England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel. People bang on about the Hugenots and whatnot, but they were a few tens of thousands of people who immigrated over several years. Until the very late 90s, the UK had flat net migration (and I grew up in an era of net emigration, the famous 'brain drain').
We've had mass immigration for around 14 years, with no particular benefit to our GDP/capita.
Empirically, old people and poor people (in particular) aren't keen on having ~4 million extra folk in the country in less than 15 years, hence Brexit.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Global net migration fell by almost 30 000 this year from 2015
We've just normalised huge influxes. 270k is the population of Derby. I don't mind, but we haven't really adapted any of our institutions to cope with rapid population change - look how long it's taken us to not expand our major airport and so forth. Nor are we thinking particularly hard about what happens if there is ever an actual Brexodus. The trouble with economic migration is that it's volatile.
The Tories have been waving the 100k target around for years and missing every time. It makes them look stupid, and frankly, mad. As @Stodge points out, if we needed (say) to import 200k doctors, then our immigration system should allow us to do so. We need the immigrants we need, if that makes sense.
A points system as Vote Leave promised then but even May's job offer on arrival requirement is different from EU free movement
1) If we are short of individuals with particular skills and can obtain those skills from the citizens of other countries, our migration policy ought to be aimed at attracting those skills here.
2) As a place of learning, we should be offering British education and training to help those from other countries develop key skills. Learn them here and then go back home and implement them.
3) Britain should continue to act as a place of refuge for those in genuine need through persecution, war or natural disaster and should do so as part of the international community in a co-ordinated way.
4) The immigration process needs to be transparent and fair and treat all citizens from all parts of the world, as far as possible, equally whether some form of points-based process or otherwise.
I am with you for 2) and 4) only. If we lack people with certain skills, it’s more sustainable for the State to either provide training itself, or incentivise the private sector to do so. We are the only European country which trains only 70% of required medical staff; I don’t think this is worthy of imitation. Ultra-high paid or net worth individuals are a different matter.
As for 3), this principle was fine in the immediate post-war period. It is not in an age of cheap flights when it is difficult to separate those who are migrating for the reasons you describe from those who migrate for economic reasons. Cameron was 100% right to point out that Britain did far more for Syrian refugees by funding camps in the region than Germany did with its Darwinian open-border free-for-all.
Thanks for the considered response. As far as 1) is concerned, I'm thinking really in terms of immediate skills shortages in specific areas. You are right to argue we should aim to fill the gaps ourselves but that often takes time and the need may be more immediate.
As far as 3) is concerned I don't know. There will be instances when providing temporary refuge in Britain to individuals and their families might be the only solution. Civil wars and the forcible expulsion of whole ethnic groups such as the Rohinga and the Keren people are a different order of magnitude of problem and require some different thinking.
The problem with camps in neighbouring countries is they become permanent and little more than holding centres. Policy should be directed toward a more robust international response to such actions (sanctions and the like) but Syria has shown how difficult that can be. It's not an easy one at all.
No it did not. The Tories kept immigration under control for 18 years, in less than 4 years there was little change, the surge into the 100s of 000s came from 2004
That's just absurd. There was the small matter of the Berlin Wall which was up for the first decade of the Conservative administration. Poland didn't join the EU until 1May 2004.
Yes, as you've repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam, Blair didn't introduce transition controls for migration - whether that was because the Government genuinely believed there wouldn't be a large-scale flow of people from Poland and elsewhere or whether it was a recognition that the importation of cheap labour was required to maintain economic growth I don't know.
We also don't know how a Conservative Government at the time would have acted under similar circumstances and based on similar advice from the Civil Service.
It's all irrelevant - you just use it as a stick with which to beat Labour.
Rightly so, it Labour who made that stick and cut low skilled workers wages and increased pressure on housing and public services as a result
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
London maybe not England and Wales as a whole
I think that probably true. At present I think 25% of births have one parent born overseas, but of course a lot of those are white. Different in London and Leicester, but also London in particular has great exchange of population with the rest of the UK, sucking in students and graduates, who then move out when having families, thereby distorting the birth figures for London.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
1) If we are short of individuals with particular skills and can obtain those skills from the citizens of other countries, our migration policy ought to be aimed at attracting those skills here.
2) As a place of learning, we should be offering British education and training to help those from other countries develop key skills. Learn them here and then go back home and implement them.
3) Britain should continue to act as a place of refuge for those in genuine need through persecution, war or natural disaster and should do so as part of the international community in a co-ordinated way.
4) The immigration process needs to be transparent and fair and treat all citizens from all parts of the world, as far as possible, equally whether some form of points-based process or otherwise.
I am with you for 2) and 4) only. If we lack people with certain skills, it’s more sustainable for the State to either provide training itself, or incentivise the private sector to do so. We are the only European country which trains only 70% of required medical staff; I don’t think this is worthy of imitation. Ultra-high paid or net worth individuals are a different matter.
As for 3), this principle was fine in the immediate post-war period. It is not in an age of cheap flights when it is difficult to separate those who are migrating for the reasons you describe from those who migrate for economic reasons. Cameron was 100% right to point out that Britain did far more for Syrian refugees by funding camps in the region than Germany did with its Darwinian open-border free-for-all.
Thanks for the considered response. As far as 1) is concerned, I'm thinking really in terms of immediate skills shortages in specific areas. You are right to argue we should aim to fill the gaps ourselves but that often takes time and the need may be more immediate.
As far as 3) is concerned I don't know. There will be instances when providing temporary refuge in Britain to individuals and their families might be the only solution. Civil wars and the forcible expulsion of whole ethnic groups such as the Rohinga and the Keren people are a different order of magnitude of problem and require some different thinking.
The problem with camps in neighbouring countries is they become permanent and little more than holding centres. Policy should be directed toward a more robust international response to such actions (sanctions and the like) but Syria has shown how difficult that can be. It's not an easy one at all.
Hammond is the obvious choice for May's replacement. I'm surprised he is mentioned so rarely.
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
Major also had a human touch and a sense of humour. I've not seen either with Hammond.
In as far as there could well be a swing against overt ideology, I tend to agree. However, that's not the same as individual dullness.
I'd also mention his age. Hammond is 62 now and would be 66 at the next GE, if in 2022. While that's not a bar - he's several years younger than Corbyn - nor is it a factor that's on his side. As it is, he's the oldest Chancellor since Macmillan and, if he's still there shortly into next year, would become the oldest since 1940.
Young cardinals vote for old popes, so even Hammond's age might be an advantage here.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Global net migration fell by almost 30 000 this year from 2015
We've just normalised huge influxes. 270k is the population of Derby. I don't mind, but we haven't really adapted any of our institutions to cope with rapid population change - look how long it's taken us to not expand our major airport and so forth. Nor are we thinking particularly hard about what happens if there is ever an actual Brexodus. The trouble with economic migration is that it's volatile.
The Tories have been waving the 100k target around for years and missing every time. It makes them look stupid, and frankly, mad. As @Stodge points out, if we needed (say) to import 200k doctors, then our immigration system should allow us to do so. We need the immigrants we need, if that makes sense.
Whilst I agree with your latter point it only works if we comply with your former.
So if we have somehow concluded that we "need" an extra 250-300k people a year (a pretty remarkable conclusion, but there we are,) we also need 100k extra houses, up to 100 extra schools, probably a dozen or so extra hospitals, maybe 1000 extra doctors, more public transport and infrastructure etc etc. It was the failure of our political class to address these needs in the face of Nimbyism that resulted in the referendum decision in my view.
Except that some of the strongest Leave areas were places like Copeland, the NE, Welsh Valleys etc where populations are stagnating or falling, housing ditto and school places too. Mean while the areas with highest immigration, houseprices and difficulties getting school places were in London and Home Counties, the heartland of English Remania.
Leave voting correlates better with the age profile of the area, and its relatively lowly economy.
Why would Canada treat the UK the same as the EU when our economy is different and they may not get the same benefits of that deal than before? Why would the US? Indeed, the US don't like the terms and want to force the UK to worse terms than when we were in the EU; if our supposed "special relationship" means a worse deal and challenges at the WTO what can we expect from others?
PB mistake #1 - Reason has no place in Brexit.
As long as we have blue passports and can thumb our nose at Johnny Foreigner then everything will be as it should be even if there is an economic disaster. At least any hardship will be self inflicted and that makes it OK because it is not just self-harm, it is British self-harm, the finest kind in the world....
Arguing against a caricature of your opponents most extreme argument will get nobody anywhere
Its what some Remain supporters have been doing for over 2 years....and they wonder why so few, if any, are changing their minds....
Very good posts today, Mr Russell.
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
The richest 10% of constituencies voted heavily Remain., These were essentially centres of government, the West End, parts of the London Stockbroker Belt, and some university seats.
The remaining 90% voted quite steadily Leave, without varying much by levels of affluence. Some very affluent places voted Leave, and some very poor places voted Remain.
So, was it educational level rather than wealth that determined whether you were a Remainer? Just asking.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
Part of me wants the No Deal to happen just so I can watch the Brexiteers explain why reality is wrong and they are right....
The other part of me knows better. No matter what the benefits to my Popcorn shares would be, Brexit will ruin this country for decades. I know it and the Brexiteers know it because they have said that the economic damage is worth it.
The Scottish Government published advice on the handling of harassment complaints against former ministers less than two hours after allegations against Alex Salmond were made public.....
.....The Scottish Government guidance, which was agreed in December 2017 and uploaded onto the internal civil service intranet at that time, was published at 11.40pm on Thursday.
Good for Alex Salmond. Someone needs to reintroduce old fashioned concepts of natural justice where someone's good name can remain intact until some evidence is forthcoming and at least shown to the accused.
The poorest in UK aren't starving like the poorest in Bangladesh or even the poorest in the UK 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean they aren't in a nightmarish situation. that they felt the need to escape from
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg, man of the people, and I claim my £5.
Q. Why are the leading Brexiteers generally extremely wealthy? A. They can afford the luxury of their ideology.
No. it's because the wealthy dominate political debate. The leading Remainers were also generally extremely wealthy (certainly by the standards of the ordinary man or woman in the street).
Just because Cameron and Osborne were also spoilt by the bank of mum and dad, does not mean that wealth is not a critical factor in enabling leading Brexiteers to take more extreme ideological positions than you might otherwise do if you have to pay a mortgage and have job at stake.
That would be a fair point were it not for the fact that very large numbers of people on lower incomes voted to leave. Protective wealth might be a factor now, in considering a No Deal Brexit. That said, I've not checked the polling but when 35% favour No Deal as against Chequers or Remain, that has to include many from the C2DE bracket.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
Hammond is the obvious choice for May's replacement. I'm surprised he is mentioned so rarely.
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
Major also had a human touch and a sense of humour. I've not seen either with Hammond.
In as far as there could well be a swing against overt ideology, I tend to agree. However, that's not the same as individual dullness.
I'd also mention his age. Hammond is 62 now and would be 66 at the next GE, if in 2022. While that's not a bar - he's several years younger than Corbyn - nor is it a factor that's on his side. As it is, he's the oldest Chancellor since Macmillan and, if he's still there shortly into next year, would become the oldest since 1940.
Young cardinals vote for old popes, so even Hammond's age might be an advantage here.
Is there any evidence to back up that saying, either politically or ecclesiastically?
Apart from anything else, it should really be fairly old cardinals vote for even older popes, surely? If you're a minister who's 45, there's a good chance you might get another shot providing you stay in the game; if you're 55, you don't want a Thatcher or Blair to bed-block for over a decade (though you might be happier with the election wins).
In fact, the best bet for another early election is to back a duffer (or to become Australian), but clearly personal and political interests clash there.
England and Wales are probably 10-15 years away from births to White Brits being a minority, vs 95%+ 50 years ago. It’s been remarkably peaceful by the historical standards of other nations/regions that have experienced such significant demographic change.
Why does "white" matter? The empire gave millions of none white people British status, and when it needed their labour the empire advertised in their countries to "come home" to the mother country. Even if England and Wales are minority white in 10-15 years doesn't make them not British.
What won the referendum for Leave was when pensioners decided that they were fed up with foreigners and when affluent Eurosceptics decided that they didn’t mind race-baiting in a good cause (a perspective they seem to share with Jeremy Corbyn).
I'm always appreciative when you share your novel insights into the human psyche.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
Exactly. No one is doubting that there are people who have been left behind in society.
The problem is that they chose the wrong target in the EU. Like the dog that gets kicked when someone comes home after a bad day at work, the Referendum meant that the EU was closest to hand.
What other option did they have to let the powers that be know they wanted change? People vent their pent up frustration by doing drastic, sometimes unwise, things.
Stop blaming "the powers that be", stop scapegoating people different to you and rather than breaking things to get attention, work together to find constructive solutions that actually address the real problems in a imperfect world.
Others, in much worse situations than us, have done that successfully in the past.
But you don't want to work together with leavers do you?
"How on Earth do you empathise with Jacob Rees Mogg"
Since the decisive groups were the old, who have never been as affluent as they are today, and a minority of affluent Eurosceptic obsessives (much overrepresented on here), it’s arrant nonsense.
The poor are being used as a figleaf for the reactionary actions of those groups.
I'll stick with Ashcroft. It was the DE and C2s who had the highest proportion of Leavers (64/36). That's more than the geriatric split (60/40).
C2DEs voted in similar numbers for Blair after a campaign in which the Conservatives said a vote for Blair was a vote for a federal Europe.
The lesson is that Eurosceptics taking that demographic as a Brexit bloc vote will be in for a rude awakening one of these days.
Blair kept us out of the Euro, it was when he started pushing uncontrolled immigration that C2DE voters shifted to the Tories and UKIP in 2005 and 2010
Immigration spiked from 1997. Why did the Tories do so badly in 2001?
The economy had performed very well from 1997 to 2001, and people still thought Blair walked on water.
An alternative explanation is that the right in opposition, finding ways to climb their way out of their '97 abyss, exploited the issue and poured fuel on it.
When the left are in opposition, they focus on other areas.
Hammond is the obvious choice for May's replacement. I'm surprised he is mentioned so rarely.
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
Major also had a human touch and a sense of humour. I've not seen either with Hammond.
In as far as there could well be a swing against overt ideology, I tend to agree. However, that's not the same as individual dullness.
I'd also mention his age. Hammond is 62 now and would be 66 at the next GE, if in 2022. While that's not a bar - he's several years younger than Corbyn - nor is it a factor that's on his side. As it is, he's the oldest Chancellor since Macmillan and, if he's still there shortly into next year, would become the oldest since 1940.
Young cardinals vote for old popes, so even Hammond's age might be an advantage here.
I’m not sure that voting for a charisma and dynamism free sixty something white male is the wisest choice. He would though be a very effective second to a leader (male or female) who has the attributes that he lacks.
Surely it does not matter as long as she believes in the Glorious Leader and the Hard Left? Anything else can be sorted out after the Revolution comes.
Both of our main political parties are in tatters. It is enough to make you weep
Surely it does not matter as long as she believes in the Glorious Leader and the Hard Left? Anything else can be sorted out after the Revolution comes.
Both of our main political parties are in tatters. It is enough to make you weep
As I said , the Labour party has a nest of vipers within. The Tories do as well, just different kinds of vipers.
Hammond is the obvious choice for May's replacement. I'm surprised he is mentioned so rarely.
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
Major also had a human touch and a sense of humour. I've not seen either with Hammond.
In as far as there could well be a swing against overt ideology, I tend to agree. However, that's not the same as individual dullness.
I'd also mention his age. Hammond is 62 now and would be 66 at the next GE, if in 2022. While that's not a bar - he's several years younger than Corbyn - nor is it a factor that's on his side. As it is, he's the oldest Chancellor since Macmillan and, if he's still there shortly into next year, would become the oldest since 1940.
Young cardinals vote for old popes, so even Hammond's age might be an advantage here.
Is there any evidence to back up that saying, either politically or ecclesiastically?
Apart from anything else, it should really be fairly old cardinals vote for even older popes, surely? If you're a minister who's 45, there's a good chance you might get another shot providing you stay in the game; if you're 55, you don't want a Thatcher or Blair to bed-block for over a decade (though you might be happier with the election wins).
In fact, the best bet for another early election is to back a duffer (or to become Australian), but clearly personal and political interests clash there.
Backing a duffer might favour ... ah but OGH will complain if we get him sued for libel. You make good points although the risk of being overtaken by the next generation must also be factored in. And I'd expect someone must have done the popes research.
Getting tough on anti-Semitism in the Labour party....it's all so predictable. Unfortunately, at best it gets a tiny mention some where and the world keeps turning.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
Maybe, but I suspect it wasn't just her that had a say in the matter.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
Maybe, but I suspect it wasn't just her that had a say in the matter.
It was her watch and her responsibility. I don't have much of a problem with immigration, particularly form the EU, but what I do have a problem with is the lies that are spouted over it. The only effect Brexit will have on migration is to discourage the very type of immigrants we want (the well educated) by making them think we are intolerant
She said they will be placed in the street and 'people flow through them', adding: 'We won't be specifically selecting people to go through them. They are designed to go with the crowd flow and detect any people who would think of bringing a knife to carnival.'
that is the best political cartoon I have seen in a while
Rees Mogg should have thought through his comment and seen this coming.
tbh, why would he care? It's the Standard.
He won't care, but that is because he is a fool and a joke
I hold no brief for Rees-Mogg, but he won't care because it's irrelevant. Political lampoonery has an honourable tradition in this country, however the Standard is entirely partisan and a vehicle for GO's sour grapes.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
There's a strong economic argument FOR immigration - indeed, this was behind Merkel's policy on Syrian refugees and is the counter-argument to Cameron's and indeed perhaps more attractive from a Conservative perspective.
Why waste human lives and potential having people and their families sitting for years living off western charity in camps when they came to your country, get work, earn money, pay taxes, gain self-worth and make a positive contribution to society?
For a Party supposedly keen on developing human potential and aspiration and helping families, I'm actually surprised Conservatives aren't more enthusiastic about immigration because economically and demographically it has made and continues to make sense.
Labour shortages ultimately lead to inflation and economic slowdown as we saw in the late 80s.The problem, as we know, is or are the non-quantifiable aspects of immigration which don't show up in employment or GDP numbers.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
Maybe, but I suspect it wasn't just her that had a say in the matter.
It was her watch and her responsibility. I don't have much of a problem with immigration, particularly form the EU, but what I do have a problem with is the lies that are spouted over it. The only effect Brexit will have on migration is to discourage the very type of immigrants we want (the well educated) by making them think we are intolerant
Yes, but no minister makes decisions in a vacuum. In any case, I think the majority of non-EU immigration is students, rather than low-skilled workers that seem to cause the most concern.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
There's a strong economic argument FOR immigration - indeed, this was behind Merkel's policy on Syrian refugees and is the counter-argument to Cameron's and indeed perhaps more attractive from a Conservative perspective.
Why waste human lives and potential having people and their families sitting for years living off western charity in camps when they came to your country, get work, earn money, pay taxes, gain self-worth and make a positive contribution to society?
For a Party supposedly keen on developing human potential and aspiration and helping families, I'm actually surprised Conservatives aren't more enthusiastic about immigration because economically and demographically it has made and continues to make sense.
Labour shortages ultimately lead to inflation and economic slowdown as we saw in the late 80s.The problem, as we know, is or are the non-quantifiable aspects of immigration which don't show up in employment or GDP numbers.
Mass insufficiently controlled immigration has driven down wages for the lower skilled due to increased supply of workers but no extra supply of low skilled jobs, increased rents and the cost of buying a home due to extra demand for housing and increased pressure on public services. Add to security concerns and concerns over migrants who do not sufficiently respect the culture of the home nation that has led to Brexit, Trump and the rose of populist parties like Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats and One Nation
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
There's a strong economic argument FOR immigration - indeed, this was behind Merkel's policy on Syrian refugees and is the counter-argument to Cameron's and indeed perhaps more attractive from a Conservative perspective.
Why waste human lives and potential having people and their families sitting for years living off western charity in camps when they came to your country, get work, earn money, pay taxes, gain self-worth and make a positive contribution to society?
For a Party supposedly keen on developing human potential and aspiration and helping families, I'm actually surprised Conservatives aren't more enthusiastic about immigration because economically and demographically it has made and continues to make sense.
Labour shortages ultimately lead to inflation and economic slowdown as we saw in the late 80s.The problem, as we know, is or are the non-quantifiable aspects of immigration which don't show up in employment or GDP numbers.
Mass insufficiently controlled immigration has driven down wages for the lower skilled due to increased supply of workers but no extra supply of low skilled jobs, increased rents and the cost of buying a home due to extra demand for housing and increased pressure on public services
I think those are examples of the problem stodge alluded to at the end there.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
Better crack on with the Sexit party then. Of course, I can bask in reflected glory as a gastarbeiter in London back in the day. I did my bit to keep the peasants of Wales afloat.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Global net migration fell by almost 30 000 this year from 2015
We've just normalised huge influxes. 270k is the population of Derby. I don't mind, but we haven't really adapted any of our institutions to cope with rapid population change - look how long it's taken us to not expand our major airport and so forth. Nor are we thinking particularly hard about what happens if there is ever an actual Brexodus. The trouble with economic migration is that it's volatile.
The Tories have been waving the 100k target around for years and missing every time. It makes them look stupid, and frankly, mad. As @Stodge points out, if we needed (say) to import 200k doctors, then our immigration system should allow us to do so. We need the immigrants we need, if that makes sense.
Whilst I agree with your latter point it only works if we comply with your former.
So if we have somehow concluded that we "need" an extra 250-300k people a year (a pretty remarkable conclusion, but there we are,) we also need 100k extra houses, up to 100 extra schools, probably a dozen or so extra hospitals, maybe 1000 extra doctors, more public transport and infrastructure etc etc. It was the failure of our political class to address these needs in the face of Nimbyism that resulted in the referendum decision in my view.
Except that some of the strongest Leave areas were places like Copeland, the NE, Welsh Valleys etc where populations are stagnating or falling, housing ditto and school places too. Mean while the areas with highest immigration, houseprices and difficulties getting school places were in London and Home Counties, the heartland of English Remania.
Leave voting correlates better with the age profile of the area, and its relatively lowly economy.
Plenty of Home Counties seats, particularly in Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire voted Leave as did a number of Outer London seats.
Yeah, it's not often I would have sympathy for Nicola but this is indeed a tricky one for her. I disagree fundamentally on her politics and I think her solutions to too many problems are bureaucratic, expensive and officious but I would also acknowledge that she is someone who tries hard to do the right thing as she sees it. This one obviously hurts but she is trying to do it right.
I think we may well have seen the end of Salmond as an SNP candidate.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
There's a strong economic argument FOR immigration - indeed, this was behind Merkel's policy on Syrian refugees and is the counter-argument to Cameron's and indeed perhaps more attractive from a Conservative perspective.
Why waste human lives and potential having people and their families sitting for years living off western charity in camps when they came to your country, get work, earn money, pay taxes, gain self-worth and make a positive contribution to society?
For a Party supposedly keen on developing human potential and aspiration and helping families, I'm actually surprised Conservatives aren't more enthusiastic about immigration because economically and demographically it has made and continues to make sense.
Labour shortages ultimately lead to inflation and economic slowdown as we saw in the late 80s.The problem, as we know, is or are the non-quantifiable aspects of immigration which don't show up in employment or GDP numbers.
Mass insufficiently controlled immigration has driven down wages for the lower skilled due to increased supply of workers but no extra supply of low skilled jobs, increased rents and the cost of buying a home due to extra demand for housing and increased pressure on public services. Add to security concerns and concerns over migrants who do not sufficiently respect the culture of the home nation that has led to Brexit, Trump and the rose of populist parties like Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats and One Nation
You say it is as though you are quite pleased with the result
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
That is most probably because EU citizens used to think this was an outward looking tolerant country where they could bring their families, expertise and often wealth. People with your views have made them think otherwise. Xenophobia is not a philosophy that is an easy export
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
There's a strong economic argument FOR immigration - indeed, this was behind Merkel's policy on Syrian refugees and is the counter-argument to Cameron's and indeed perhaps more attractive from a Conservative perspective.
Why waste human lives and potential having people and their families sitting for years living off western charity in camps when they came to your country, get work, earn money, pay taxes, gain self-worth and make a positive contribution to society?
For a Party supposedly keen on developing human potential and aspiration and helping families, I'm actually surprised Conservatives aren't more enthusiastic about immigration because economically and demographically it has made and continues to make sense.
Labour shortages ultimately lead to inflation and economic slowdown as we saw in the late 80s.The problem, as we know, is or are the non-quantifiable aspects of immigration which don't show up in employment or GDP numbers.
Mass insufficiently controlled immigration has driven down wages for the lower skilled due to increased supply of workers but no extra supply of low skilled jobs, increased rents and the cost of buying a home due to extra demand for housing and increased pressure on public services. Add to security concerns and concerns over migrants who do not sufficiently respect the culture of the home nation that has led to Brexit, Trump and the rose of populist parties like Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats and One Nation
You say it is as though you are quite pleased with the result
They were the inevitable product of a globalist wealthy elite and multinational corporations ignoring those lower doen the food chain. Automation and austerity added to the mix and it is not just the populist right on the rise, the populist left from Syriza to Melenchon to Corbyn to Five Star to Poddemos to Bernie Sanders are a symptom of the same backlash
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
That is most probably because EU citizens used to think this was an outward looking tolerant country where they could bring their families, expertise and often wealth. People with your views have made them think otherwise. Xenophobia is not a philosophy that is an easy export
I sincerely doubt many were bringing their wealth with them.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
"Plenty of Home Counties seats, particularly in Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire voted Leave as did a number of Outer London seats."
Quite a few swivel-eyed Col Blimp types in those areas I guess, more is the pity.
It was lower middle class and working class voters seeing stagnant wages and high rents and unaffordable house prices that were the key to the Leave win
"Anyway, the question I was interested in at the start was whether the percentage of graduates was an independent predictor of voting, even after taking account of age.
"Plenty of Home Counties seats, particularly in Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire voted Leave as did a number of Outer London seats."
Quite a few swivel-eyed Col Blimp types in those areas I guess, more is the pity.
It was lower middle class and working class voters seeing stagnant wages and high rents and unaffordable house prices that were the key to the Leave win
The older demographic that voted for Brexit were by and large the beneficiaries of the transfer of wealth caused by rising property prices.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
That is most probably because EU citizens used to think this was an outward looking tolerant country where they could bring their families, expertise and often wealth. People with your views have made them think otherwise. Xenophobia is not a philosophy that is an easy export
These being the same EU citizens voting for Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats, the AfD, Law and Justice, Fidesz, Golden Dawn and Wilders and the Austrian Freedom Party in significant numbers? The same EU citizens from the likes of Germany which imposed restrictive transition controls on Eastern European migration post their accession to the EU for 7 years unlike Blair's UK?
So, was it educational level rather than wealth that determined whether you were a Remainer? Just asking.
determined? determined? Because correlation and causation are definitely one and the same thing, are they not?
You'd embarrass yourself less, if you changed your posting name.
Ooh dear hit a nerve with my tongue in cheek QUESTION!
Um, no, because I am a very highly educated remainer, and why being within a question prevents an elementary error from being an elementary error, is anyone's guess. Not very good at this, are you?
"Plenty of Home Counties seats, particularly in Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire voted Leave as did a number of Outer London seats."
Quite a few swivel-eyed Col Blimp types in those areas I guess, more is the pity.
It was lower middle class and working class voters seeing stagnant wages and high rents and unaffordable house prices that were the key to the Leave win
The older demographic that voted for Brexit were by and large the beneficiaries of the transfer of wealth caused by rising property prices.
The median voter who voted for Brexit was 45 to 50.
It was not pensioners who got Leave over 50%, it was lower middle class and working class middle aged voters
I think you're going to have to share your working there.
Points in favour of Hammond include: 1) earlier this week pb'ers were asked to applaud the excellent state of the economy under Hammond 2) reality will converge on Hammond's Brexit cautions, making him seem a peerless sage 3) after Brexit, MPs will be looking for a quiet life and safe pair of hands 4) you can get 66/1 from Betfred
He's also incredibly dull, has as bad a tin ear for politics as Theresa May and is an unreconciled Remainer within a party for whom support for Brexit remains a sine qua non.
66/1 is about right.
See point 3. Incredible dullness may seem a virtue after the fireworks of Brexit over the last few years. Hammond could be 2019's John Major.
Major also had a human touch and a sense of humour. I've not seen either with Hammond.
In as far as there could well be a swing against overt ideology, I tend to agree. However, that's not the same as individual dullness.
I'd also mention his age. Hammond is 62 now and would be 66 at the next GE, if in 2022. While that's not a bar - he's several years younger than Corbyn - nor is it a factor that's on his side. As it is, he's the oldest Chancellor since Macmillan and, if he's still there shortly into next year, would become the oldest since 1940.
Young cardinals vote for old popes, so even Hammond's age might be an advantage here.
Is there any evidence to back up that saying, either politically or ecclesiastically?
Apart from anything else, it should really be fairly old cardinals vote for even older popes, surely? If you're a minister who's 45, there's a good chance you might get another shot providing you stay in the game; if you're 55, you don't want a Thatcher or Blair to bed-block for over a decade (though you might be happier with the election wins).
In fact, the best bet for another early election is to back a duffer (or to become Australian), but clearly personal and political interests clash there.
Backing a duffer might favour ... ah but OGH will complain if we get him sued for libel. You make good points although the risk of being overtaken by the next generation must also be factored in. And I'd expect someone must have done the popes research.
Fair point about a 'next generation' candidate (NGC) - though the number of MPs who would be negatively affected by a potential is substantially smaller than the contingent who might imagine themselves to be that NGC!
Mass insufficiently controlled immigration has driven down wages for the lower skilled due to increased supply of workers but no extra supply of low skilled jobs, increased rents and the cost of buying a home due to extra demand for housing and increased pressure on public services. Add to security concerns and concerns over migrants who do not sufficiently respect the culture of the home nation that has led to Brexit, Trump and the rose of populist parties like Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats and One Nation
The "low skilled jobs" clearly have been created as well as jobs in other sectors because the employment numbers continue to show more people in work therefore the economic argument suggests the current demand for workers is being met by the current supply of workers.
I don't argue with the rest of your contribution but these are the economic non-quantifiable impacts. Simply replacing one source of cheap labour (the EU) with another (Sub-Saharan Africa) doesn't make any difference. In the 1950s and 60s we had to accept Eastern Europe, as a traditional source for UK labour, was closed so we looked to the Caribbean for workers.
If the availability of workers is stifled too much there will be capacity problems and the kind of wage inflation which bedevilled Lawson in the late 80s.
We can have economic growth with fewer workers but that requires investment in technology and changes to business processes. At the moment, it's easier to hire another body than think through the difficult stuff.
HYUFD: "They were the inevitable product of a globalist wealthy elite and multinational corporations ignoring those lower doen the food chain. Automation and austerity added to the mix and it is not just the populist right on the rise, the populist left from Syriza to Melenchon to Corbyn to Five Star to Poddemos to Bernie Sanders are a symptom of the same backlash</"
That may be your convenient analysis but it is poor and simplistic. It is more likely that while there is some element of what you say it, is more a combination of poor education standards and a period of peace and relative prosperity (in historical terms) without precedent in Europe which has made people and governments complacent. That combined with a sudden tsunami of electronic information that can be manipulated massively by malevolent forces (mainly the Russians South Koreans and also others) and there is a huge influence of misleading and often deliberately fake news targeted at the gullible, with a deliberate strategy to undermine traditional leadership and media outlets by suggesting "they are all the same".
I am in no doubt that the referendum was coerced, which is why I don't buy the will-o-the-people crap.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
That is most probably because EU citizens used to think this was an outward looking tolerant country where they could bring their families, expertise and often wealth. People with your views have made them think otherwise. Xenophobia is not a philosophy that is an easy export
These being the same EU citizens voting for Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats, the AfD, Law and Justice, Fidesz, Golden Dawn and Wilders and the Austrian Freedom Party in significant numbers? The same EU citizens from the likes of Germany which imposed restrictive transition controls on Eastern European migration post their accession to the EU for 7 years unlike Blair's UK?
No. People who vote Lega Nord did not leave Italy.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
That is most probably because EU citizens used to think this was an outward looking tolerant country where they could bring their families, expertise and often wealth. People with your views have made them think otherwise. Xenophobia is not a philosophy that is an easy export
These being the same EU citizens voting for Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats, the AfD, Law and Justice, Fidesz, Golden Dawn and Wilders and the Austrian Freedom Party in significant numbers? The same EU citizens from the likes of Germany which imposed restrictive transition controls on Eastern European migration post their accession to the EU for 7 years unlike Blair's UK?
They are not "significant numbers". We are the only country that has been tempted by this retrograde and self-harming path
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
That is most probably because EU citizens used to think this was an outward looking tolerant country where they could bring their families, expertise and often wealth. People with your views have made them think otherwise. Xenophobia is not a philosophy that is an easy export
These being the same EU citizens voting for Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats, the AfD, Law and Justice, Fidesz, Golden Dawn and Wilders and the Austrian Freedom Party in significant numbers? The same EU citizens from the likes of Germany which imposed restrictive transition controls on Eastern European migration post their accession to the EU for 7 years unlike Blair's UK?
No. People who vote Lega Nord did not leave Italy.
"Plenty of Home Counties seats, particularly in Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire voted Leave as did a number of Outer London seats."
Quite a few swivel-eyed Col Blimp types in those areas I guess, more is the pity.
It was lower middle class and working class voters seeing stagnant wages and high rents and unaffordable house prices that were the key to the Leave win
The older demographic that voted for Brexit were by and large the beneficiaries of the transfer of wealth caused by rising property prices.
The median voter who voted for Brexit was 45 to 50.
It was not pensioners who got Leave over 50%, it was lower middle class and working class middle aged voters
Yes, but the elderly were significant. It is why we will most likely go back into the EU in about 20 years time, though under much less preferable terms that we left. I hope you are young enough to witness it
I gave Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on antisemitism. I can’t any more. The Labour leader’s comments about ‘Zionists’ in a 2013 speech were unquestionably antisemitic
HYUFD: "They were the inevitable product of a globalist wealthy elite and multinational corporations ignoring those lower doen the food chain. Automation and austerity added to the mix and it is not just the populist right on the rise, the populist left from Syriza to Melenchon to Corbyn to Five Star to Poddemos to Bernie Sanders are a symptom of the same backlash</"
That may be your convenient analysis but it is poor and simplistic. It is more likely that while there is some element of what you say it, is more a combination of poor education standards and a period of peace and relative prosperity (in historical terms) without precedent in Europe which has made people and governments complacent. That combined with a sudden tsunami of electronic information that can be manipulated massively by malevolent forces (mainly the Russians South Koreans and also others) and there is a huge influence of misleading and often deliberately fake news targeted at the gullible, with a deliberate strategy to undermine traditional leadership and media outlets by suggesting "they are all the same".
I am in no doubt that the referendum was coerced, which is why I don't buy the will-o-the-people crap.</p>
How comforting for you to think that Brexit is happening because people were coerced, rather than because other people value different things, reach different conclusions based on the same information, and have different economic interests to you.
"Plenty of Home Counties seats, particularly in Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire voted Leave as did a number of Outer London seats."
Quite a few swivel-eyed Col Blimp types in those areas I guess, more is the pity.
It was lower middle class and working class voters seeing stagnant wages and high rents and unaffordable house prices that were the key to the Leave win
The older demographic that voted for Brexit were by and large the beneficiaries of the transfer of wealth caused by rising property prices.
The median voter who voted for Brexit was 45 to 50.
It was not pensioners who got Leave over 50%, it was lower middle class and working class middle aged voters
Link to justify that stat??
As I recall, the age at which majority-remain turns into majority-leave was around 45-50. Which would put the median age of the leave voter above 50. Further, the median age of the entire electorate is 46, and leave voters are clearly above the median since remains are below.
I gave Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on antisemitism. I can’t any more. The Labour leader’s comments about ‘Zionists’ in a 2013 speech were unquestionably antisemitic
HYUFD: "They were the inevitable product of a globalist wealthy elite and multinational corporations ignoring those lower doen the food chain. Automation and austerity added to the mix and it is not just the populist right on the rise, the populist left from Syriza to Melenchon to Corbyn to Five Star to Poddemos to Bernie Sanders are a symptom of the same backlash</"
That may be your convenient analysis but it is poor and simplistic. It is more likely that while there is some element of what you say it, is more a combination of poor education standards and a period of peace and relative prosperity (in historical terms) without precedent in Europe which has made people and governments complacent. That combined with a sudden tsunami of electronic information that can be manipulated massively by malevolent forces (mainly the Russians South Koreans and also others) and there is a huge influence of misleading and often deliberately fake news targeted at the gullible, with a deliberate strategy to undermine traditional leadership and media outlets by suggesting "they are all the same".
I am in no doubt that the referendum was coerced, which is why I don't buy the will-o-the-people crap.</p>
How comforting for you to think that Brexit is happening because people were coerced, rather than because other people value different things, reach different conclusions based on the same information, and have different economic interests to you.
How conveniently credulous of you to think the opposite. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it was coerced.
The whole reaction to Brexit is an insight to the human psyche. When people feel a lack of control or loss, they lash out at whole swathes of people that are not like them.
We sometimes forget that mass immigration is very novel.
Where they're wrong is in thinking that we're going to have less immigration in the future. All that changes is the mix. Where that leads, who knows?
Global net migration fell by almost 30 000 this year from 2015
The Tories have been waving the 100k target around for years and missing every time. It makes them look stupid, and frankly, mad. As @Stodge points out, if we needed (say) to import 200k doctors, then our immigration system should allow us to do so. We need the immigrants we need, if that makes sense.
Whilst I agree with your latter point it only works if we comply with your former.
So if we have somehow concluded that we "need" an extra 250-300k people a year (a pretty remarkable conclusion, but there we are,) we also need 100k extra houses, up to 100 extra schools, probably a dozen or so extra hospitals, maybe 1000 extra doctors, more public transport and infrastructure etc etc. It was the failure of our political class to address these needs in the face of Nimbyism that resulted in the referendum decision in my view.
Except that some of the strongest Leave areas were places like Copeland, the NE, Welsh Valleys etc where populations are stagnating or falling, housing ditto and school places too. Mean while the areas with highest immigration, houseprices and difficulties getting school places were in London and Home Counties, the heartland of English Remania.
Leave voting correlates better with the age profile of the area, and its relatively lowly economy.
Plenty of Home Counties seats, particularly in Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire voted Leave as did a number of Outer London seats.
You are a very stubborn person and always answer back with a twist. The point Dr.Fox was making was that areas with the highest immigration voted Remain in big numbers.
Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire are not natural places where large number of immigrants live compared, to say, London, Birmingham, Manchester.
HYUFD: "They were the inevitable product of a globalist wealthy elite and multinational corporations ignoring those lower doen the food chain. Automation and austerity added to the mix and it is not just the populist right on the rise, the populist left from Syriza to Melenchon to Corbyn to Five Star to Poddemos to Bernie Sanders are a symptom of the same backlash</"
That may be your convenient analysis but it is poor and simplistic. It is more likely that while there is some element of what you say it, is more a combination of poor education standards and a period of peace and relative prosperity (in historical terms) without precedent in Europe which has made people and governments complacent. That combined with a sudden tsunami of electronic information that can be manipulated massively by malevolent forces (mainly the Russians South Koreans and also others) and there is a huge influence of misleading and often deliberately fake news targeted at the gullible, with a deliberate strategy to undermine traditional leadership and media outlets by suggesting "they are all the same".
I am in no doubt that the referendum was coerced, which is why I don't buy the will-o-the-people crap.</p>
How comforting for you to think that Brexit is happening because people were coerced, rather than because other people value different things, reach different conclusions based on the same information, and have different economic interests to you.
I gave Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on antisemitism. I can’t any more. The Labour leader’s comments about ‘Zionists’ in a 2013 speech were unquestionably antisemitic
HYUFD: "They were the inevitable product of a globalist wealthy elite and multinational corporations ignoring those lower doen the food chain. Automation and austerity added to the mix and it is not just the populist right on the rise, the populist left from Syriza to Melenchon to Corbyn to Five Star to Poddemos to Bernie Sanders are a symptom of the same backlash</"
That may be your convenient analysis but it is poor and simplistic. It is more likely that while there is some element of what you say it, is more a combination of poor education standards and a period of peace and relative prosperity (in historical terms) without precedent in Europe which has made people and governments complacent. That combined with a sudden tsunami of electronic information that can be manipulated massively by malevolent forces (mainly the Russians South Koreans and also others) and there is a huge influence of misleading and often deliberately fake news targeted at the gullible, with a deliberate strategy to undermine traditional leadership and media outlets by suggesting "they are all the same".
I am in no doubt that the referendum was coerced, which is why I don't buy the will-o-the-people crap.</p>
How comforting for you to think that Brexit is happening because people were coerced, rather than because other people value different things, reach different conclusions based on the same information, and have different economic interests to you.
Not comforting at all. It is frightening that 52% of the British people think it is good to advance the foreign policy agenda of Vladimir Putin. Those are "values" that I find highly questionable
"Anyway, the question I was interested in at the start was whether the percentage of graduates was an independent predictor of voting, even after taking account of age.
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
That's presumably because of the impending Götterdämmerung of Brexit rather than PM May doing anything one way or another.
The falling pound will also have had an effect by reducing the value of British wages when taken or sent back to the old country. Depending what country you come from, an economic recovery there will mean more jobs at home too.
HYUFD: "They were the inevitable product of a globalist wealthy elite and multinational corporations ignoring those lower doen the food chain. Automation and austerity added to the mix and it is not just the populist right on the rise, the populist left from Syriza to Melenchon to Corbyn to Five Star to Poddemos to Bernie Sanders are a symptom of the same backlash</"
That may be your convenient analysis but it is poor and simplistic. It is more likely that while there is some element of what you say it, is more a combination of poor education standards and a period of peace and relative prosperity (in historical terms) without precedent in Europe which has made people and governments complacent. That combined with a sudden tsunami of electronic information that can be manipulated massively by malevolent forces (mainly the Russians South Koreans and also others) and there is a huge influence of misleading and often deliberately fake news targeted at the gullible, with a deliberate strategy to undermine traditional leadership and media outlets by suggesting "they are all the same".
I am in no doubt that the referendum was coerced, which is why I don't buy the will-o-the-people crap.</p>
How comforting for you to think that Brexit is happening because people were coerced, rather than because other people value different things, reach different conclusions based on the same information, and have different economic interests to you.
How conveniently credulous of you to think the opposite. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it was coerced.
And the threats of punishment budgets etc. weren’t coercion?
Theresa May had the opportunity to manage/reduce 50% of immigration (that from outside the EU) and she did nothing. Anyone who is expecting significantly less immigration post brexit is likely to be as disappointed as the poster on here the other day that thought there would be less bureacracy
EU migration to the UK is already down 87 000 this year
That is most probably because EU citizens used to think this was an outward looking tolerant country where they could bring their families, expertise and often wealth. People with your views have made them think otherwise. Xenophobia is not a philosophy that is an easy export
These being the same EU citizens voting for Lega Nord, Front National, the Swedish Democrats, the AfD, Law and Justice, Fidesz, Golden Dawn and Wilders and the Austrian Freedom Party in significant numbers? The same EU citizens from the likes of Germany which imposed restrictive transition controls on Eastern European migration post their accession to the EU for 7 years unlike Blair's UK?
No. People who vote Lega Nord did not leave Italy.
How many ? The racists usually are the losers. They stay back and moan.
"Anyway, the question I was interested in at the start was whether the percentage of graduates was an independent predictor of voting, even after taking account of age.
I gave Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on antisemitism. I can’t any more. The Labour leader’s comments about ‘Zionists’ in a 2013 speech were unquestionably antisemitic
"Anyway, the question I was interested in at the start was whether the percentage of graduates was an independent predictor of voting, even after taking account of age.
Comments
As far as 3) is concerned I don't know. There will be instances when providing temporary refuge in Britain to individuals and their families might be the only solution. Civil wars and the forcible expulsion of whole ethnic groups such as the Rohinga and the Keren people are a different order of magnitude of problem and require some different thinking.
The problem with camps in neighbouring countries is they become permanent and little more than holding centres. Policy should be directed toward a more robust international response to such actions (sanctions and the like) but Syria has shown how difficult that can be. It's not an easy one at all.
1) the crossover is 10-15 years away
2) White Brits, not all white people
Leave voting correlates better with the age profile of the area, and its relatively lowly economy.
Just asking.
For example the Heir to the Throne would not be White British by that definition.
Part of me wants the No Deal to happen just so I can watch the Brexiteers explain why reality is wrong and they are right....
The other part of me knows better. No matter what the benefits to my Popcorn shares would be, Brexit will ruin this country for decades. I know it and the Brexiteers know it because they have said that the economic damage is worth it.
The whole topic is complex and makes some people squeamish, but the history of the US shows how important it is to politics.
I think Kevin Phillip’s ‘The Emerging Republican Majority’, although dated, is the classic work of the genre.
Apart from anything else, it should really be fairly old cardinals vote for even older popes, surely? If you're a minister who's 45, there's a good chance you might get another shot providing you stay in the game; if you're 55, you don't want a Thatcher or Blair to bed-block for over a decade (though you might be happier with the election wins).
In fact, the best bet for another early election is to back a duffer (or to become Australian), but clearly personal and political interests clash there.
https://order-order.com/2018/08/24/labour-clear-holocaust-mongers-candidate/
"How on Earth do you empathise with Jacob Rees Mogg"
You'd embarrass yourself less, if you changed your posting name.
Both of our main political parties are in tatters. It is enough to make you weep
She said they will be placed in the street and 'people flow through them', adding: 'We won't be specifically selecting people to go through them. They are designed to go with the crowd flow and detect any people who would think of bringing a knife to carnival.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6094719/Knife-arches-detectors-Notting-Hill-Carnival-London-time-violent-crime-wave.html
Why waste human lives and potential having people and their families sitting for years living off western charity in camps when they came to your country, get work, earn money, pay taxes, gain self-worth and make a positive contribution to society?
For a Party supposedly keen on developing human potential and aspiration and helping families, I'm actually surprised Conservatives aren't more enthusiastic about immigration because economically and demographically it has made and continues to make sense.
Labour shortages ultimately lead to inflation and economic slowdown as we saw in the late 80s.The problem, as we know, is or are the non-quantifiable aspects of immigration which don't show up in employment or GDP numbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
I think we may well have seen the end of Salmond as an SNP candidate.
Quite a few swivel-eyed Col Blimp types in those areas I guess, more is the pity.
Overall net immigration to the UK is down 25% since 2016
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/uk-net-migration-falls-by-almost-25-percent-post-brexit/amp/
The short answer is yes, it is."
http://www.statsguy.co.uk/brexit-voting-and-education/
It was not pensioners who got Leave over 50%, it was lower middle class and working class middle aged voters
I don't argue with the rest of your contribution but these are the economic non-quantifiable impacts. Simply replacing one source of cheap labour (the EU) with another (Sub-Saharan Africa) doesn't make any difference. In the 1950s and 60s we had to accept Eastern Europe, as a traditional source for UK labour, was closed so we looked to the Caribbean for workers.
If the availability of workers is stifled too much there will be capacity problems and the kind of wage inflation which bedevilled Lawson in the late 80s.
We can have economic growth with fewer workers but that requires investment in technology and changes to business processes. At the moment, it's easier to hire another body than think through the difficult stuff.
That may be your convenient analysis but it is poor and simplistic. It is more likely that while there is some element of what you say it, is more a combination of poor education standards and a period of peace and relative prosperity (in historical terms) without precedent in Europe which has made people and governments complacent. That combined with a sudden tsunami of electronic information that can be manipulated massively by malevolent forces (mainly the Russians South Koreans and also others) and there is a huge influence of misleading and often deliberately fake news targeted at the gullible, with a deliberate strategy to undermine traditional leadership and media outlets by suggesting "they are all the same".
I am in no doubt that the referendum was coerced, which is why I don't buy the will-o-the-people crap.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/24/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-zionists-2013-speech
As I recall, the age at which majority-remain turns into majority-leave was around 45-50. Which would put the median age of the leave voter above 50. Further, the median age of the entire electorate is 46, and leave voters are clearly above the median since remains are below.
Kent and Essex and Berkshire and Hertfordshire are not natural places where large number of immigrants live compared, to say, London, Birmingham, Manchester.