Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CBI give a thumbs up to Corbyn and Brussels said to be loo

124»

Comments

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We know that all immigration increases GDP, but have there been any studies in what effect immigration to the UK has had on GDP per capita?


    How could you isolate the immigration impact from everything else that's continuously changing in the economy?
    I imagine this would not be a simple exercise but surely it's in our interests to have an idea about whether immigration is a net benefit or a net drain, purely from a government's coffers perspective?

    To give an example, a family from a relatively deprived part of Europe move to the UK to take up jobs on the minimum wage. This is very sensible for the family as they can earn much more on the minmum wage in the UK than they can dream of earning back home. This family will increase our GDP but will at the same time cost the government money as the costs of providing healthcare, services and top up benefits will outweigh the minimal amount of tax collected. So according to the GDP stats their coming to the UK is a benefit but they are actually costing the country money.

    It would be good to understand whether the average immigrant is a cost or a benefit to the government's coffers.
    Almost no-one in work costs the government money,

    It's all people not in work. (And specifically the old.)
    Presumably you mean from a pure welfare POV, not including public service provision?
    No, I mean entire service provision.

    People in work cost the government very little in healthcare costs, nothing for pensions, and nothing for education (although their children might). Their presence adds nothing to the interest bill of the national debt (and probably nothing to the cost of the armed services). We probably do need to add something on for additional police and other law and order provision.

    The issue comes - of course - when they stop working.
    Would be interesting to see the analysis on a household basis. Suspect the healthcare and education costs of dependents might be somewhat more than those in work...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.

    If I were chancellor, that interest payment line item would be giving me cold sweats at night....
  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Talk of Coventry leads to this from 1981. Any excuse...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2oXzrnti4

    Released on June 20 1981 in Coventry ;)
    It's been a good few months since I worked there but should be renewing my contract in a few weeks, touch wood :)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840

    Just a few thoughts before heading into bed with a nice hot water bottle

    1. Are we sure this CU amendment would pass? It seems like there would be a few Labour rebels at least (Field, Hoey, Stringer at least, possibly Hopkins, Mann and (who knows) Skinner). You then add on those like Caroline Flint who feel nervous (probably rightly) that this will be interpreted as a cop-out / first step to heading back to the SM and so will probably abstain. On the Conservative side, Heidi Allen seems to have gone remarkably quiet of late. Wasn't there a report that her constituency chairman was furious at her behaviour? You start to add these factors in and the DUP, and the Government might be fine.

    2. Increasingly, I think we will see the DUP take a more hard line Brexit stance and their comments suggest that is the way they are heading. Not because they necessarily like it but because they have worked out that there is a risk that, if Brexit is thwarted because of NI, the more zealous Brexiteers may push for a united Ireland as a sacrifice worth paying to bring about their version of Brexit. That probably helps May in that it gives her more leverage over the DUP than may appear.

    3. Re Corbyn's CU speech today, the problem for Labour with its Brexit-voting WWC base is that Brexit was, in a large part, a big FU to their social superiors, including the middle class types who run the Labour Party today. I think the CU speech risks inflamming that again because it just sounded like the sort of smart-arse policy that some smarmy lawyer like Starmer would come up with to try and get round what people voted for.

    4. I have just been doing some analysis on Labour seats in traditional Labour areas and what sort of swing there has been to the Tories, and some of the swings should be worrying Labour. The Durham seats have seen something like a 10% swing to the Conservatives since 2005, Cumbria and Northumberland have both seen 8% swings to the Tories and some of the seats in Lancashire, such as Leigh and Makerfield, have seen double-digit swings. They still have healthy majorities in most, but not all, cases but I would not be so blase re traditional Labour voters voting for a donkey.

    One problem though. Labour does not have a "Brexit-voting WWC base", The VAST majority of Labour voters voted Remain.
    There have been swings to the Tories in these areas granted. But if you think the Tories are near to taking Leigh or Makerfield (where I grew up), or the 2 Labour seats in Northumberland (where I currently live)...then I have bridges at knockdown prices.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    I would imagine that if this law were introduced with the blessing of the EU, and a 2nd referendum called, the referendum could reasonably be justified and Remain would win by a landslide.

    The Swiss are much better at a lot of this stuff than we are. And in particular, they don't ask permission of the EU to do things.

    So, anyone resident in Switzerland is required to buy health insurance. But if you're a local, then you can buy cheap packages, or get them paid for by the government. Immigrants don't get that. So, it's theoretically treating everyone the same, but in reality it's a £4,000/year tax on immigrants.

    The other thing is that the Swiss - despite being members of Schengen - are ruthless at enforcing laws. If you employ an illegal immigrant (and that includes someone who is legally allowed to work, but who hasn't bought their compulsory health insurance), then you will be going to prison, and the illegal immigrant who shopped you will get a visa for their trouble.

    They pay illegal immigrants to grass up unscrupulous employers.

    Evil. But brilliant. The consequence is that there is virtually no "cash in hand" economy in Switzerland.
  • Cafe worker Gillian Austin, 48, said: “Corbyn’s policy is to get with the Tory rebels so he can get the government out. It’s more a political move to oust Theresa May.

    “I think less of him after this U-turn because he seems more to be saying what people want him to say. He’s determined to be the next Prime Minister.”


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-brexit-plan-hasnt-12093689
  • Genius optics...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    stevef said:

    MikeL said:



    Seems to be that T May can probably stall things long enough that there just won't be time for Govt to collapse and have a GE and new Govt to come in before October.

    Gosh I am stunned reading these Corbynistas fantasies. You really do live on a different planet dont you.
    Yeah, that's telling that Corbynista MikeL. No truck with Trots!

    (Psst: he votes Conservative)

    I agree wih the posts which cast doubt on whether the amendment will pass, though there are an awful lot of Tory MPs saying nothing, and I'm not sure we can assume they will vote solidly. The issue is more that whether it passes or not, it's a marker which gives Labour and dissident Tories a basis for voting against the final deal if it excludes a customs union.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.

    If I were chancellor, that interest payment line item would be giving me cold sweats at night....
    One of the few good things that Osborne/Alexander did was lengthen the maturity profile of the UK's government debt. This means rising interest rates would take a long time to feed through into a higher debt bill.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.

    If I were chancellor, that interest payment line item would be giving me cold sweats at night....
    In 2018/19 we are forecast to have a primary surplus (ie expenditure excluding net interest is covered by tax revenues). I don’t think that’s been the case for well over a decade.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.

    If I were chancellor, that interest payment line item would be giving me cold sweats at night....
    One of the few good things that Osborne/Alexander did was lengthen the maturity profile of the UK's government debt. This means rising interest rates would take a long time to feed through into a higher debt bill.
    Indeed - I remember reading something about that at the time (probably on here!).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    RoyalBlue said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.

    If I were chancellor, that interest payment line item would be giving me cold sweats at night....
    In 2018/19 we are forecast to have a primary surplus (ie expenditure excluding net interest is covered by tax revenues). I don’t think that’s been the case for well over a decade.

    As we certainly should do given where we are in the economic cycle.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.

    If I were chancellor, that interest payment line item would be giving me cold sweats at night....
    One of the few good things that Osborne/Alexander did was lengthen the maturity profile of the UK's government debt. This means rising interest rates would take a long time to feed through into a higher debt bill.
    While that's right generally doesn't that still depend on what the interest rate will be when they mature ?

    I doubt that back in 2010 people though interest rates would still be 0.5% in 2018.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    dixiedean said:

    Just a few thoughts before heading into bed with a nice hot water bottle

    1. Are we sure this CU amendment would pass? It seems like there would be a few Labour rebels at least (Field, Hoey, Stringer at least, possibly Hopkins, Mann and (who knows) Skinner). You then add on those like Caroline Flint who feel nervous (probably rightly) that this will be interpreted as a cop-out / first step to heading back to the SM and so will probably abstain. On the Conservative side, Heidi Allen seems to have gone remarkably quiet of late. Wasn't there a report that her constituency chairman was furious at her behaviour? You start to add these factors in and the DUP, and the Government might be fine.

    2. Increasingly, I think we will see the DUP take a more hard line Brexit stance and their comments suggest that is the way they are heading. Not because they necessarily like it but because they have worked out that there is a risk that, if Brexit is thwarted because of NI, the more zealous Brexiteers may push for a united Ireland as a sacrifice worth paying to bring about their version of Brexit. That probably helps May in that it gives her more leverage over the DUP than may appear.

    3. Re Corbyn's CU speech today, the problem for Labour with its Brexit-voting WWC base is that Brexit was, in a large part, a big FU to their social superiors, including the middle class types who run the Labour Party today. I think the CU speech risks inflamming that again because it just sounded like the sort of smart-arse policy that some smarmy lawyer like Starmer would come up with to try and get round what people voted for.

    4. I have just been doing some analysis on Labour seats in traditional Labour areas and what sort of swing there has been to the Tories, and some of the swings should be worrying Labour. The Durham seats have seen something like a 10% swing to the Conservatives since 2005, Cumbria and Northumberland have both seen 8% swings to the Tories and some of the seats in Lancashire, such as Leigh and Makerfield, have seen double-digit swings. They still have healthy majorities in most, but not all, cases but I would not be so blase re traditional Labour voters voting for a donkey.

    One problem though. Labour does not have a "Brexit-voting WWC base", The VAST majority of Labour voters voted Remain.
    There have been swings to the Tories in these areas granted. But if you think the Tories are near to taking Leigh or Makerfield (where I grew up), or the 2 Labour seats in Northumberland (where I currently live)...then I have bridges at knockdown prices.
    I wouldn't call 65% a vast majority. And there are large geographical variations as well.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    edited February 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.

    If I were chancellor, that interest payment line item would be giving me cold sweats at night....
    In 2018/19 we are forecast to have a primary surplus (ie expenditure excluding net interest is covered by tax revenues). I don’t think that’s been the case for well over a decade.

    As we certainly should do given where we are in the economic cycle.
    I know. I’m just trying to accentuate the positive :tongue:

    The Tories should not have given up on their goal of a surplus in this Parliament. It would be a great stick to hit Labour with.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Mortimer said:
    The SF one awaiting by election?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    RoyalBlue said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, it's worth looking at total central government spending of £606bn/year.

    £156bn in pension (old British people)
    £141bn healthcare (mostly old British people)
    £57bn welfare
    £48bn interest payments
    £45bn defence
    £41bn education

    That's 80% of the total.

    If I were chancellor, that interest payment line item would be giving me cold sweats at night....
    In 2018/19 we are forecast to have a primary surplus (ie expenditure excluding net interest is covered by tax revenues). I don’t think that’s been the case for well over a decade.

    As we certainly should do given where we are in the economic cycle.
    I know. I’m just trying to accentuate the positive :tongue:

    The Tories should not have given up on their goal of a surplus in this Parliament. It would be a great stick to hit Labour with.

    It would, but given a recession is surely statistically likely in the rest of the parliament, I'm not sure it would have been achieved anyway...

    A failed goal is worse than a goal delayed....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited February 2018

    @dixiedean :

    One problem though. Labour does not have a "Brexit-voting WWC base", The VAST majority of Labour voters voted Remain.
    There have been swings to the Tories in these areas granted. But if you think the Tories are near to taking Leigh or Makerfield (where I grew up), or the 2 Labour seats in Northumberland (where I currently live)...then I have bridges at knockdown prices.

    @RobD:

    I wouldn't call 65% a vast majority. And there are large geographical variations as well.

    @dixiedean :

    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:
    The SF one awaiting by election?
    Oh yes, thanks @Foxy
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited February 2018
    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    stevef said:

    MikeL said:



    Seems to be that T May can probably stall things long enough that there just won't be time for Govt to collapse and have a GE and new Govt to come in before October.

    Gosh I am stunned reading these Corbynistas fantasies. You really do live on a different planet dont you.
    Yeah, that's telling that Corbynista MikeL. No truck with Trots!

    (Psst: he votes Conservative)

    I agree wih the posts which cast doubt on whether the amendment will pass, though there are an awful lot of Tory MPs saying nothing, and I'm not sure we can assume they will vote solidly. The issue is more that whether it passes or not, it's a marker which gives Labour and dissident Tories a basis for voting against the final deal if it excludes a customs union.
    I suspect there is some fairly official whipping going on at the moment.

    I also suspect that Labour indicating they they'll voting for the amendment might be enough to deter some of the 'rebels' who have signed the amendment from actually voting for it.

    Politics is a funny old game.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    I don't think throwing away a third of your vote is an effective strategy. ;)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Mortimer said:

    stevef said:

    MikeL said:



    Seems to be that T May can probably stall things long enough that there just won't be time for Govt to collapse and have a GE and new Govt to come in before October.

    Gosh I am stunned reading these Corbynistas fantasies. You really do live on a different planet dont you.
    Yeah, that's telling that Corbynista MikeL. No truck with Trots!

    (Psst: he votes Conservative)

    I agree wih the posts which cast doubt on whether the amendment will pass, though there are an awful lot of Tory MPs saying nothing, and I'm not sure we can assume they will vote solidly. The issue is more that whether it passes or not, it's a marker which gives Labour and dissident Tories a basis for voting against the final deal if it excludes a customs union.
    I suspect there is some fairly official whipping going on at the moment.

    I also suspect that Labour indicating they they'll voting for the amendment might be enough to deter some of the 'rebels' who have signed the amendment from actually voting for it.

    Politics is a funny old game.
    I expect that the amendment will not get the votes, though it may well create some rancour, not least because Mays position is not far from Jezzas...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    The Labour strategy until today was very, very clever triangulation worthy of New Labour.

    A poll recently suggested that Labour lose out if they come out fully for Leave or Remain, didn't it?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Foxy said:

    Mortimer said:

    stevef said:

    MikeL said:



    Seems to be that T May can probably stall things long enough that there just won't be time for Govt to collapse and have a GE and new Govt to come in before October.

    Gosh I am stunned reading these Corbynistas fantasies. You really do live on a different planet dont you.
    Yeah, that's telling that Corbynista MikeL. No truck with Trots!

    (Psst: he votes Conservative)

    I agree wih the posts which cast doubt on whether the amendment will pass, though there are an awful lot of Tory MPs saying nothing, and I'm not sure we can assume they will vote solidly. The issue is more that whether it passes or not, it's a marker which gives Labour and dissident Tories a basis for voting against the final deal if it excludes a customs union.
    I suspect there is some fairly official whipping going on at the moment.

    I also suspect that Labour indicating they they'll voting for the amendment might be enough to deter some of the 'rebels' who have signed the amendment from actually voting for it.

    Politics is a funny old game.
    I expect that the amendment will not get the votes, though it may well create some rancour, not least because Mays position is not far from Jezzas...
    Indeed.

    My gut instinct is that rebels won't want to defeat the government on an issue of policy; process was an entirely different matter, hence the only win on the Brexit bill being over the 'meaningful vote', which will almost certainly be presented as a fait accompli anyway.
  • Mortimer said:
    Yes it's West Tyrone
  • Pong said:
    It's worth a read in full Pong.

    Quite clear some No10 involvement is expected but this might have been too much... it's paragraph 36
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    edited February 2018
    Someone is going to tell me how to pronounce Órfhlaith by the way!!

    Edit: Apparently it's just Orla.... think I can manage that
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    All May has to do is accept the Corbyn plan: UK in a custom union as long as the UK decides on other trade deals.

    When the EU rejects it -as it will because the EU empire will never agree to any member within its customs unions having the freedom to negotiate other trade deals -all she has to do is say that the EU has refused to agree.

    End.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited February 2018
    stevef said:

    All May has to do is accept the Corbyn plan: UK in a custom union as long as the UK decides on other trade deals.

    When the EU rejects it -as it will because the EU empire will never agree to any member within its customs unions having the freedom to negotiate other trade deals -all she has to do is say that the EU has refused to agree.

    End.

    Have you read or watched the Corbyn speech? He's not asking for the UK to negotiate trade deals independently (at least when it comes to goods) - indeed, he couldn't ask for that, because the whole point of a customs union is to have common tariffs, and the main point of trade deals in goods is to give beneficial tariffs to one another.

    What Corbyn is asking for is to have a "seat at the table" when the EU Customs Union negotiates deals, in the same way that we do now.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited February 2018
    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    The Labour strategy until today was very, very clever triangulation worthy of New Labour.

    A poll recently suggested that Labour lose out if they come out fully for Leave or Remain, didn't it?
    This may be true. Am not convinced today's "pivot" was necessarily the best move. However, it does have the advantage of 1) at least being a position (of sorts), and 2) putting pressure on the Govt to come up with their own position.

    My original quibble was with the phrase "Labour's WWC Leave voting base". It is a chimera oft-quoted. It exists, but never in the numbers assumed.
    Certainly not enough to constitute a base.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:
    Yes it's West Tyrone
    Ta!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    I don't think throwing away a third of your vote is an effective strategy. ;)
    Why not? Tories have done the same, and as the Labour vote is more concentrated, advantage Labour.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited February 2018
    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    Because the remainers could vote Green or Lib Dem or SNP or Plaid. The leavers only have one alternative given UKIPs effective disappearance.

    And of course there will be regional differences as has been pointed out. I expect we might find 80 or 90 per cent of the Labour vote in London is pro remain - and perhaps in the north midlands and Wales it is much less than 65 per cent.
  • Pong said:
    It's worth a read in full Pong.

    Quite clear some No10 involvement is expected but this might have been too much... it's paragraph 36
    The Young appointment seems slapdash - the more pernicious behaviour was from the No10 SPADS introducing new secret criteria “we don’t like them” into the Student rep appointment. But it’s been found out and brought to light. Good.
  • dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    IIRC polls show that circa 80% of current Labour supporters believe Brexit was a mistake. So the contention that only 65% of CURRENT Labour voters voted Remain is likely a major underestimate. Note that some 2015 Labour voters who voted Leave will have switched to the Tories in 2017 in places like Mansfield and Stoke.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    I don't think throwing away a third of your vote is an effective strategy. ;)
    Maybe not. But eventually a choice has to be made. Maybe Corbyn has blinked first in actually making a choice. But Brexit means choices. It can't be otherwise.
    What does HMG choose?
  • brendan16 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    Because the remainers could vote Green or Lib Dem or SNP or Plaid. The leavers only have one alternative given UKIPs effective disappearance.

    And of course there will be regional differences as has been pointed out. I expect we might find 80 or 90 per cent of the Labour vote in London is pro remain - and perhaps in the north midlands and Wales it is much less than 65 per cent.
    They have the alternative to stay at home and the alternative to vote on issues other than Brexit.
  • Danny565 said:

    stevef said:

    All May has to do is accept the Corbyn plan: UK in a custom union as long as the UK decides on other trade deals.

    When the EU rejects it -as it will because the EU empire will never agree to any member within its customs unions having the freedom to negotiate other trade deals -all she has to do is say that the EU has refused to agree.

    End.

    What Corbyn is asking for is to have a "seat at the table" when the EU Customs Union negotiates deals, in the same way that we do now.
    And why would they give us that?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    brendan16 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Mortimer said:

    dixiedean said:





    OK, a healthy, significant, substantial, hefty, considerable, large, you choose the adjective
    Whichever, 35% Leave does not constitute a "base".

    If they lost them all at an election, I suspect the Tories would win a landslide, though....
    Which is true. But, as I pointed out earlier, how many are Labour first and Leave second? Then you have Tory Remainers...
    Besides. If you have 65% of your voters Remain and 35% Leave, which is more important?
    Because the remainers could vote Green or Lib Dem or SNP or Plaid. The leavers only have one alternative given UKIPs effective disappearance.

    And of course there will be regional differences as has been pointed out. I expect we might find 80 or 90 per cent of the Labour vote in London is pro remain - and perhaps in the north midlands and Wales it is much less than 65 per cent.
    Yes, but Tory Remainers have options too. Mr Glenn did...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840

    Danny565 said:

    stevef said:

    All May has to do is accept the Corbyn plan: UK in a custom union as long as the UK decides on other trade deals.

    When the EU rejects it -as it will because the EU empire will never agree to any member within its customs unions having the freedom to negotiate other trade deals -all she has to do is say that the EU has refused to agree.

    End.

    What Corbyn is asking for is to have a "seat at the table" when the EU Customs Union negotiates deals, in the same way that we do now.
    And why would they give us that?
    You may as well ask why would they give us anything?
    Because it is a give and take.
    Am finding myself forced into a Remain place. I really don't want to be here, but every opportunity for compromise is hand waved away.
    At least ask the question.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Arse. I couldn't get "state of independence" edited in time, even if the 1981 version was the wanky Jon and Vangelis version instead of the later absolutely orgasmic Donna Summer cover
  • Interesting article on Jordan Peterson

    https://t.co/IF0bMAxUgB
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    edited February 2018
    And here's a thing. The frankly better Go-Gos version of 'Our Lips are Sealed' was 1981, but it wasn't a hit until Fun Boy Three covered it in '83...

    ...and of course, Fun Boy Three used to be in The Specials...

    ...which means we've looped round to the beginning. And I win the Internet... :)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    Kenneth Branagh, Eddie Izzard, Liam Neeson, James Nesbitt, Game of Thrones, the Titanic and Feargal Fucking Sharkey.
  • Labour is planning to “weaponise” its new softer Brexit stance to woo three million citizens from other EU nations who are eligible to vote in the forthcoming local elections.

    MPs have been writing to Europeans living in Britain appealing for their support at the ballot box in London and elsewhere in May.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-weaponises-brexit-to-win-votes-from-eu-migrants-k3sgldncg

    Will EU nationals (but non-U.K. citizens) lose their local authority vote after BREXIT?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    viewcode said:

    What have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

    Kenneth Branagh, Eddie Izzard, Liam Neeson, James Nesbitt, Game of Thrones, the Titanic and Feargal Fucking Sharkey.
    Pulsars, Bell’s Inequality, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the unit of absolute temperature.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    Labour is planning to “weaponise” its new softer Brexit stance to woo three million citizens from other EU nations who are eligible to vote in the forthcoming local elections.

    MPs have been writing to Europeans living in Britain appealing for their support at the ballot box in London and elsewhere in May.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-weaponises-brexit-to-win-votes-from-eu-migrants-k3sgldncg

    Will EU nationals (but non-U.K. citizens) lose their local authority vote after BREXIT?

    Unknown. Isn't the theory that residents get the vote in local elections, but British (and nationals of the former Empire) get the vote in national elections?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    And while I'm posting The Day Today, get some NewsDancer...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW9jcKsLSfQ
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited February 2018
    viewcode said:

    Labour is planning to “weaponise” its new softer Brexit stance to woo three million citizens from other EU nations who are eligible to vote in the forthcoming local elections.

    MPs have been writing to Europeans living in Britain appealing for their support at the ballot box in London and elsewhere in May.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-weaponises-brexit-to-win-votes-from-eu-migrants-k3sgldncg

    Will EU nationals (but non-U.K. citizens) lose their local authority vote after BREXIT?

    Unknown. Isn't the theory that residents get the vote in local elections, but British (and nationals of the former Empire) get the vote in national elections?
    Only Commonwealth and EU citizens including Brits can vote in local elections. Only Commonwealth, Irish and UK citizens can vote in national elections.

    The Irish, Cypriots and Maltese will keep their rights as those aren't granted via the EU - presumably other EU nationals with settled status might well keep their local election voting rights.

    It remains an oddity that Britain still allows Comonwealth citizens to vote here on the basis of legislation approved in 1948 when it is not reciprocal. Frankly the only non UK nationals who should have the right to vote in national elections are the Irish as Brits resident on the Republic can vote in Dail elections.

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-local-government-election
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    viewcode said:

    Labour is planning to “weaponise” its new softer Brexit stance to woo three million citizens from other EU nations who are eligible to vote in the forthcoming local elections.

    MPs have been writing to Europeans living in Britain appealing for their support at the ballot box in London and elsewhere in May.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-weaponises-brexit-to-win-votes-from-eu-migrants-k3sgldncg

    Will EU nationals (but non-U.K. citizens) lose their local authority vote after BREXIT?

    Unknown. Isn't the theory that residents get the vote in local elections, but British (and nationals of the former Empire) get the vote in national elections?
    It’s another QTWTAIN. :p
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited February 2018
    So she doesn't want Labour to back her amendment then - as they disagree with her policy?

    You might assume she could hold off on her tweeting for at least 24 hours?

    Seems she was in Paris yesterday holding discussions with French ministers on Brexit with Chuka Umunna?!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    brendan16 said:

    viewcode said:

    Labour is planning to “weaponise” its new softer Brexit stance to woo three million citizens from other EU nations who are eligible to vote in the forthcoming local elections.

    MPs have been writing to Europeans living in Britain appealing for their support at the ballot box in London and elsewhere in May.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-weaponises-brexit-to-win-votes-from-eu-migrants-k3sgldncg

    Will EU nationals (but non-U.K. citizens) lose their local authority vote after BREXIT?

    Unknown. Isn't the theory that residents get the vote in local elections, but British (and nationals of the former Empire) get the vote in national elections?
    Only Commonwealth and EU citizens including Brits can vote in local elections. Only Commonwealth, Irish and UK citizens can vote in national elections.

    The Irish, Cypriots and Maltese will keep their rights as those aren't granted via the EU - presumably other EU nationals with settled status might well keep their local election voting rights.

    It remains an oddity that Britain still allows Comonwealth citizens to vote here on the basis of legislation approved in 1948 when it is not reciprocal. Frankly the only non UK nationals who should have the right to vote in national elections are the Irish as Brits resident on the Republic can vote in Dail elections.

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-local-government-election
    I think there are one or two Commonwealth countries where British citizens are allowed the vote (Belize, Dominica, New Zealand and St Kitts & Nevis I believe, although there may be others).

    Personal view: we should definitely get rid of it for all countries that do not offer the reciprocal rights to British citizens. In theory, I'd probably generally get rid of it for everyone (except the Irish), as it's an anachronism, but given the countries involved are mostly utterly tiny, and it might make diplomatic wakes, there would be little harm in leaving it in place for the Dominicas of this world.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Labour is planning to “weaponise” its new softer Brexit stance to woo three million citizens from other EU nations who are eligible to vote in the forthcoming local elections.

    MPs have been writing to Europeans living in Britain appealing for their support at the ballot box in London and elsewhere in May.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-weaponises-brexit-to-win-votes-from-eu-migrants-k3sgldncg

    Will EU nationals (but non-U.K. citizens) lose their local authority vote after BREXIT?

    This is weaponise as in trying to get people who are entitled to vote to vote for them? What will they think of next?
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238

    Completely off topic...

    We're in London Weds/Thurs (trains permitting) for an overnighter to see Iolanthe at the Coliseum - got an afternoon and a morning spare... anyone recommend any exhibitions worth visiting? Cheers!

    https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/page/charles-i-charles-ii-joint-tickets-cake-break
This discussion has been closed.