigned, seems congenitally churlish.
Remember, too, that the remain campaign's projections (a year-long recession, a million extra unemployed, breakdown of civilization, war in Europe, cont p94) have also been poor facsimiles of the reality.
And it's impossible, and I think unfair, to hold the a manifesto pledge to the same account as a float prospectus, contractual obligation, or solicitors' undertaking. Politicans, certainly in this country, with its avowedly party political framework, are responsible for 'the artof the possible'. A certain amount of fudge is often necessary and desirable in order to maintain broad consensus and legitimacy.
Finally, and I am not trying to make Premain and Cameremain 'happen',* the result of revoking A50, whether before or after a second referendum, is not the same as a 2016 remain outcome. Precisely nobody voted for that.
Any form of leave, in short, is legitimate. And no form of remain is.
*Obviously, I am.
Thin gruel is the usual Brexit metaphor, not weak sauce!
Setting aside the opinion on the right or wrongness of the immigration proposals, from a betting perspective it is exactly the sort of thing that the leave leaning will lap up. The remain parties have a big problem unless one can advance away from the other. Boris is parking all his tanks on Farages lawn
Surely any poster on here knows the truism that 95% of the public are not aware of, let alone fully up to speed with, the details of Westminster politics.
is it therefore fanciful surely to try and argue that everyone who voted leave had absorbed and held in their head such detailed argument as is in the post header. Surely the vast majority of Leave voters had no interest in the details, they just wanted to Leave. they did not vote "Leave but only with a deal".
Almost everyone i speak to is fed up with this now. We need to leave, then we can go about negotiating trade deals, customs details and other things on which we can co-operate again. No it's not ideal, but ignoring the result is way worse.
+1
But in 10 years time clever, wealthy, sneery people will still be arguing over the small print of the Leave campaign... saying their European identity was stolen by a bunch of knucklescraping racists who can't think for themselves.
No, you don't understand, we are saying that already. Good self awareness on your part though, with respect to your own identified group, well done.
It will put people off even if they have a job lined up. I speak from first- and second-hand experience. Not, it won't put everyone off, of course it won't. But the harder you make the process, the more people will not bother. And that's the key. If you're a top academic with a brilliant research proposal, and your pick of universities to go to, one of your main criteria will be can I hire from a competitive pool of talent there? This policy will create barriers to entry for graduates from overseas, which will deter investment. The USA can get away with it because of its size. The UK has little hope of matching that kind of critical mass in most fields. We will be forced to specialise, which will mean exporting jobs and losing talent in the short term, with the benefits of specialisation accruing somewhat later, if at all.
The effect must be minor, otherwise the US wouldn't be considering placing further restrictions on high-skilled immigration. As for academic hires, I would have thought the biggest worry would be funding. The cost (to the grant) of hiring staff will be very small in comparison to equipment/salary.
The US is in the same self-destructive spiral as us. Don't assume from their policies that it's a good idea. Furthermore, their graduate pool is enormous. If anyone can get away with it, they can. In reference to the point about hiring costs... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean the visa, legal and administrative costs to the universities of the extra immigration red tape? That's an issue to be sure, but I wasn't referring to it myself. I was talking about the process of foreign students/postdocs applying for positions here. The extra burden will deter some, reducing the pool of talent to hire from, deterring in turn researchers from choosing the UK to set up their labs.
To illustrate, if you could set up your lab in Germany or the UK, when you think about hiring the German lab will have 27 countries where it'll be easy to hire from and 1 where it'll be a pain. In the UK, you have 1 where it'll be easy to hire from, and 27 where it'll be a pain. Which country do you choose, all other things being equal?
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application. So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire. On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
You're talking bollocks.
Australia with its Australian style points system has double the migration rate per capita that we do. It doesn't run short of attracting the creme de la creme and neither will we.
The best and brightest will manage to get through our migration system. As they already can Australia's.
This is fairly weak sauce from Mr Meeks, who is usually excellent but who has a bit of a blind spot for Brexit.
Any version of leaving the EU is a valid interpretation of the referendum result. Making the legal form argument is drawing a distinction without a difference. If the politicians cannot agree on a form of leaving, this is regrettable, but no blame could realistically be placed on anyone who has voted for the WA.
To hold VL responsible for the actions (sequencing, Chequers, WA, cont p94) of a government it did not form, and from which a number of its members resigned, seems congenitally churlish.
Remember, too, that the remain campaign's projections (a year-long recession, a million extra unemployed, breakdown of civilization, war in Europe, cont p94) have also been poor facsimiles of the reality.
And it's impossible, and I think unfair, to hold the a manifesto pledge to the same account as a float prospectus, contractual obligation, or solicitors' undertaking. Politicans, certainly in this country, with its avowedly party political framework, are responsible for 'the artof the possible'. A certain amount of fudge is often necessary and desirable in order to maintain broad consensus and legitimacy.
Finally, and I am not trying to make Premain and Cameremain 'happen',* the result of revoking A50, whether before or after a second referendum, is not the same as a 2016 remain outcome. Precisely nobody voted for that.
Any form of leave, in short, is legitimate. And no form of remain is.
*Obviously, I am.
I ask again the question I asked in the article: do you think the public would have voted for no deal Brexit? Because if the answer to that question is "probably not", then it has no mandate.
The country has been crying out for a fair immigration policy for forever, seems like we might finally be getting closer to it becoming policy. We could learn a lot of things from Australia (not cheating at cricket mind).
It will put people off even if they have a job lined up. I speak from first- and second-hand experience. Not, it won't put everyone off, of course it won't. But the harder you make the process, the more people will not bother. And that's the key. If you're a top academic with a brilliant research proposal, and your pick of universities to go to, one of your main criteria will be can I hire from a competitive pool of talent there? This policy will create barriers to entry for graduates from overseas, which will deter investment. The USA can get away with it because of its size. The UK has little hope of matching that kind of critical mass in most fields. We will be forced to specialise, which will mean exporting jobs and losing talent in the short term, with the benefits of specialisation accruing somewhat later, if at all.
The effect must be minor, otherwise the US wouldn't be considering placing further restrictions on high-skilled immigration. As for academic hires, I would have thought the biggest worry would be funding. The cost (to the grant) of hiring staff will be very small in comparison to equipment/salary.
The US is in the same self-destructive spiral as us. Don't assume from their policies that it's a good idea. Furthermore, their graduate pool is enormous. If anyone can get away with it, they can. In reference to the point about hiring costs... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean the visa, legal and administrative costs to the universities of the extra immigration red tape? That's an issue to be sure, but I wasn't referring to it myself. I was talking about the process of foreign students/postdocs applying for positions here. The extra burden will deter some, reducing the pool of talent to hire from, deterring in turn researchers from choosing the UK to set up their labs.
To illustrate, if you could set up your lab in Germany or the UK, when you think about hiring the German lab will have 27 countries where it'll be easy to hire from and 1 where it'll be a pain. In the UK, you have 1 where it'll be easy to hire from, and 27 where it'll be a pain. Which country do you choose, all other things being equal?
On the US point, we aren't talking about local hires. I'm just saying that the current system is clearly not a deterrent given how many are hired through that route.
On where I would go, I think it would depend more on the institution, availability of funding, job for my spouse rather than the immigration system.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application. So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire. On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
America has high levels of high-skilled migration despite the byzantine immigration process. It's annoying, but it won't put people off if they have a job lined up.
Byzantine but it works. I have gone blue in the face on here explaining that we already have an “Australian style” points based system, it was introduced by Gordon Brown, and it doesn’t work.
Define work.
People from across the world still get here so something must be working even if other bits can be improved. If we can stop relying upon the crutch of free movement then we will be better motivated to fix any flaws with our system that impede the creme de la creme from coming.
Its rather bigoted of @Noo to consider [primarily white] Europeans to be the "creme de la creme" we need to be attracting, rather than the creme de la creme of the entire world whether that be Asians, North or South Americans, Africans or indeed Europeans.
The UK has already lost out when it comes to Academia. As soon as the Brexit vote happened, the large EU-funded projects started to dry up, The UK just couldn't bid for EU money, and the large, trans-national research projects that they fund, because 1) it was unclear if they'd be entitled tot he money and 2) the difficulty of recruiting.
1) This is just incorrect. The UK is still in, & is leading, large EU-funded projects -- just as Israel, Norway, & Switzerland are.
2) There is some truth in this. I am aware of some academics who are reluctant to apply for positions in the UK on the grounds of uncertainty. However, almost all research jobs are over-subscribed by a large ratio, so I am not sure there had been any substantial effect of UK research.
Not sure whether posted yet - big change today on Betfair re date of next GE.
Nov 5.6 Dec 2.24 2020 or later 2.52
Nov was under 3 yesterday - expectations increasing of delay!
A November 28 election would need to be called before 25 October, and it seems very unlikely the opposition will agree to this as they want to ensure an extension is agreed and passed into law before any dissolution. And the election of the new speaker is scheduled for November 4. So even if a motion for an election is carried on November 5 the earliest (Thursday) date on which it could be held is December 12. Though there must be room for doubt that an election so close to Christmas is a realistic option - February or March seems more likely to me.
Mrs C, of the arguments to stay in after all, that's probably the weakest.
People who don't bother voting or aren't eligible don't count.
The point is that babbling on about "The Will of the People" when you mean just over 1/3rd of them does not exactly confer legitimacy on the argument.
If the referendum had been set at a 66.7% level for victory, then "The Will of the People" would have a lot more force, but we seem to prefer the 50% + 1 vote method.
"Senior Tory MP asked to leave party conference after incident Police called after Geoffrey Clifton-Brown allegedly behaved in ‘totally unacceptable’ fashion"
Casual racism from Nico. She's British, sorry she's a bit brown and doesn't share your views.
What has being vile got to do with colour or race?
You must have missed the bit where he said she should be deported
Yep - and we deport criminals to Poland, France, Germany Bulgaria and Romania. We deport people based on place of origin or (for some unlucky UK born residents) the place their parents came from.
Patel talking bollocks at the conference: "It is to end the free movement of people once and for all. Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system. One that works in the best interests of Britain. One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best. One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application. So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire. On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is, it'll harm investment. Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
You're talking bollocks.
Australia with its Australian style points system has double the migration rate per capita that we do. It doesn't run short of attracting the creme de la creme and neither will we.
The best and brightest will manage to get through our migration system. As they already can Australia's.
It make me sad that you obviously haven't read what I wrote yet still felt compelled to disagree with it. The more of a system there is to "get through", the more people don't bother. That's the part of the way such a system works to reduce immigration. It's not just about quotas, it's about the extra administrative burden, the financial and opportunity risks involved in applying. Barriers to entry affect competition which affects quality. Ask anyone who has set up a business. The more paperwork, the less incentive there is. And what Patel wants to do is vastly increase the burden for a large proportion of those who would and do apply here.
Meanwhile, the UK has 6 universities in the world's top 30, Australia has none.
The EU referendum saw BOTH sides talking in apocalyptic terms. Lots of hyperbole, lots of lies, lots of misleading statistics and lots of fear-mongering. For Boris's bus I raise you Osborne's emergency budget. Was one required? Was it bollocks. Was Boris's bus a paragon of hard facts? Was it bollocks.
But all political campaigns are riven with the same high-falutin pledges and nonsense. The difference with this one is that it cut jaggedly across party lines and created severe discomfort for politicians in the main parties. It also gave an opportunity for lots of poor working class people in safe seats to cast a vote that counted for something, for once. And the way they voted pissed off a lot of gilded, comfortably-placed people.
I thought Cameron and Osborne ran good government. I thought the referendum was a bad idea. It's a shame that the EU Ref has destroyed Cameron's career and legacy.
But you can't put the lid back on Pandora's box and surreptitiously remain in the EU hoping no bugger notices, counting on a bit of finger-pointing at some bullshitting politicians to rectify the whole affair.
The problem has to be dealt with by leaving, and hopefully leaving in as orderly a manner as possible. Politicians on all sides need to be grown up about that.
Banging on about who lied and who misled for the next two decades is fine (and can remain the preserve of clever, wealthy people) but I'd suggest most of the country will reasonably-happily shrug their shoulders and get on with it. And I'd also aver that most ordinary people will consider Brexit to be a damn side less painful than the prospect of a Corbyn government.
That's why I hope Boris gets a deal and we can move on.
Comments
In the end, I just cannot reconcile the two opposing stories that Tories are trying to tell: that Labour Leavers are going to abandon Labour because it's moved too far towards Remain, and that the Lib Dems' firm Remain stance is going to drag Labour Remainers away. These two effects pull in opposite directions, and even though you'll find examples of both when door knocking, the numbers will probably end up somewhat cancelling each other out, and won't be as dramatic as many suspect.
At least, I heard a few of them are fans of 1930s German Raleighs.
It is well within the bounds of possibilities that either Tory or Labour could be decimated (and I do mean left with 10% of the seats) depending on outcomes and black swans.
Which people?
They get the doorstep feedback
Patel is much more fluent (and visually attractive - she is a very pretty lady), always has been, But you do get the impression she'd bring back hanging and firing squads.
Boris will unquestionably get a higher than normal 'personal' vote ("like the cut of his jib.. don't care about the policies"). He'll also alienate quite a few Tory remainers.
And in any case, look at how party fortunes changed during the campaign in 2017. Chuck in even-more polarised positions on both sides of Brexit and the awkward configuration of which parties are "leave" or "remain" Then imagine how some massive news story in the run-up to polling could change opinions either way this time.
When the election is called, it'll be time to chuck the cards in the air and see where they end up. Massive uncertainty IMO
The quote in the Gove article about a speech by the numbskull Stuart Rose, head of Stronger In Europe, is accurate. The moron really DID say in October 2015: (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-we-leave-the-eu-it-will-be-20-years-before-we-realise-britain-has-no-clout-hxr8n5l9jbk)
“Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change. Then, if you look back ten years later, there will have been some change, and if you look back 15 years later there will have been some."
You wonder why M&S is in a mess? Because he ran that business just as ineptly (I was a supplier throughout his mismanagement).
And you do realise that - just maybe - some of the Leavers made their decisions after carefully reading the Remain case first. And that Farage's obsession about Establishment plots to undermine the country may have some basis.
With Cameron and Rose making the case for economic stability, is it any wonder the disaster capitalists were the more persuasive?
A compromise isn't always the best solution, it can be a mish mash of positions that don't work in practice.
Remain is putting us back in the same place that generated the anti EU movement. There will be more fuel for those who want to stoke the anti EU fires as the core Euro zone countries will rightly follow programs that protect the currency. There is likely to be further integration, giving additional ammunition to the naesayers. Speaking of ammunition there may be a controversial (to the UK) move to an EU army.
Revoke only hard wires the current points of aggravation that spawned Euroscepticism and does nothing to reduce them. Remaining in a semi detached half in half out position can only stop wounds from healing and allow them to fester.
Revoke is one of the worst conclusions.
Followed by No Deal
Followed by Deal
Followed by in the Euro / Schengen and full membership.
Possibly.
is it therefore fanciful surely to try and argue that everyone who voted leave had absorbed and held in their head such detailed argument as is in the post header. Surely the vast majority of Leave voters had no interest in the details, they just wanted to Leave. they did not vote "Leave but only with a deal".
Almost everyone i speak to is fed up with this now. We need to leave, then we can go about negotiating trade deals, customs details and other things on which we can co-operate again. No it's not ideal, but ignoring the result is way worse.
Nov 5.6
Dec 2.24
2020 or later 2.52
Nov was under 3 yesterday - expectations increasing of delay!
But in 10 years time clever, wealthy, sneery people will still be arguing over the small print of the Leave campaign... saying their European identity was stolen by a bunch of knucklescraping racists who can't think for themselves.
As others have said it's just an anecdote, no more no less. I side with the view that Labour supporters when it come to it will stick with Labour, and have bet accordingly, but there does seem to be a bullishness amongst Tories (Nick Palmer commented similarly last night) and after Trump I'm leery of pooh poohing the celebrity aspect, unfathomable as I may find it.
"It is to end the free movement of people once and for all.
Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system.
One that works in the best interests of Britain.
One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best.
One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics"
As someone who has been through the process of migrating within the EU and outside of the EU, I can tell you the process of going through an immigration system that requires all the kind of upfront evidence that Patel is talking about is a royal pain in the arse. Frankly, it will put large numbers of people who would qualify off even completing the application.
So what, I hear you say. Well, even if you will breeze through the requirements, the time and money invested in applying is a barrier. And the real creme de la creme in science are people who will bring large grants with them, which are used to hire multiple people to a project. Those people will be put off applying here because they know the application process will be harder for the postdoc and PhD students they will want to hire. There is a a double-whammy of increasing the burden to get hired, and then to hire.
On top of all that, there is a giant competitor on our doorstep where 27 countries have free movement. If you want to set up a new research lab somewhere in Europe, EU countries will be more competitive because you have a larger pool to fish in. UK graduates are a minority of European graduates. If it were the other way around, this policy would suck investment into the UK from the EU. As it is,
it'll harm investment.
Patel's policy will control immigration numbers, but repel the brightest and best for purely pragmatic reasons.
People who don't bother voting or aren't eligible don't count.
Not, it won't put everyone off, of course it won't. But the harder you make the process, the more people will not bother.
And that's the key. If you're a top academic with a brilliant research proposal, and your pick of universities to go to, one of your main criteria will be can I hire from a competitive pool of talent there? This policy will create barriers to entry for graduates from overseas, which will deter investment. The USA can get away with it because of its size. The UK has little hope of matching that kind of critical mass in most fields. We will be forced to specialise, which will mean exporting jobs and losing talent in the short term, with the benefits of specialisation accruing somewhat later, if at all.
One of the few I bother to read in full.
Edited for danger of sexism.
Vile woman .
Any version of leaving the EU is a valid interpretation of the referendum result. Making the legal form argument is drawing a distinction without a difference. If the politicians cannot agree on a form of leaving, this is regrettable, but no blame could realistically be placed on anyone who has voted for the WA.
To hold VL responsible for the actions (sequencing, Chequers, WA, cont p94) of a government it did not form, and from which a number of its members resigned, seems congenitally churlish.
Remember, too, that the remain campaign's projections (a year-long recession, a million extra unemployed, breakdown of civilization, war in Europe, cont p94) have also been poor facsimiles of the reality.
And it's impossible, and I think unfair, to hold the a manifesto pledge to the same account as a float prospectus, contractual obligation, or solicitors' undertaking. Politicans, certainly in this country, with its avowedly party political framework, are responsible for 'the artof the possible'. A certain amount of fudge is often necessary and desirable in order to maintain broad consensus and legitimacy.
Finally, and I am not trying to make Premain and Cameremain 'happen',* the result of revoking A50, whether before or after a second referendum, is not the same as a 2016 remain outcome. Precisely nobody voted for that.
Any form of leave, in short, is legitimate. And no form of remain is.
*Obviously, I am.
The remain parties have a big problem unless one can advance away from the other.
Boris is parking all his tanks on Farages lawn
In reference to the point about hiring costs... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean the visa, legal and administrative costs to the universities of the extra immigration red tape? That's an issue to be sure, but I wasn't referring to it myself. I was talking about the process of foreign students/postdocs applying for positions here. The extra burden will deter some, reducing the pool of talent to hire from, deterring in turn researchers from choosing the UK to set up their labs.
To illustrate, if you could set up your lab in Germany or the UK, when you think about hiring the German lab will have 27 countries where it'll be easy to hire from and 1 where it'll be a pain. In the UK, you have 1 where it'll be easy to hire from, and 27 where it'll be a pain.
Which country do you choose, all other things being equal?
Australia with its Australian style points system has double the migration rate per capita that we do. It doesn't run short of attracting the creme de la creme and neither will we.
The best and brightest will manage to get through our migration system. As they already can Australia's.
Before the Vote, Norway was a legitimate Leave option.*
Now it isn't.*
*According to Brexiteers.
The legitimacy of what happens next will be decided at the ballot box, not by the language lawyers
On where I would go, I think it would depend more on the institution, availability of funding, job for my spouse rather than the immigration system.
People from across the world still get here so something must be working even if other bits can be improved. If we can stop relying upon the crutch of free movement then we will be better motivated to fix any flaws with our system that impede the creme de la creme from coming.
Its rather bigoted of @Noo to consider [primarily white] Europeans to be the "creme de la creme" we need to be attracting, rather than the creme de la creme of the entire world whether that be Asians, North or South Americans, Africans or indeed Europeans.
I think the debate has changed from "Whats best for the country" to "How can I best bury the other side" unfortunately.
2) There is some truth in this. I am aware of some academics who are reluctant to apply for positions in the UK on the grounds of uncertainty. However, almost all research jobs are over-subscribed by a large ratio, so I am not sure there had been any substantial effect of UK research.
Is that "colluding with a foreign power" ?
If the referendum had been set at a 66.7% level for victory, then "The Will of the People" would have a lot more force, but we seem to prefer the 50% + 1 vote method.
Police called after Geoffrey Clifton-Brown allegedly behaved in ‘totally unacceptable’ fashion"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/01/police-called-tory-conference-mp-geoffrey-clifton-brown
The more of a system there is to "get through", the more people don't bother. That's the part of the way such a system works to reduce immigration. It's not just about quotas, it's about the extra administrative burden, the financial and opportunity risks involved in applying. Barriers to entry affect competition which affects quality. Ask anyone who has set up a business. The more paperwork, the less incentive there is. And what Patel wants to do is vastly increase the burden for a large proportion of those who would and do apply here.
Meanwhile, the UK has 6 universities in the world's top 30, Australia has none.
The EU referendum saw BOTH sides talking in apocalyptic terms. Lots of hyperbole, lots of lies, lots of misleading statistics and lots of fear-mongering. For Boris's bus I raise you Osborne's emergency budget. Was one required? Was it bollocks. Was Boris's bus a paragon of hard facts? Was it bollocks.
But all political campaigns are riven with the same high-falutin pledges and nonsense. The difference with this one is that it cut jaggedly across party lines and created severe discomfort for politicians in the main parties. It also gave an opportunity for lots of poor working class people in safe seats to cast a vote that counted for something, for once. And the way they voted pissed off a lot of gilded, comfortably-placed people.
I thought Cameron and Osborne ran good government. I thought the referendum was a bad idea. It's a shame that the EU Ref has destroyed Cameron's career and legacy.
But you can't put the lid back on Pandora's box and surreptitiously remain in the EU hoping no bugger notices, counting on a bit of finger-pointing at some bullshitting politicians to rectify the whole affair.
The problem has to be dealt with by leaving, and hopefully leaving in as orderly a manner as possible. Politicians on all sides need to be grown up about that.
Banging on about who lied and who misled for the next two decades is fine (and can remain the preserve of clever, wealthy people) but I'd suggest most of the country will reasonably-happily shrug their shoulders and get on with it. And I'd also aver that most ordinary people will consider Brexit to be a damn side less painful than the prospect of a Corbyn government.
That's why I hope Boris gets a deal and we can move on.