/ Change UK

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
kevin stephens 25 May 2019

I’ve been wondering about the point of Change UK when most remain voters including previous Labour and Tory voters seem quite rightly inclined to vote LibDem, then it struck me. Change UK seems a convenient place for Tory MPs to defect to after Boris beats Rory ( who will come second in the MPs vote off as the two camps coalesce around their standard bearers) in the constituency party vote offs. Much more acceptable to then than going Lib Dem. Cue threat of general election to stop Boris’s no deal?

2
SuperstarDJ 25 May 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

A few reasons why I voted for Change UK.

Change UK because the LibDems can't seem to break through and will always be a wishy-washy protest party. I could never get excited about them.

Change UK because they're trying to be evidence based and not ideological in their creation of policies. 

​​​

Change UK because having spent 3 years hoping for Labour MPs to have the guts to quit what I see as a bullying, pro-Brexit, institutionally racist party, I need to support them and I hope more Labour MPs join them. 

Change UK because, while I disagree with Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen on some things, I have more respect for their intellect, integrity and moral compass than I do for the tribal dim bulbs in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and his coterie of rich public school Marxist advisors. 

Change UK because, while I lean towards the left, I don't want to demonise the right and think they have some answers that should be considered.

It was tough for Change UK in the Euros because they were so tactical and they had very little time to organise. I hope that once they get their policy platform together people will appreciate the cross party grown up policies that will (I hope) emerge.

12
kevin stephens 27 May 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

3.6% of the vote! Like I said no purpose to the party other than a jumping place for remain Tory MPs after Boris’ ascension 

Mike Stretford 27 May 2019
In reply to SuperstarDJ:

> Change UK because the LibDems can't seem to break through and will always be a wishy-washy protest party. 

Lib Dems were in government not so long ago. Change UK will merge with them soon. 

Most of the supporters Change UK want will either stick with the Labour, to try and shaped the future of the the party, or simply switch to the Lib Dems. 

David Riley 27 May 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Change UK will lose their seats next election.

krikoman 27 May 2019
In reply to SuperstarDJ:

> It was tough for Change UK in the Euros because they were so tactical and they had very little time to organise. I hope that once they get their policy platform together people will appreciate the cross party grown up policies that will (I hope) emerge.

They had a months less time than Farage's lot! But they're full of people who have no conviction or respect for the people who voted for them, they should have had by-elections, to prove their voters supported them, rather than assuming and trying to convince everyone they were right.

Funnily I have more respect for the Tory members of CUK than the Labour one's who I see as being against Corbyn from day one, and thought they'd start  landslide away from Labour, which didn't happen.

They, the Labour defectors are a bunch of opportunists, who have done poorly for their constituents, and have been shown to be liars on a number of issues including anti-Semitism. Joan Ryman for one was caught on video and still refused to accept it.

16
kevin stephens 27 May 2019
In reply to krikoman:

So presumably you also think the Tory defectors should have stood down too to allow their constituency associations to replace them with a former UKIP entriant?

1
SuperstarDJ 27 May 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> 3.6% of the vote! Like I said no purpose to the party other than a jumping place for remain Tory MPs after Boris’ ascension 

They were polling at around 4% so in line with expectations. I'm not sure where Tory defectors will go. Nick Boles just sits as an independent Tory so maybe they'd just do the same. I hope they do join Change UK though.

SuperstarDJ 27 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Who knows? I have voted Lib Dem tactically but it would be nice to have a party to believe rather than just a least worst option. If Change UK do fold then I'd vote for a remain party. Can't see myself being interested in Labour for the foreseeable future. 

SuperstarDJ 27 May 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> Change UK will lose their seats next election.

Probably. Another reason to admire them. Easier to sit quietly, toe the line and take the paycheck. Putting your livelihood on the line for what you believe in is much braver and more principled.

4
Wanderer100 27 May 2019
In reply to SuperstarDJ:

> Probably. Another reason to admire them. Easier to sit quietly, toe the line and take the paycheck. Putting your livelihood on the line for what you believe in is much braver and more principled.

That's a very contradictory statement. If they were brave and principled they would have resigned their seats and fought out by elections but of course they didn't because they are neither brave nor principled. In all likelihood they would have lost their seats so brave they most certainly not. More accurate to describe them as opportunistic and cynical.

11
SuperstarDJ 27 May 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Typically confused and tribal stuff from you.

Brexit party are a rebadged UKIP and are a single issue protest party. Not really comparable.

As I said elsewhere, Change UK MPs are unlikely to get re-elected so have put their political careers on the line. I call that brave and principled, not opportunistic. Quite a contrast with someone like Corbyn who took a fat salary from the taxpayer for 30 years whilst trying to undermine his own party and hiding behind Blair when there was talk of deselecting him. Or with Shami Chakrabati who took a peerage in exchange for a whitewashed report on Labour racism. 

Are you also calling for Corbynista MPs who've had the whip suspended to go too? I'm think of Chris Williamson (racism) and Jared O'Mara (misogyny). Or is it only a point of principle when it's people you disagree with.

By leaving Labour, Change UK have already prompted Tom Watson to take a stand against the anti-Semitism that's embedded in the leaders office, NEC and some CLPs. He's leading a fightback and good luck to him. Good to see Corbyn's support being eroded, loss by loss.

Anyway, you probably have more important things to worry about after last night. Labour are more screwed than the Tories. Nearly time for Corbyn to go. Tick tock tick tock.

7
SuperstarDJ 27 May 2019
In reply to Wanderer100:

I can see how it can be seen as cynical but how is it opportunistic?

I wish we had a political system that made it easier for new parties to start but we don't. They need time to develop a policy platform and organise activists. So it would be suicide to trigger by-elections. In this case you have to balance what's 'right' in the long term vrs what's 'right' in the short term.

That said, most MPs are elected on minority votes (less than 50%) so most of the country are represented by people they didn't vote for. MPs deliver the same constituency services regardless of how the constituent voted.

2
krikoman 28 May 2019
In reply to SuperstarDJ:

> Typically confused and tribal stuff from you.

Yes, I'm good at that, nice to start with an insult though

> Brexit party are a rebadged UKIP and are a single issue protest party. Not really comparable.

Didn't think I was comparing the two, except to say they've had roughly the same time to get ready for the Euro elections, they both have roughly the same number of policies, i.e. one.

> As I said elsewhere, Change UK MPs are unlikely to get re-elected so have put their political careers on the line. I call that brave and principled, not opportunistic.

You really think they went into this thinking they'd be folding after a single election? They, especially the Labour lot, thought they were the start of the floodgates opening, and they'd be followed by hoards of other Labour MPs and many LibDems too. Many of them have no principles, jumping before they were pushed. Their lack of principles is demonstrated by not seeking re-election by their constituents. It's a mark of how inflated their egos are, when they presume their constituents vote for them and not for the party they represent.

>Anyway, you probably have more important things to worry about after last night. Labour are more screwed than the Tories. Nearly time for Corbyn to go. Tick tock tick tock.

Ha ha, good one. we'll see what happens when Labour announce their supporting a second referendum, should we?

6
krikoman 28 May 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> So presumably you also think the Tory defectors should have stood down too to allow their constituency associations to replace them with a former UKIP entriant?


They should have all been up for re-election, otherwise it's a show of how little regard they have for the people who voted them.

I don't see why they should be replaced by UKip, if they're good MPs surly their constituents will vote for them, if their constituents vote for the party rather than the person then their original party gets back in. Why should people suddenly switch to someone totally different?

They were all saying they've done this for their constituents and they couldn't go one being tied to the parties they left, well if that's so and their constituents agree with that then they'll be getting their votes, won't they?

If they'd done this and won, then that's the best demonstration of respect they could get surely? If that indeed happened then they might have convinced more people to join them.

4
In reply to krikoman:

It’s interesting to see Jezza wriggling on the hook of leave. On the one hand he wants to be elected which probably requires remain. On the other hand, he can’t deliver his dream of a second Venezuela under EU state aid regulations so really, really wants to leave. He’s hoping to hide behind internal ‘opinion gathering’ while the Tories take us out, then get elected on the backlash. Now wash your hands.....

3
Mike Stretford 28 May 2019
In reply to paul__in_sheffield:

> It’s interesting to see Jezza wriggling on the hook of leave. On the one hand he wants to be elected which probably requires remain. On the other hand, he can’t deliver his dream of a second Venezuela under EU state aid regulations so really, really wants to leave. He’s hoping to hide behind internal ‘opinion gathering’ while the Tories take us out, then get elected on the backlash. Now wash your hands.....

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Milne/Corbyn/other close advisor meetings! I do suspect they have got a slightly better grip on reality than your summary. There's no doubt Corbyn would like a more left wing manifesto for Labour but the party wouldn't allow that... one thing I will say is he is trying to keep the party together. So they went into the last election with a fairly standard set left of centre policies, and support for Trident.

I also suspect they accept that it is very unlikely Labour will win an absolute majority in a GE. Labour would have to govern as the major party of a coalition. If more remainers thought that one through they might be realise it's smarter to concentrate on backing remainer parties who can take Tory seats, rather than kicking Labour. The alternative is the very real prospect of a Tory/Brexit party coalition......

Rob Parsons 28 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> ... There's no doubt Corbyn would like a more left wing manifesto for Labour but the party wouldn't allow that ...

In the context of UK politics, Labour's manifesto for the 2017 election was refreshingly radical.

One step at a time, comrade!

jkarran 28 May 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> Change UK will lose their seats next election.

It looks that way currently, there is no discernible clustering of the Change vote in their MPs' constituencies but a lot will change in the coming years and a GE vote for a locally respected candidate is different from a vote for a party list under the current strained circumstances. Only a fool would bet either way.

jk

MargieB 28 May 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Lib Dem Change Uk  - good winnable slogan for Lib Dem coalition -could very well work to get votes. And coalition to get no candidate crossover in General election. Useful co-operation in first past post system. I think that will be their major function and not a bad one.

MargieB 28 May 2019
In reply to SuperstarDJ:

But would you as a Change Uk voter sign up to constitutional change Lib Dem style eg Proportional Representation and a more federal system regionally?

Post edited at 11:57
jkarran 28 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I also suspect they accept that it is very unlikely Labour will win an absolute majority in a GE. Labour would have to govern as the major party of a coalition. If more remainers thought that one through they might be realise it's smarter to concentrate on backing remainer parties who can take Tory seats, rather than kicking Labour. The alternative is the very real prospect of a Tory/Brexit party coalition......

It'll be interesting to see how this 'Brexit Party' coup plays out in a GE, there is still a huge amount of inertia in the system when tribal/tactical voting habits interact with FPTP and years of gerrymandering. The 'betrayal' narrative gives them an edge on their previous UKIP incarnation and UKIP's recent dalliance with religious bigotry lends them an undeserved air of cleanliness by comparison but it's a leap to see them as king-makers. That said, who'd have thought the DUP would have been in this position either.

For all the talk of an early GE it still seems the less likely outcome. The Conservatives must be spooked by the warning shot they've received, squeezed hard from both ends by Brexit Party and LibDems. Labour can't be unshaken either but they at least have the freedom to clearly shift policy, re-engage their supporters and seek a pact with other remain parties *if* they're willing to accept the party's voter base has shifted, that the old coalition of working class labour and liberal urban young will not hold. Personally I doubt they can make this leap or manage the illusion more effectively than they have to date.

If we accept parliament cannot allow a no-deal*, won't accept the deal* and lacks the mandate to revoke as has been the case for the last year we keep coming back to them needing a new mandate since doing nothing will eventually become a non-option as the EU turns the screws.

*this could of course change but it is hard to see how at present.

For both big parties the referendum, especially one they can blame on the EU (catastrophic long term but the most likely seeming option) or each other is the safer form of democratic engagement. A GE in this febrile state risks the seats of many each side of the aisle and risks ceding effective control of the brexit process to a remain leaning coalition partner or Farage. It also potentially allows a couple of years to lick wounds and re-spin the whole sorry shambles whichever way the referendum goes. This offers squeezed MPs hope if no guarantee of success.

jk

Mike Stretford 28 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

>Labour can't be unshaken either but they at least have the freedom to clearly shift policy, re-engage their supporters and seek a pact with other remain parties *if* they're willing to accept the party's voter base has shifted, that the old coalition of working class labour and liberal urban young will not hold. Personally I doubt they can make this leap or manage the illusion more effectively than they have to date.

The leadership is talking about a confirmatory referendum on any deal negotiated. But that's not good enough, you want a 'leap'. I think the 'old coalition of working class labour and liberal urban young' could hold  just long enough to get a better outcome in a GE. I don't think it is the right time to give up on it, it's a purists preference but not pragmatic.

> If we accept parliament cannot allow a no-deal*, won't accept the deal* and lacks the mandate to revoke as has been the case for the last year we keep coming back to them needing a new mandate since doing nothing will eventually become a non-option as the EU turns the screws.

> *this could of course change but it is hard to see how at present.

I think you are making a huge assumption both on a GE and No Deal. I think that could spectacularly backfire.... if the last few years have taught us anything!

Post edited at 12:42
jkarran 28 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> >Labour can't be unshaken either but they at least have the freedom to clearly shift policy, re-engage their supporters and seek a pact with other remain parties *if* they're willing to accept the party's voter base has shifted, that the old coalition of working class labour and liberal urban young will not hold. Personally I doubt they can make this leap or manage the illusion more effectively than they have to date.

> The leadership is talking about a confirmatory referendum on any deal negotiated.

They've been talking about it for years. I await action. I believe Corbyn is still holding out for an election where Labour will be sadly but deservedly decimated to nobody's significant benefit.

> But that's not good enough, you want a 'leap'. I think the 'old coalition of working class labour and liberal urban young' could hold  just long enough to get a better outcome in a GE. I don't think it is the right time to give up on it, it's a purists preference but not pragmatic.

'Pragmatism' so far has clearly looked like indecisive weakness, a miserable failure of vision, responsibility and leadership. Good luck polishing that because it appears a lot of us who would willingly vote Labour where necessary simply are not willing to at the moment.

> I think you are making a huge assumption both on a GE and No Deal. I think that could spectacularly backfire.... if the last few years have taught us anything!

Just because I think that's the most probable outcome doesn't imply I think others are improbable.

For example it would only take a tiny handful of tories disgruntled by an ugly leadership fight, facing the near certain loss of their seats whatever to take a principled stand against a divisive leader. MPs are selected for loyalty above all else so while this is unlikely, it is not given the seriousness of the situation the nation has put itself in, impossible. A summer election changes everything, I wouldn't like to hazard a guess which way until the campaigns are fought but there appears to be money flooding to the no-dealers from somewhere, likely faster than the police/electoral commission can track it.

Equally parliament faced with no-deal on Halloween may choke and miss its opportunity to revoke A50 or a cynical/desperate enough leader may abuse the parliamentary process to deny them the opportunity, perhaps by ending the session prematurely.

Similarly Labour's position appears to be shifting, we may see Corbyn's advisers marginalised and Labour taking a leadership and advocacy role which could shift public opinion in regions that have been hard to talk to for the remain campaign to date.

jk

Post edited at 13:03
Mike Stretford 28 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> It'll be interesting to see how this 'Brexit Party' coup plays out in a GE, there is still a huge amount of inertia in the system when tribal/tactical voting habits interact with FPTP and years of gerrymandering. The 'betrayal' narrative gives them an edge on their previous UKIP incarnation and UKIP's recent dalliance with religious bigotry lends them an undeserved air of cleanliness by comparison but it's a leap to see them as king-makers. That said, who'd have thought the DUP would have been in this position either.

>Labour can't be unshaken either but they at least have the freedom to clearly shift policy, re-engage their supporters and seek a pact with other remain parties *if* they're willing to accept the party's voter base has shifted, that the old coalition of working class labour and liberal urban young will not hold.

Got to come back to this. It is clear that many remainers want some leap, some grand gesture, atonement for the sin of flirting with leave voters. I get that.

I don't see that ending well. All headlines turn on Labour for 'betrayal of the working class'. Those voters don't then disappear, they go vote for someone else. The GE you dismiss as unlikely suddenly becomes much more likely.

Mike Stretford 28 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> They've been talking about it for years. I await action. 

What action? There could be a 3 line whip on voting in a 2nd referendum bill, it still would not go through. There would still be a number of Labour rebels, that's the reality of the situation ans strong leadership wouldn't change that.... just divert attention away frm the Tory mess.

> 'Pragmatism' so far has clearly looked like indecisive weakness, a miserable failure of vision, responsibility and leadership. Good luck polishing that because it appears a lot of us who would willingly vote Labour where necessary simply are not willing to at the moment.

Well good luck with that, I really can't see where that's going to get us.

Post edited at 13:08
jkarran 28 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> >Labour can't be unshaken either but they at least have the freedom to clearly shift policy, re-engage their supporters and seek a pact with other remain parties *if* they're willing to accept the party's voter base has shifted, that the old coalition of working class labour and liberal urban young will not hold.

> Got to come back to this. It is clear that many remainers want some leap, some grand gesture, atonement for the sin of flirting with leave voters. I get that.

We simply will not have a Labour vote portrayed as a vote for a 'leave' party ever again. Lesson learned, I pragmatically voted Labour in 17 knowing we needed an organised bloc of pro-EU opposition with a malleable policy. Policy didn't shift in line with MPs', members' and voters' views so my vote has. It's there to be won back.

> I don't see that ending well. All headlines turn on Labour for 'betrayal of the working class'. Those voters don't then disappear, they go vote for someone else. The GE you dismiss as unlikely suddenly becomes much more likely.

Those working class pro-brexit votes don't go to the Tories who hold the key to an early election.

None of this ends well. If we escape without a far-right populist government, our country looted and balkanised we'll be doing spectacularly at this stage.

jk

Post edited at 13:10
Mike Stretford 28 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> We simply will not have a Labour vote portrayed as a vote for a 'leave' party ever again. Lesson learned, I pragmatically voted Labour in 17 knowing we needed an organised bloc of pro-EU opposition with a malleable policy. Policy didn't shift, my vote has. It's there to be won back.

Once again, a confirmatory referendum on any deal isn't good enough? And you know full well that would be set in concrete by the time a coalition was put together.

> Those working class pro-brexit votes don't go to the Tories who hold the key to an early election.

Nope, they go to the Brexit party. 

Post edited at 13:11
jkarran 28 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Once again, a confirmatory referendum on any deal isn't good enough? And you know full well that would be set in concrete by the time a coalition was put together.

It is with the caveat that the party advocates powerfully for remain and that we get this declared unambiguously as policy, no more suggestive tweets, no more weasel words, no more Starmer saying one thing, McDonnell another and Corbyn nothing.

> Nope, they go to the Brexit party.

Which triggers a premature election in which the Conservatives will lose a significant number of seats to Farage how?

jk

Mike Stretford 28 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Which triggers a premature election in which the Conservatives will lose a significant number of seats to Farage how?

They will probably have a new leader who won't lose seats to Brexit party, they might not even contest them. Labour will lose seats to the Brexit party.

Post edited at 13:37
jkarran 28 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> They will probably have a new leader who won't lose seats to Brexit party, they might not even contest them. Labour will lose seats to the Brexit party.

A new Conservative leader will now be judged on actions, not words when it comes to brexit. Not even a committed hardline quitter like Rees-Mogg will win voters back from Farage until they deliver brexit which parliament at the moment will not allow. It is hard to see any new PM having sufficient leverage to change that, reality brings them right back to where they start.

Labour loses seats either way in a pre-brexit election, it has to choose some or many bearing in mind that also impacts on how many new seats it stands to win elsewhere. Continued 'ambiguity' means it risks losing the some and the many while gaining none! Only the deeply loyal or the utterly brexit-ambivalent could countenance a Labour vote right now. There's a lot of us that are neither

jk

krikoman 28 May 2019
In reply to paul__in_sheffield:

> It’s interesting to see Jezza wriggling on the hook of leave. On the one hand he wants to be elected which probably requires remain. On the other hand, he can’t deliver his dream of a second Venezuela under EU state aid regulations so really, really wants to leave. He’s hoping to hide behind internal ‘opinion gathering’ while the Tories take us out, then get elected on the backlash. Now wash your hands.....


I'm pretty certain Labour have always held to the same plan and stance since day one, "we'll vote on the deal were offered" , when it happens!! Which we still don't know.

Prepare yourself for more anti-Semitism accusations / revelations in the run up to a GE if there is one.

Mike Stretford 28 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> A new Conservative leader will now be judged on actions, not words when it comes to brexit. Not even a committed hardline quitter like Rees-Mogg will win voters back from Farage until they deliver brexit which parliament at the moment will not allow. It is hard to see any new PM having sufficient leverage to change that, reality brings them right back to where they start.

The action will be to call a GE, that is the way to break the impasse. Farage has always been a campaigner/salesman for the hard right, including (and mostly) the Tory hard right.  A hard Brexiteer working with Farage is more likely if Labour gifts them with headlines of 'betrayal of the working class' now. Farage isn't daft, he knows the only chance of any real Brexit party power is in coalition with the Tories. Hard Brexiteers Tories know it would deliver  the no-deal they yearn

> Labour loses seats either way in a pre-brexit election, it has to choose some or many bearing in mind that also impacts on how many new seats it stands to win elsewhere. Continued 'ambiguity' means it risks losing the some and the many while gaining none!

It depends, I think people are generally more pragmatic than you. You know full well a Labour led coalition would deliver a 2nd referendum. You would vote against it because Labour aren't saying the words you want in unison. I would hope others would think more carefully about the future of this country when push come to shove.

HansStuttgart 28 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> It depends, I think people are generally more pragmatic than you. You know full well a Labour led coalition would deliver a 2nd referendum. You would vote against it because Labour aren't saying the words you want in unison.

This closely mirrors Cameron's reason for putting the EU referendum in the CON manifesto in the 2015? GE. He expected to get a coalition government with the LIB DEMs again and counted on the LIB DEMs to block the referendum. Irony

captain paranoia 28 May 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Ha ha, good one. we'll see what happens when Labour announce their supporting a second referendum, should we?

What will happen is that half the country will say 'a bit f*cking late...'

That's if Corbyn can actually make a decision on the issue. Judging by his (usual) mealy-mouthed ambivalence in a recent interview, I wouldn't hold you breath.

Mike Stretford 28 May 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> This closely mirrors Cameron's reason for putting the EU referendum in the CON manifesto in the 2015? GE. He expected to get a coalition government with the LIB DEMs again and counted on the LIB DEMs to block the referendum. Irony

Worth remembering that Scottish nationalism had a lot to do with that result...... also a reason why Labour won't get an absolute majority anymore.

Post edited at 17:47
MargieB 29 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

All remain parties are in a position of First past the post  conundrum. I'm in a constituency where all the dominant parties are remain. I'll vote green in GE and get a pre remain party anyway.

But other constituencies are more perilous between remain and brexit. How does one beat the FPTP system without coalitions or other candidtates of similar policies don't run against others of similar policies so as not to split the vote and let in a minority FPTP , in effect?

And will Labour ever want proportional representation now they are not part of a two party political framework?

and if Libs Dems form a coalition governement with minority Labour isn't the introduction of PR the agreement to get that power. ? Cause I think Lib Dems are a real contender to beat Labour in GE.

Post edited at 10:16
jkarran 29 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> The action will be to call a GE, that is the way to break the impasse. Farage has always been a campaigner/salesman for the hard right, including (and mostly) the Tory hard right.  A hard Brexiteer working with Farage is more likely if Labour gifts them with headlines of 'betrayal of the working class' now. Farage isn't daft, he knows the only chance of any real Brexit party power is in coalition with the Tories. Hard Brexiteers Tories know it would deliver  the no-deal they yearn

The action on whose part? There is no way in hell the conservative leadership is calling another stupid snap election election in the aftermath of last week's thrashing.

Farage and Corbyn can bleat all they like about wanting an election (baffling on Corbyn's part!) but the only way they get one is if the new PM can't face conceding a referendum (a referendum this year is survivable for the party, an election isn't) when they end up right back where May fell. Alternatively tory rebels with little left to lose decide to cut down a new PM bent on bypassing parliament.

> It depends, I think people are generally more pragmatic than you. You know full well a Labour led coalition would deliver a 2nd referendum. You would vote against it because Labour aren't saying the words you want in unison. I would hope others would think more carefully about the future of this country when push come to shove.

I know nothing of the sort and I'm certainly not willing to take another punt on them until we get crystal clarity on the issue, they have been shifty and equivocal for too long, eroding the trust of voters on both sides of the fence.

I think long and hard about where my vote goes and while I do hate tactical voting I am and have been willing to compromise those principles in the past. The Labour party with its please-nobody, commit to nothing strategy has worked impressively hard to lose the trust and respect its electorate. Let's now see if that message is sinking in, if they will finally choose a side.

jk

Mike Stretford 29 May 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> All remain parties are in a position of First past the post  conundrum. I'm in a constituency where all the dominant parties are remain. I'll vote green in GE and get a pre remain party anyway.

> But other constituencies are more perilous between remain and brexit. How does one beat the FPTP system without coalitions or other candidtates of similar policies don't run against others of similar policies so as not to split the vote and let in a minority FPTP , in effect?

Good point, and a good reason why Labour are right to be cautious. Numbers don't translate to seats.... ask David Steel/Roy Jenkins! There are calls for Labour to effectively give up on some seats they have so they can fight the Lib Dems for others.

> And will Labour ever want proportional representation now they are not part of a two party political framework?

> and if Libs Dems form a coalition governement with minority Labour isn't the introduction of PR the agreement to get that power. ? Cause I think Lib Dems are a real contender to beat Labour in GE.

There's a lot there to chew on! I think at the moment LibDems would have a Brexit related demand.... and i do think it's tactically wise to leave them room to bring in that demand. If SNP are in the coalition thy might be less keen on PR at Westminster!

PR.... personally I think it is the way forward for the UK now, though we'll only get that option if there is a non-Tory government. I don't think people have woken up to the threat posed by the Brexit party at an imminent GE. No they wouldn't be aiming for majority government themselves, obviously..... they will be there to take Labour seats Tories never could.

Mike Stretford 29 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> The action on whose part? There is no way in hell the conservative leadership is calling another stupid snap election election in the aftermath of last week's thrashing.

It depends on the new leader... I can see a clear path if a no dealer gets in. Not guaranteed, but by the same token I've got no faith in your crystal ball glazing. What I do firmly believe is that a big announcement from Labour now  will make that scenario more likely. 

> I know nothing of the sort and I'm certainly not willing to take another punt on them until we get crystal clarity on the issue,

Fine.... if your GE assumption is correct, it doesn't matter for a while. If you're wrong..... good luck getting a LibDem/ChangeUK/SNP/Green government later in the year.

Edit: Further more, if your GE election assumption is correct, a big Labour pro-Remain announcement has no effect either. As I said before, a 3 line whip on anything would not change the parliamentary arithmetic and would not bring round Labour rebels. Just lots of negative Labour new in the headlines.

Post edited at 11:06
Mike Stretford 29 May 2019
In reply to jkarran: Genuine question... can you see the Tories voting in a leader who is pro-second referendum? Or even one who is pro-Withdrawal agreement? If not, what are the options?

MargieB 29 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

That seems to be the hub of it. I can only see Boris- do nothing, give nothing- default WTO rules.And Eu results give them hope not to budge.They will have to be pushed with a no confidence vote. They had the numbers to push out May when she started to compromise. The Con internal election is a foregone conclusion and Rory Stewart and other Compromise Dealers haven't a chance.

ERG Rees Mogg gave his "papal" blessing  "nothing to worry about " speech yesterday. There there. Authoritarianism and a bit of soothing us along the way.

Post edited at 13:00
krikoman 29 May 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> What will happen is that half the country will say 'a bit f*cking late...'

> That's if Corbyn can actually make a decision on the issue. Judging by his (usual) mealy-mouthed ambivalence in a recent interview, I wouldn't hold you breath.


I'll have another go, I might just tattoo this to my profile, Labour are not in power, they have no say in the negotiations, because it's the government that has these negotiations, as hard as it is to look on from the outside, Labour are powerless in the whole debacle because they are not the government.

6
fred99 29 May 2019
In reply to krikoman:

>.... Labour are powerless in the whole debacle because they are not the government.

But Corbyn has aided the Tory government by hamstringing the Labour Party. Why - because he's an out-and-out Brexiteer.

jkarran 29 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> It depends on the new leader... I can see a clear path if a no dealer gets in. Not guaranteed, but by the same token I've got no faith in your crystal ball glazing. What I do firmly believe is that a big announcement from Labour now  will make that scenario more likely. 

So you think a no-deal leaning PM will throw away Conservative seats perhaps including his/her own in order to perhaps, though quite unlikely, form a Conservative/Farage coalition? Anything is possible of course, which isn't to say some things are credible. Prematurely ending the parliamentary session before the A50 clock ticks over would be a better bet *if* the aim is to deliver no-deal.

> Fine.... if your GE assumption is correct, it doesn't matter for a while. If you're wrong..... good luck getting a LibDem/ChangeUK/SNP/Green government later in the year.

I'm under no illusions, FPTP will leave the husks of the Labour party (unless they sort their act out) and the Conservative party to stagger on, probably still as no.1 and 2 in parliament even in the event of a complete rout. Still, if you don't vote *for* what you want you'll never get it. Unfortunately it occasionally is necessary to vote against something but at present the Labour party's muddled vision is not what I'm for and they are not credibly against what I'm against. That could change *if* they get serious about brexit opposition.

> Edit: Further more, if your GE election assumption is correct, a big Labour pro-Remain announcement has no effect either. As I said before, a 3 line whip on anything would not change the parliamentary arithmetic and would not bring round Labour rebels. Just lots of negative Labour new in the headlines.

It changes the number of tory rebels or abstainers required to tip the balance. It changes the narrative for the next PM when they come to seek a way out of the hole they've dug having lost the same battles May did. It removes an obstacle should the Conservatives (unable to command a majority on the issue) eventually conclude a referendum is the only safe-ish way out of this mess. It shapes public debate and opinion, it builds pressure.

jk

jkarran 29 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Genuine question... can you see the Tories voting in a leader who is pro-second referendum? Or even one who is pro-Withdrawal agreement? If not, what are the options?

Openly pro-referendum currently... No.

Pragmatic enough to eventually conclude it is the least damaging way out of this impasse... Maybe.

Able to recognise it is the only route through a hostile parliament to a very hard brexit with any hope of surviving the ensuing hardship... Quite likely.

Whoever they elect will have to pass the withdrawal agreement or call a referendum or call an election so in that respect, whatever they say while campaigning they will act to pass May's WA, likely substantially unaltered. Even a no-deal crash almost certainly ends in accepting the WA to put an end to emergency measures so we can move forward. No, I don't expect they'll elect anyone honest about that with the public or the membership.

jk

Post edited at 13:38
In reply to mark & jkarran:

Good points from both of you, and well argued - this thread has remained respectful and informative all the way through. Good show old sports!

jkarran 29 May 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> ...Labour are powerless in the whole debacle because they are not the government.

They're the official opposition to the most divided, incompetent, undermined, minority government in memory, one pushing a policy without social, economic or security merit, without clear public support and without parliamentary backing, indeed one against the interests of many of their own financial backers. Now that is a damning indictment!

Fortunately it's not quite right, they're not powerless, they're mostly just keeping their heads down. Uninspiring stuff but if an opposition truly cannot influence a government in this parlous state then what on earth is the point of having them!

jk

krikoman 29 May 2019
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> Good points from both of you, and well argued - this thread has remained respectful and informative all the way through. Good show old sports!


This is no place for compliments, now FO!

krikoman 29 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I'm as frustrated as you, or at least as you sound, but I'm still not convinced they could have done anything better, without being accused of "spoiling" TM "great" deal and therefore having to carry the can for some of the shit that's to come, if we leave, or now they have a bigger lever to push for a second ref. I don't think doing it before would have made it happen.

It might be wishful thinking on my part, but I think it had to get this bad to stand a chance of turning things around and a second ref. being an option. Or at least an option that might be put into action.

Mike Stretford 29 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> So you think a no-deal leaning PM will throw away Conservative seats perhaps including his/her own in order to perhaps, though quite unlikely, form a Conservative/Farage coalition? 

You don't know it is unlikely....... you seem to be basing this assumption on the popularity of an outgoing leader. Until we get the new Tory leader and see some opinion polls we just don't know. What we do know is results like Hartlepool are mirrored across Labours heartlands

Hartlepool, North East
The Brexit Party Share 52.7%(+52.7)
Labour Share 13.8%(-17.3)
Liberal Democrats Share 9.7%(+7.0)
UKIP Share 8.9%(-30.2)
Green Share 5.5%(+1.4)
Conservative Share 5.1%(-10.6)
Change UK Share 4.4%(+4.4)

Those results are not going to go unnoticed by Farage and the hard right no deal Tory candidates he is  in communication with.

> It changes the number of tory rebels or abstainers required to tip the balance. It changes the narrative for the next PM when they come to seek a way out of the hole they've dug having lost the same battles May did. It removes an obstacle should the Conservatives (unable to command a majority on the issue) eventually conclude a referendum is the only safe-ish way out of this mess. It shapes public debate and opinion, it builds pressure.

I don't agree. As I said a 3 line whip would not change how MPs are voting... they've not been taking any notice of leaders anyway. This isn't a topic that many people take there lead from the party on either. I really don't think it will achieve much, especially in the short term. Better to wait and see what the Tory leadership spits out.

1
Mike Stretford 29 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Openly pro-referendum currently... No.

> Pragmatic enough to eventually conclude it is the least damaging way out of this impasse... Maybe.

> Able to recognise it is the only route through a hostile parliament to a very hard brexit with any hope of surviving the ensuing hardship... Quite likely.

It's possible, but so are other scenarios you are ruling out. I would urge people to look at what happened in the US, and with Brexit, and be more open minded about the threats.  The New Tory/Brexit party coallition you see as not possible.... I think could do well under FPTP.

> Whoever they elect will have to pass the withdrawal agreement or call a referendum or call an election

Yeah.... 'or call an election'

Post edited at 15:50
Mike Stretford 29 May 2019
In reply to jkarran: Just to add... I know this is an absolute shit shower. I wish the Labour party were in a better place. I wish lot's of things were different, but we are were we are and there may not be time to turn them round. A sizeabale chunk of this country are keen on a hard Brexit, and their political representatives have got their act together, if we aren't careful they could pull off a hard right coup.

Post edited at 15:58
MargieB 30 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Labour's Corbyn has just committed to a second referendum on any deal. 

I don't think this appeals to people who want to remain in EU.

Maybe in a GE, combined with his arguments for the economy and domestic issues it may tip some hard brexiteers from a Farage / Boris style Conservative party because a GE is a broader discussion. 

I still think the Liberal Democrats will be more dominant in England, SNP in Scotland and then possibly Boris Conservatives may be edged out from a majority- the hard right administration . Maybe Labour's job is just that, to eek away votes to prevent   a Con majority than winning outright themselves. Corbyn has played it perhaps logically but it appeals to no-one and he isn't in a good position to call the inevitable No confidence vote that will trigger a GE because No deal is looming. He hardly has time to re-set his image because a GE will happen pretty quickly and the EU elections prove people have already made their minds up and will most likely vote similarly in a GE.

If I were Labour I'd head off to places like Preston where apparently Farage made a strong inroad and campaign like mad in Farage strongholds generally. He's lost the country as a whole and no chance in Scotland.

3
Tyler 30 May 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> Labour's Corbyn has just committed to a second referendum on any deal. 

No they haven't:

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1SZ2RI?

Usual duplicitous nonsense from Corbyn.

1
duchessofmalfi 30 May 2019
In reply to SuperstarDJ:

"intellect, integrity and moral compass"

<chokes, splutters and spits out tea>

jkarran 30 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> It's possible, but so are other scenarios you are ruling out. I would urge people to look at what happened in the US, and with Brexit, and be more open minded about the threats.

I'm not ruling anything out, I'm just attempting to rank the possibilities, some still seem very unlikely but things change.

> Yeah.... 'or call an election'

I included it because it's clearly a potential route out of the impasse, one with HUGE risks, one at present I don't think you could find a single tory MP to support from the future PM down.

If you believe any of the life-long Conservatives currently standing for leadership of a party in government, in distress but with options will willingly put an electoral-gun to the party's head and pull the trigger in the forlorn looking hope that they could rebuild a Farage-Conservative coalition with authority from the wreckage then I want some of what you're smoking. If it happens it's far more likely to be forced by Conservative MPs of one faction or the other.

jk

Mike Stretford 30 May 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> Maybe in a GE, combined with his arguments for the economy and domestic issues it may tip some hard brexiteers from a Farage / Boris style Conservative party because a GE is a broader discussion. 

> I still think the Liberal Democrats will be more dominant in England, SNP in Scotland and then possibly Boris Conservatives may be edged out from a majority- the hard right administration . Maybe Labour's job is just that, to eek away votes to prevent   a Con majority than winning outright themselves. Corbyn has played it perhaps logically but it appeals to no-one and he isn't in a good position to call the inevitable No confidence vote that will trigger a GE because No deal is looming. He hardly has time to re-set his image because a GE will happen pretty quickly and the EU elections prove people have already made their minds up and will most likely vote similarly in a GE.

I don't think the Lib Dems will be dominant but I can see a surge, very unpredictable under FPTP. It's a crap situation for Labour but I don't think the country has woken up to the problem. So Labour give up the post industrial working class seats and chase the graduate urban vote.... chasing the same voters as the Lib Dems. Who's left chasing the post-industrial working class vote?

As I think you allude to the country is in desperate need for political re-alignment but as you recognise there isn't time.

> If I were Labour I'd head off to places like Preston where apparently Farage made a strong inroad and campaign like mad in Farage strongholds generally. He's lost the country as a whole and no chance in Scotland.

Let's see what happens in Peterborough

jkarran 30 May 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> No they haven't:

> Usual duplicitous nonsense from Corbyn.

It's woefully unclear and wooly as usual for the simple and obvious reason he still can't bring himself to say the word 'remain', certainly not strung together in a sentence implying Labour's support for the position. The new position does however appear to be no deal to be signed without a deal-remain referendum.

Still... unless and until they're utterly unambiguous about that they deserve the kicking they're getting in the polls.

Personally I consider it the best policy of a bad lot, if we're going to stop brexit as I think we should we have to do it the same way we started it, by a simple single issue vote with same rules, the same franchise. I don't much like those caveats (UK resident EU citizens deserve their say) but they are necessary if we're to stand even a slim chance of moving past this as a nation.

jk

Mike Stretford 30 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> If you believe any of the life-long Conservatives currently standing for leadership of a party in government, in distress but with options will willingly put an electoral-gun to the party's head and pull the trigger in the forlorn looking hope that they could rebuild a Farage-Conservative coalition with authority from the wreckage then I want some of what you're smoking. If it happens it's far more likely to be forced by Conservative MPs of one faction or the other.

If you think that is such a 'forlorn' hope... I want some of what you're smoking. Lessons not being learnt.

Post edited at 10:48
Tyler 30 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> The new position does however appear to be no deal to be signed without a deal-remain referendum.

I don't think you can infer that from that interview, he says a ballot of a renegotiated deal (in itself that's just pie in the sky) and unspecified alternatives. Asked to clarify that these alternatives will include remain he does not say yes.

MargieB 30 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Another worrying thing about Corbyn is he is  busy waiting to time a No confidence vote to maximise his own  chance of  winning a GE outright-  But he is deluded that he or anyone can win a GE outright.

He is the official opposition and I think only he can table a No confidence vote. 

This  "timing" for his own supposed but delusional benefit is lethal in delaying a propitious time to do it to avoid No Deal i.m.o.. [ I think No confidence?GE cause Con PM be a Boris /hard Brexiteer who won't budge an inch and wants No Deal}

Post edited at 19:12
krikoman 30 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Hartlepool's weird place though and the people born there are not to be trusted.

fred99 31 May 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> Another worrying thing about Corbyn is he is  busy waiting to time a No confidence vote to maximise his own  chance of  winning a GE outright-  But he is deluded that he or anyone can win a GE outright.

> He is the official opposition and I think only he can table a No confidence vote. 

> This  "timing" for his own supposed but delusional benefit is lethal in delaying a propitious time to do it to avoid No Deal i.m.o.. [ I think No confidence?GE cause Con PM be a Boris /hard Brexiteer who won't budge an inch and wants No Deal}


Surely that's why he's delaying it - he wants us to leave with no deal, and will use every trick to ensure it, no matter how many people in even his own party (both at Westminster and beyond) are against it.

1
Mike Stretford 31 May 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> Another worrying thing about Corbyn is he is  busy waiting to time a No confidence vote to maximise his own  chance of  winning a GE outright-  But he is deluded that he or anyone can win a GE outright.

I do wonder what Corbyn's/Milne's thoughts are on that.

> He is the official opposition and I think only he can table a No confidence vote. 

Sure, but they did loose the last one by 19 votes, so it not just about a good time to win a GE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_vote_of_confidence_in_the_May_ministry

Labour (well, all the opposition parties) need a fair few Tories to rebel.... and a vote of no confidence is as big as it gets. They'd have to be staring down the barrel of no deal, and know it wasn't a bluff. There's  a handful of Labour rebels who would vote with the government too (Kate Hoey ect).

This is why I don't understand J's sureness about a GE.... all roads lead back to the parliamentary arithmetic.... the only way to change that is through a GE.

jkarran 31 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> If you think that is such a 'forlorn' hope... I want some of what you're smoking. Lessons not being learnt.

If as PM one's primary loyalty is as usually appears the case to the party what on earth in this climate would motivate one to call a snap election? The Conservatives are currently polling joint 3rd with Labour* and they're flat broke so a flashy campaign to turn that around is out of the question... they'd be counting on decades of careful gerrymandering and voter inertia just to to be in with a hope of a minority place in coalition, likely with the LibDems.

*FFS, wide open goals surround Corbyn here but he's still mumbling into his beard oblivious.

That's *if* the polls are right of course but with a safer form of democratic engagement available once Labour backs a referendum (hard to call a no confidence vote in a government implementing official opposition policy without taking a big credibility hit) I really don't see what makes you think any Conservative PM, especially in light of May's 2017 disaster  would even consider exposing their party and themselves to such a risk. Yes it's possible, most things are but it's absurd!

Labour are in as bad a position electorally if not worse assuming they don't clearly and unambiguously and united back a referendum with a remain option. However if they do they don't stand a cat-in-hell's chance of precipitating an election this year because they throw that lifeline to the floundering Conservatives.

jk

Post edited at 14:37
jkarran 31 May 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I don't think you can infer that from that interview, he says a ballot of a renegotiated deal (in itself that's just pie in the sky) and unspecified alternatives. Asked to clarify that these alternatives will include remain he does not say yes.

I'm not defending Corbyn, on this he is worse than useless, he's choking the party to death over this!

Still, if they're offering a vote on 'the deal' I just don't think for all his reluctance to utter the word he he'd have anywhere else to go other than to offer a choice between his mythical deal and remain.

jk

Tyler 31 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Still, if they're offering a vote on 'the deal' I just don't think for all his reluctance to utter the word he he'd have anywhere else to go other than to offer a choice between his mythical deal and remain.

You'd think, so if that's the case why doesn't he just say that? Too much has gone on for me to think anything other than he is giving himself wiggle room to do a U turn.

Mike Stretford 31 May 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> If as PM one's primary loyalty is as usually appears the case to the party what on earth in this climate would motivate one to call a snap election? The Conservatives are currently polling joint 3rd with Labour* and they're flat broke so a flashy campaign to turn that around is out of the question... they'd be counting on decades of careful gerrymandering and voter inertia just to to be in with a hope of a minority place in coalition, likely with the LibDems.

> *FFS, wide open goals surround Corbyn here but he's still mumbling into his beard oblivious.

I'll come back to this.

> That's *if* the polls are right of course but with a safer form of democratic engagement available once Labour backs a referendum (hard to call a no confidence vote in a government implementing official opposition policy without taking a big credibility hit) I really don't see what makes you think any Conservative PM, especially in light of May's 2017 disaster  would even consider exposing their party and themselves to such a risk. Yes it's possible, most things are but it's absurd!

All of the above hinges on one huge assumption you are making... that a new Tory leader cannot dramatically alter their ratings. I know you've heard of right -wing populism... and not going to pretend you haven't, you must know it is on the rise globally? And their's a Tory candidate who fits the bill? 

> Labour are in as bad a position electorally if not worse assuming they don't clearly and unambiguously and united back a referendum with a remain option. However if they do they don't stand a cat-in-hell's chance of precipitating an election this year because they throw that lifeline to the floundering Conservatives.

Labour only have a chance of winning a no confidence vote if Tories are willing to vote against their party in the mother of all rebellions. That means there's a no-dealer in number 10 and your big assumption is wrong.

> *FFS, wide open goals surround Corbyn here but he's still mumbling into his beard oblivious.

This is the nub of this discussion. I have no doubt ardent remainers like yourself do truly believe this, but it's just wrong. None of Labour's options are open goals, each one is crap. You only believe it because you have no interest in the negative implications of Labour backing remain like a flock of bleating sheep.*

*And, if we are honest a completely unrealistic expectation that that could happen.

1
krikoman 31 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> This is the nub of this discussion. I have no doubt ardent remainers like yourself do truly believe this, but it's just wrong. None of Labour's options are open goals, each one is crap. You only believe it because you have no interest in the negative implications of Labour backing remain like a flock of bleating sheep.*

> *And, if we are honest a completely unrealistic expectation that that could happen.

I agreed, up till the EU votes, the results of this gave Labour an out from their position, and I think they could have supported a second referendum, outright, no caveats. I think they should have done this, I think they'll end up doing it anyway, and many people are pissed of they haven't already. I can see why they might not have, up till now, but I really think they're pissing more and more would be supporters off.

Mike Stretford 31 May 2019
In reply to krikoman: I can see it going that way ... mainly because the discussion tends to takes place in seats Labour won't lose because of this policy (and to be fair might lose anyway). It's still a crap option.

tom_in_edinburgh 31 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> This is the nub of this discussion. I have no doubt ardent remainers like yourself do truly believe this, but it's just wrong. None of Labour's options are open goals, each one is crap. You only believe it because you have no interest in the negative implications of Labour backing remain like a flock of bleating sheep.*

Corbyn's idea of forcing a General Election no longer works because the EU election results and the latest opinion polls show pretty clearly that any GE before Brexit is committed one way or the other will become a proxy referendum on Brexit and it will be LibDem for Remain against either Brexit or the Tories for Leave.   Now it is clear that they have a chance of winning all the LibDems need to do to get almost all the Remain vote (in England) is to put withdrawing Article 50 in their manifesto.

Probably both Labour and the Tories have figured out that a GE before Brexit is resolved would put the LibDems in government and as a result they are both silently playing the run down the clock game to preserve their duopoly.

krikoman 31 May 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Not sure about that, once a GE is called Labour can campaign on a second referendum ticket, saying "we need to know what people think of the options", that way they've not f*cked up the Tory "deal" (whatever that turns out to be) and will have a mandate, assuming they win, to carry out the new referendum result, whatever that turns out to be.

Mike Stretford 31 May 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: You're assuming a static situation, which of course it isn't..... the Tories are about elect a new leader. The possibilities that opens are varied, and I do admit I'm thinking of the worst case scenario, which is:

Remain vote split between Lib DemsRemain Labour, versus Tories in soft coalition with Brexit party. Some seem to think that's far fetched, I don't, it's the obvious route and destination for a right wing populist. There are only so many scenarios.... and I can't see them going for another WAB backer, the'll have to go one way or another from that.

tom_in_edinburgh 31 May 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Not sure about that, once a GE is called Labour can campaign on a second referendum ticket, saying "we need to know what people think of the options", 

They can say that if they like but it won't fly.

1. There's no time to have a GE and a referendum before Brexit day and no guarantee of another extension.   If you vote for a party that promises a referendum they might not be able to deliver.

2. If there is a GE the LibDems and Brexit parties will turn it into a referendum.  People know whether they want to Leave or Remain and they will vote for parties with crystal clear positions not 'we need to know what people think'.  That's what happened in the EU elections.

After Brexit is irreversible both #bollockstobrexit and Brexit become irrelevant and its back to conventional Tory vs Labour politics.  That's why I think both Tory and Labour have a vested interest in running down the clock and not having a GE until Brexit is decided.  

FactorXXX 31 May 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> 1. There's no time to have a GE and a referendum before Brexit day and no guarantee of another extension.   If you vote for a party that promises a referendum they might not be able to deliver.

Organising a Referendum alone would take a minimum of 22 weeks and that's if Parliament vote to have one in the first place:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46426380

jkarran 31 May 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> All of the above hinges on one huge assumption you are making... that a new Tory leader cannot dramatically alter their ratings. I know you've heard of right -wing populism...

How? By selling the deal they've been attacking for a year a bit better than May did? Pretty much all they can do, Europe won't budge. 

> Labour only have a chance of winning a no confidence vote if Tories are willing to vote against their party in the mother of all rebellions. That means there's a no-dealer in number 10 and your big assumption is wrong.

I doubt the new PM will push them to that. 

> This is the nub of this discussion. I have no doubt ardent remainers like yourself do truly believe this, but it's just wrong. None of Labour's options are open goals, each one is crap. You only believe it because you have no interest in the negative implications of Labour backing remain like a flock of bleating sheep.

I know they all have downsides but none as large as the existing bullshit policy and we see from the LibDems what a bold clear pro EU message could have done for Labour's fortunes. I fear the coming volte face will be far too late if there is to be an election which remains unlikely.

The Conservative leadership are paying party bills on personal credit cards. The only way the party survives if it can deliver a survivable and saleable brexit (the right wing populism you mention). Too soft and Farage is breathing down their necks, too hard and it won't go through parliament or be survivable for voters and funders if Parliament is somehow bypassed but realistically they only have May's brexit available. Whoever is elected is going to spend their first couple of months pretending to overhaul it ready for sale as new and hard and glorious. Calling an election doesn't fit into that and if they fail to sell the new old bullshit an election looks worse still, with even less treasure left in the coffers. The remaining option is no-brexit by revokation of a50 after losing parliament, the death of the Conservative party plus untold chaos or a final roll of the dice with a referendum buying time to rebuild the party image if nothing else. 

Jk

MargieB 01 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Brexit is a much bigger battleground than changing UK politics which is an inevitable consequence of the bigger battle. I see Brexit as a massive battle of global  political ideologies which is becoming quite distinct now.

Farage/Trump/ China/Russia : an unfettered capitalism which is the feeding frenzy of the few as resources get slimmer.

 A Collectivism of Political groups like the Eu to factor into capitalism the human requirements of  global warming, the necessary energy revolution and social justice in a world of declining resources 

Old fashion socialism that Corbyn relates to  but now realises needs a level of larger collectivism through the EU organisation.

How Farage convinces the depressed area of UK of his political outlook beats me!The rich preaching too the not so rich- the investment advantaged classes preaching to those with none. But personality goes a long way- extraversion versus Corbyn's studied introversion. I don't think  Conservative figures like Rory Stewart will get anywhere because they are not distinct enough in their policies for world politics today. It is becoming a pretty stark choice.

krikoman 01 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Organising a Referendum alone would take a minimum of 22 weeks and that's if Parliament vote to have one in the first place:


The Swiss seem to be able to manage this in six weeks, maybe we could ask them to sort one for us.

1
FactorXXX 01 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> The Swiss seem to be able to manage this in six weeks, maybe we could ask them to sort one for us.

Perhaps you could, but the Swiss system of voting and using Referendums appears totally different to the way that the UK uses them.
Wonder how many years it would take to instigate a similar system?
That's assuming that Parliament actually approved it in the first place.
Anyway, don't worry, Corbyn will fix it.  I know that because he says he will...

Mike Stretford 02 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I know they all have downsides but none as large as the existing bullshit policy and we see from the LibDems what a bold clear pro EU message could have done for Labour's fortunes. I fear the coming volte face will be far too late if there is to be an election which remains unlikely.

Major changes are inevitable. Labour going fully remain would cause a split and there would have to be grown up conversations about how Labour and Lib Dems can best oppose the Tories and Brexit party. I think it could well precipitate an election, that's why I want people to acknowledge the 'downsides'...... pro-remain parties would have to work together and be aware of seats that could be lost to right wing populists

As a Labour member I would fully support a pro-remain policy, and I'm not defending Corbyn's stance. However, Labour's support for remain was never and will not be a game changer for remain. It would be a different party that emerged, it would only carry some of the traditional support. It was never a decision to be taken lightly and certainly isn't an open goal. 

> The Conservative leadership are paying party bills on personal credit cards. The only way the party survives if it can deliver a survivable and saleable brexit (the right wing populism you mention).

The only Brexit acceptable to right wing populists is no-deal. May's deal is 'surrender', 'betrayal' ect and as you say EU won't budge on it. 

> Too soft and Farage is breathing down their necks, too hard and it won't go through parliament or be survivable for voters and funders if Parliament is somehow bypassed but realistically they only have May's brexit available.

There will be funding for a no-dealer, as Margie says this is global. I know there are rules about funding but these are now sidestepped without consequence..... and certainly will be if they win.

> Whoever is elected is going to spend their first couple of months pretending to overhaul it ready for sale as new and hard and glorious. Calling an election doesn't fit into that and if they fail to sell the new old bullshit an election looks worse still, with even less treasure left in the coffers. The remaining option is no-brexit by revokation of a50 after losing parliament, the death of the Conservative party plus untold chaos or a final roll of the dice with a referendum buying time to rebuild the party image if nothing else. 

The right wing populists just don't see it like that, they see it as the Tories's salvation. I agree, it will be disastrous for them in the long run but they have a completely different political philosophy to us.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you that no-deal isn't on the cards. Not now, we are in a new political era, the old, sensible assumptions aren't valid.

Post edited at 15:07
Mike Stretford 02 Jun 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> Brexit is a much bigger battleground than changing UK politics which is an inevitable consequence of the bigger battle. I see Brexit as a massive battle of global  political ideologies which is becoming quite distinct now.

Agree!

> How Farage convinces the depressed area of UK of his political outlook beats me!

His brand of simplistic nationalism is seductive to a large minority, and a unified large minority is enough with FPTP.

jkarran 02 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

You keep saying if Labour splits, in the future... The problem is Labour's refusal to recognise the ground has opened up under them, they are split or they are consumed by the chasm they're trying to bridge.

I know there are downsides for Labour backing remain but they are realitve to the worse downsides in not. I know remain doesn't usher Labour to victory or Labour backing iusher in a bright new outward looking future, they've made some costly mistakes they and we just need to survive for now.

Unless you're convinced the future PM is effectively an acting as agent for another power, not a loyal Conservative first and foremost your 'yeah but populism' argument for a Conservative PM rallying party support to destroy the party so as to allow another party to maybe deliver a policy many of its MPs hate just doesn't make sense. For the foreseeable future the Conservative leadership and MPs will be moving heaven and earth to avoid electoral oblivion for fear of handing brexit to the other faction, LibDems or Farage in defeat. 

Jk

Mike Stretford 02 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> You keep saying if Labour splits, in the future... The problem is Labour's refusal to recognise the ground has opened up under them, they are split or they are consumed by the chasm they're trying to bridge.

I can assure you the divisions and the problems with the leaderships approach are not lost on most members. I think krikoman is also a member and is questioning the policy on this thread. My feeling is those who might challenge the policy are biding their time, and I don't blame them. I've heard lots of 'too little to late', and 'I'll never vote Labour again', but I don't think remainers would actually cut their nose the spite their face in seats that actually matter.

> I know there are downsides for Labour backing remain but they are realitve to the worse downsides in not. I know remain doesn't usher Labour to victory or Labour backing iusher in a bright new outward looking future, they've made some costly mistakes they and we just need to survive for now.

Agree.

> Unless you're convinced the future PM is effectively an acting as agent for another power, not a loyal Conservative first and foremost your 'yeah but populism' argument for a Conservative PM rallying party support to destroy the party so as to allow another party to maybe deliver a policy many of its MPs hate just doesn't make sense. For the foreseeable future the Conservative leadership and MPs will be moving heaven and earth to avoid electoral oblivion for fear of handing brexit to the other faction, LibDems or Farage in defeat. 

That's not a fair summary of what I've been saying or the situation with the Tory party. The no-dealers are not infiltrating outsiders. They are a sizeable, well established faction of the parliamentary party who have the backing of most of the membership. If the 'sensible' faction of the parliamentary party had the control you think they do we wouldn't be where we are now. Regarding the leadership we'll see what happens in the next month or so.... if I was a betting man I would leave this one alone. On the other hand you seem very sure about what will and won't happen.

Thing is though, if you are right in your assumptions Labour's policy of opposing the WAB will stop Brexit or lead to a 2nd ref. If there won't be a no-deal, if there won't be a general election, and the WAB won't get through this parliament, we'll stay, or get another referendum.......

Post edited at 18:20
Mike Stretford 02 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran: Seems like a good time to point out that a  slim majority (157/312) of Tory MPs voted for John Barons no deal motion in the first round of indicative votes....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47726787

Post edited at 19:16
jkarran 02 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

So what, you think that means they're willing to sacrifice their party, their careers and they're able to persuade viscerally opposed colleagues to do likewise and that to achieve their end they'd roll the dice on handing the reins to the LibDems? 

Jk

krikoman 03 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Perhaps you could, but the Swiss system of voting and using Referendums appears totally different to the way that the UK uses them.

Maybe we should change things around a bit.

> Wonder how many years it would take to instigate a similar system?

Who knows.

> That's assuming that Parliament actually approved it in the first place.

True

> Anyway, don't worry, Corbyn will fix it.  I know that because he says he will...

He might, but my reason for posting is to simply point out it doesn't have to take 22 weeks, there are, like so many things in life, different ways to do things.

Mike Stretford 03 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> So what, you think that means they're willing to sacrifice their party, their careers and they're able to persuade viscerally opposed colleagues to do likewise and that to achieve their end they'd roll the dice on handing the reins to the LibDems? 

That isn't how I see it. By my reckoning it would only take 105 Tory mps to unify behind a no deal candidate, and they would be in the final 2 that that go to the membership (just over 1/3). The 'sensible' majority of Tory mps could lose control of the process, to a membership that are overwhelmingly no deal (sounds familiar?). Are there 105 Tory mps that think no deal will be splendid? Who believe their own bullshit?

I'm not saying what will or won't happen, but you seem to think there are certainties based on an asumption about the combined competence of the Tory party. It is the Tory party who got us into this mess and lost control of parliament in an unprecedented manner, I feel you are being a tad over generous to them

jkarran 03 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> That isn't how I see it. By my reckoning it would only take 105 Tory mps to unify behind a no deal candidate, and they would be in the final 2 that that go to the membership (just over 1/3). The 'sensible' majority of Tory mps could lose control of the process, to a membership that are overwhelmingly no deal (sounds familiar?). Are there 105 Tory mps that think no deal will be splendid? Who believe their own bullshit?

Sorry, I think we're talking past each other. I'm assuming they will elect the worst case scenario, no-deal beserker hell bent on delivering a shock whoever that turns out to be. So be it, they are still constrained by the reality they face in office, whatever bullshit they have to vent to become PM. The EU will hold fast until they're dealing with someone who commands a reliable majority, the 'leader' we're about to suffer won't. Parliament won't allow no-deal. That quickly leaves the new hothead isolated from the members and backers who ousted May and pushed him/her to power trying to polish and re-brand May's deal. I suspect that will fail for the same reasons May couldn't pass it.

Then what, doing nothing forces parliament to revoke. The only option is to get a new parliament or a new mandate for the existing one.

A new parliament probably does not include the Conservative party as a force especially after a second Conservative PM has bungled brexit, its MP's are unlikely to be keen on facing the public under those circumstances and they will be needed to support their own premature dismissal. Also there is now the very real risk power passes to a full throated stop-brexit coalition or a Labour lead coalition that after dicking about trying to put it's unicorn kit together is back facing this reality within the year. Or Farage's lot come into play, quite likely they still won't command enough support in parliament to crash out, even if they do the next step after the first wave of looting is done with will be to beg for May's deal. The price paid for that version of brexit is the ritual sacrifice of the Conservative party, something I doubt more than a handful of Conservative MPs are willing to see, something I suspect even some Labour MP's would baulk at enabling considering what fills the void.

Perhaps someone more deliberate, more inclined to rebuild a coalition of support within the party and parliament could achieve something different, perhaps even get us out of the EU but it seems unlikely the membership go for him or her even if the MP's ensure they make the final cut. It also still seems unlikely this can be done without the explicit consent of the electorate.

They could deselect their way to a more united hard right Conservative party, they're clearly trying but they have dozens to purge before the balance really shifts. Even if the first few losses to Farage stiffen the resolve of existing Conservatives to press on they don't have time for this, the EU won't put up with that.

So what's left? A new mandate for parliament, it's been this way for well over a year now. We need to make a choice to press on with brexit, or not. Either way, if we don't choose it we don't get it. Those who've invested in this coup are clearly still willing to pay to protect it so faced with its possible loss I doubt they stand in the way, instead they will hose money into winning the public. Backing Farage to power still looks higher risk than using the sitting Conservative party, the complaint press and the unregulated social media networks to bend us to their will.

> I'm not saying what will or won't happen, but you seem to think there are certainties based on an asumption about the combined competence of the Tory party. It is the Tory party who got us into this mess and lost control of parliament in an unprecedented manner, I feel you are being a tad over generous to them

The only certainty is where we are right now. That leads us to reasonably conclude some courses of action are higher risk than others for the brexity PM we likely get, some more likely than others to therefore actually happen and to succeed if they do. As things change that assessment will too.

An election obviously remains a possibility but I find it hard to make a credible case for one being imminent considering the risks and benefits of the various alternative options to the people and party with the power to make it happen.

jk

Post edited at 10:34
Mike Stretford 03 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Sorry, I think we're talking past each other. I'm assuming they will elect the worst case scenario, no-deal beserker hell bent on delivering a shock whoever that turns out to be.

Not completely passed each other. I think if there is going to be an outbreak of sense in the Tory party it will happen in the next 6 weeks. For all the sense in your argument, and I admit there is a lot of sense, these arguments will be thrashed out during the leadership. If a no dealer gets through that I think it is going to be very difficult for them to back track later on.... especially as we have been through this once already.

I don't take it as a given that we will get a no-dealer, just not unlikely. I mentioned  the 160 who voted for no deal, most of them also voted for the WAB at May's 3rd try, all but 28 of them. I think there will be a lot of private conversations over the next few weeks between them and the more moderate Tories. I think they will agree to stick with whatever policy emerges. Like Labour the Tories have a circle they can't square, they are going to have to take a hard hit, they know it. You think it will be a uturn and fudge type hit, I'm not sure... I'm might have agreed with you before, not in this new global era.

Post edited at 13:34
Mike Stretford 04 Jun 2019
krikoman 04 Jun 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Opportunists, who f8cked themselves. If they'd called by-elections at the time, I'd have had a lot more respect, and I think more people would have too.

I think their ego's got the better of them and they we expecting a snowball effect that never materialised.

2
MargieB 05 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

I'm more sympathetic to the idea they are part of  a new , less tribal, more idea- based  political culture.They  felt free to shift away from a two party amorphous system and tease out diversity in politics to reflect the more complex issues of the day. If they shift again- so be it. The  overall shift is more centrist and left versus more right. The remaining 5 are a place for the Rory Stewarts and Dominic Grieves of the Con party who I'm afraid are nowhere because they aren't strong enough in any ideas. Chukka and Anna are strong enough politicians to take people their way. Chukka has gone for admirable coalition as the  new political future and we can all see that - I think as a good force. Anna didn't- old hat! What is wrong with that- evolving politics- good! Splits versus tribal loyalty - splits are improving our political culture and how democracy should work so ideas get ahead. In autocracies no political diversity is ever allowed. Oh that reminds me of Trump yesterday saying he'd rather not talk to someone who disagrees with him cause it is a waste of time { in a one party system!!}!!!!

Post edited at 10:05
jkarran 05 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Like Labour the Tories have a circle they can't square, they are going to have to take a hard hit, they know it. You think it will be a uturn and fudge type hit, I'm not sure... I'm might have agreed with you before, not in this new global era.

I'm not sure either but I don't view a referendum as a U-turn and fudge, I view it as the lowest risk route for a Conservative PM to a hard/shock brexit. This appeases the erstwhile tory investors currently funding Farage's stranglehold on the party.

It also presents a high risk opportunity to those of us who wish to make a case for remaining within the EU so we can get this all-consuming nonsense out of parliament for a couple of years, see if we can't get onto a better footing to fight it off when it returns.

jk

krikoman 05 Jun 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> I'm more sympathetic to the idea they are part of  a new , less tribal, more idea- based  political culture.They  felt free to shift away from a two party amorphous system and tease out diversity in politics to reflect the more complex issues of the day. ......

All good ideas and reasonable, but they were elected on their party's coattails, if they'd had conviction and integrity, they'd have explained to their constituents and asked them the help them by voting in a by-election. They didn't though, some of them left before they were pushed, and a number of them weren't particularly honest, Ryan and Leslie.

I've seen Chuka and what he said I agreed with, not leaving the EU, but even then it felt like he was doing for himself, I can't really explain it, but it felt like he was setting himself up as a saviour, it wasn't really about the subject, though I'm pretty certain he was sincer enough about it, it was more about him.

I've always had a soft spot for Soubry, even though she's on the wrong side. I believe her to have conviction and integrity.

I agree we need a change in politics, but I'm not convince most of the people in this bunch are the ones to help achieve this.

Mike Stretford 05 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I'm not sure either but I don't view a referendum as a U-turn and fudge, I view it as the lowest risk route for a Conservative PM to a hard/shock brexit. This appeases the erstwhile tory investors currently funding Farage's stranglehold on the party.

Oh no I meant the "polish and re-brand May's deal" that came before the referendum. I think they will miss that bit out, or it will last a few days while the EU say 'no' to substantial changes. I think any attempt to re-brand will lead to the immediate ousting of the new leader, I don't think they'll even attempt it. But we essentially agree where that will lead by the end of October. At that stage I'm not sure EU will agree to an extension for a referendum on no deal/remain, or the government will turn to that. In the mix with the other 2 options.

> It also presents a high risk opportunity to those of us who wish to make a case for remaining within the EU so we can get this all-consuming nonsense out of parliament for a couple of years, see if we can't get onto a better footing to fight it off when it returns.

It does and I am very nervous about that type of referendum (no deal/remain). It would be a referendum on shitting all over Ireland and I think the British public voting to do that could have disastrous consequences. I'm not sure the EU would agree to an extension on that basis, and I would rather have a GE.....maybe we are both drawn to our preferred options in this war-gaming exercise.

Post edited at 14:55
MargieB 06 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

This is the elephant in the room that is in need of addressing and although I agree that Nationalism is seductive and  mentioned the seductiveness of an outgoing character like Farage, it still doesn't explain the problems that need addressing in say the North West that are expressing themselves in this manner.

There are legitimate grievances of overcrowding, pressure on services and schools and housing and wage depression that have a requirement for a more bespoke policy of movement of people from EU[ As well as general national domestic policy change in austerity} . The Remain parties have only once addressed this- Vince Cable on Andrew Marr  Show said there were mechanisms within the EU to address this issue. Why is this not a headliner????

krikoman 06 Jun 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> There are legitimate grievances of overcrowding, pressure on services and schools and housing and wage depression that have a requirement for a more bespoke policy of movement of people from EU[ As well as general national domestic policy change in austerity} .


I refer you to the link on this thread

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/the_pub/as-705554?v=1#x8999534 (50 seconds into the video)

This really isn't an EU problem only 22% of our immigration comes from the EU (2017-2018) the other 78% comes from outside, it OUR government that is failing to address this, if it is a failing, the fact we NEED these people is more to the point of why we haven't done anything about it.

The real problem, if there is one, is the lack of information on this, and the failure to address the lies people are being told, and believe, about immigration.

It's not EU rules that's our failure to control immigration, it's our rules.

jkarran 06 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> It's not EU rules that's our failure to control immigration, it's our rules.

Also many of the 'legitimate grievances' related to immigration and immigrants: housing shortages, housing prices and conditions, doctors'-surgery and school place pressure, depressed wage growth, shit jobs, dead high-streets, crime, traffic... these mostly stem from choices our government makes with our expressed consent, they sell it as 'austerity'. The rest can largely be attributed to bungling incompetence.

It's popular to focus on the demand side, especially when there is competition from 'others' but we need to be far clearer about the true causes of these supply-demand problems. Tories, not immigrants, not the EU.

jk

Post edited at 10:14
Harry Jarvis 06 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> I refer you to the link on this thread

> This really isn't an EU problem only 22% of our immigration comes from the EU (2017-2018) the other 78% comes from outside, it OUR government that is failing to address this, if it is a failing, the fact we NEED these people is more to the point of why we haven't done anything about it.

While that may be true, it doesn't really address specifics. For example, MargieB mentioned the North West (and I presume she meant the NW of England). In Lancashire, there was a significant inflow of Romanians and Bulgarians upon their accession to the EU. It is very easy to create a narrative whereby there is popular unease at the apparent changes bought about as a result of these inflows. It does not help to try to brush aside this unease - indeed, such attempts to brush aside this unease, and to ignore these concerns, have been contributory factors in the rise of Farage's populism. 

thomasadixon 06 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Worth checking your facts before calling out others on lies and ignorance/misinformation - 250/625 is not 22%.  And that’s in the year after the referendum.  https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018#migration-is-still-adding-to-the-population-of-the-uk

Post edited at 12:02
stevieb 06 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Worth checking your facts before calling out others on lies and ignorance/misinformation - 250/625 is not 22%.  And that’s in the year after the referendum.  https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018#migration-is-still-adding-to-the-population-of-the-uk

Which figures are you using from your own link? Your link shows net migration figures at 74000 EU and 248000 non EU, making 22.98%

thomasadixon 06 Jun 2019
In reply to stevieb:

Gross - the actual figure for people moving here.

stevieb 06 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Gross - the actual figure for people moving here.

I didn’t find the 250k figure but I’m sure it’s in there. But I don’t see how this makes krikoman’s point wrong, you’re just using different statistics 

thomasadixon 06 Jun 2019
In reply to stevieb:

It makes his comment that only 22% of all immigrants come here from the EU factually incorrect by a huge amount - even though he chose a likely outlier year, post the vote, to suit the case (in 2016 the figure for EU is 284k, non EU 289k).  If you’re going to have a go at people for doing something best not to do it yourself.

krikoman 06 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Gross - the actual figure for people moving here.


Why would you use gross, surely you want to know how many more houses we need, isn't that the point?

Actually, it obviously isn't the point, the real point is, our major problem with immigration, if that's how you choose to see it, isn't to do with the EU and open borders, it's about what OUR government has chosen to do about immigration, basically f*ck all, so it's not likely to change this "influx" of foreigners swamping our country, by simply coming out of the EU. We'll just need more for outside the EU.

Blaming someone else for our own f*ckups, is the cheapest of populist tricks and one that should be demonstrated to be a falsehood.

thomasadixon 06 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Why would you use gross, surely you want to know how many more houses we need, isn't that the point?

“22% of our immigration comes from the EU” is what you said, before going on about lies and misuse of stats.  Clearly false.  Why does it matter who leaves?  We cannot control that without a new iron curtain!

> Actually, it obviously isn't the point, the real point is, our major problem with immigration, if that's how you choose to see it, isn't to do with the EU and open borders, it's about what OUR government has chosen to do about immigration, basically f*ck all, so it's not likely to change this "influx" of foreigners swamping our country, by simply coming out of the EU. We'll just need more for outside the EU.

Only if you think that all these immigrants are actually necessary.  I’ve liked all (except one) of the non U.K. citizens I’ve worked with, but I can’t see that any were necessary.  Someone else could do their jobs easily enough and the roles non critical.

> Blaming someone else for our own f*ckups, is the cheapest of populist tricks and one that should be demonstrated to be a falsehood.

The people being blamed in this case are our politicians, who joined the EU and who pushed for expansion.  Who else should I blame?

4
MargieB 07 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

It was interesting that Vince Cable of the Lib Dems on Andrew Marr show decided to acknowledge immigration as an issue , and to  mention mechanisms within the EU to control EU immigration but he should have expanded on this subject and given it more expansion. It was the issue of control or rather lack of it , that drove a Brexit vote in 2016. Mechanisms within UK could also be discussed. Vince Cable obviously thought it worth mentioning as a factor of concern and as a means of an EU bespoke immigration policy. He could also talk about the UK's powers. 

Of course the austerity policy is the confusing factor to many and needs expanding upon most to expose its part in people's lives. And yes, I was referring to the EU results in North West England.

I suspect that these are conversations politicians will have to discuss more intensely especially if there is a GE. And, given the Boris bus incident about money to EU which is now up for scrutiny, facts and figures will have to be checked.

I noticed Peterborough went Labour in by election.

Post edited at 07:31
krikoman 07 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> “22% of our immigration comes from the EU” is what you said, before going on about lies and misuse of stats.  Clearly false.  Why does it matter who leaves?  We cannot control that without a new iron curtain!

Even if it was 50/50 that's still 50% of immigrants from outside the EU, FFS! Therefore, has FA to do with the EU, it's our problem, the British government, so blaming EU rules is pretty useless and daft.

>  Someone else could do their jobs easily enough and the roles non critical.

But they don't do they? and that's part of the problem, a lot of lazy bastards who don't like work, whinging about people doing jobs they wouldn't do themselves.

> The people being blamed in this case are our politicians, who joined the EU and who pushed for expansion.  Who else should I blame?

It's got nowt to do with the EU, once again, the majority of immigration is from outside the EU, which we can stop today if we really want to.

You might look back a Tory promises on Immigration, and who was supposed to reduce it to 10,000 per year!

krikoman 07 Jun 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> It was interesting that Vince Cable of the Lib Dems on Andrew Marr show decided to acknowledge immigration as an issue , and to  mention mechanisms within the EU to control EU immigration but he should have expanded on this subject and given it more expansion. It was the issue of control or rather lack of it , that drove a Brexit vote in 2016.

But like the £350 million on the side of the bus, it was mainly bullshit, and falseties, saying stuff and it being true are two different things. A lot of people believed we were being over-run, and a lot of people believed it was EU rules that prevented us from doing anything about it, neither were true.

> I noticed Peterborough went Labour in by election.

Yes, well done, against all sorts of impediments, including the last Labour MP going to jail, a five year old "like" on a dubious post, which had her down as an anti-Semite, in a marginal seat, and she's seems anti-Brexit in a majority pro-Brexit constituency. And people are saying Labour are a "dead duck"

It just goes to show what we get in the media, isn't fooling people.

thomasadixon 07 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Even if it was 50/50 that's still 50% of immigrants from outside the EU, FFS! Therefore, has FA to do with the EU, it's our problem, the British government, so blaming EU rules is pretty useless and daft.

50% of immigration has nothing to do with immigration!?  Spinning like a Campbell there.  Without EU migrants coming in, in the years quoted, net immigration would have been in the tens of thousands.

> But they don't do they? and that's part of the problem, a lot of lazy bastards who don't like work, whinging about people doing jobis they wouldn't do themselves.

Yes, they do...what are you on about?  Most people I’ve worked with have been U.K. citizens.

> You might look back a Tory promises on Immigration, and who was supposed to reduce it to 10,000 per year!

Might want to check your facts again - tens of thousands was the (completely missed) promise, and yes the Tories are partly to blame for that.  Not least because they support(ed) membership of the EU.

1
thomasadixon 07 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

Did you notice that Tories plus Brexit got a majority?  Labour were lucky.

2
SDM 07 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> “22% of our immigration comes from the EU” is what you said, before going on about lies and misuse of stats.  Clearly false.  Why does it matter who leaves?  We cannot control that without a new iron curtain!

I presume your issue with immigration is due to a perceived increased pressure on our services and resources? If 100 people arrive but 100 people leave, where is the increased pressure? Who cares about gross numbers? 

>Why does it matter who leaves?  We cannot control that without a new iron curtain!

The majority of immigration control for people who aren't coming from war torn countries is about preventing people staying, not preventing them arriving in the first place.

> Only if you think that all these immigrants are actually necessary.  I’ve liked all (except one) of the non U.K. citizens I’ve worked with, but I can’t see that any were necessary.  Someone else could do their jobs easily enough and the roles non critical.

That may be true in some industries. But where are the British people who are qualified and willing to fill in the ~100,000 unfilled vacancies in the NHS? 

RomTheBear 07 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> 50% of immigration has nothing to do with immigration!?  Spinning like a Campbell there.  Without EU migrants coming in, in the years quoted, net immigration would have been in the tens of thousands.

WRONG. Non-EU net migration has been higher than 100,000 for the last decade. In fact mostly hovering at about 200,000. And it has always been higher than EU-immigration.

It is also a big mistake to think that these is things are unconnected. EU net migration has halved since the referendum, and it has been almost entirely compensated compensated by an equal increase in non-EU immigration. 

Which BTW is a loss for the UK since all the studies show that EU migrants produce a much higher net fiscal benefit to than non-EU immigrants. That is because they are less likely to use benefits, have less children, and often return to their home country for retirement.

If companies or universities can't get the talents or students they need to operate from the EU then they'll pay more to get them from somewhere further afield. And if you make it even more difficult than it currently is they'll just move somewhere else.

> Yes, they do...what are you on about?  Most people I’ve worked with have been U.K. citizens.

Most people I've worked with were not. 

thomasadixon 07 Jun 2019
In reply to SDM:

> I presume your issue with immigration is due to a perceived increased pressure on our services and resources? If 100 people arrive but 100 people leave, where is the increased pressure? Who cares about gross numbers?

If you’re talking about the people coming in and where they come from then using net figures is highly misleading.

> The majority of immigration control for people who aren't coming from war torn countries is about preventing people staying, not preventing them arriving in the first place.

The whole point with EU migrants is that you cannot prevent them staying.

> That may be true in some industries. But where are the British people who are qualified and willing to fill in the ~100,000 unfilled vacancies in the NHS? 

Why talk about a minority of cases and ignore the majority?

1
thomasadixon 07 Jun 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> WRONG. Non-EU net migration has been higher than 100,000 for the last decade. In fact mostly hovering at about 200,000. And it has always been higher than EU-immigration.

You really need to learn to read Rom.  What I said is correct - 258-200 (latest figures) = less than 100k, so in the tens of thousands.

> It is also a big mistake to think that these is things are unconnected. EU net migration has halved since the referendum, and it has been almost entirely compensated compensated by an equal increase in non-EU immigration. 

I don’t think they’re entirely unconnected.

> Which BTW is a loss for the UK since all the studies show that EU migrants produce a much higher net fiscal benefit to than non-EU immigrants. That is because they are less likely to use benefits, have less children, and often return to their home country for retirement.

The studies are crap, they ignore major costs - we’ve discussed this before.

> If companies or universities can't get the talents or students they need to operate from the EU then they'll pay more to get them from somewhere further afield. And if you make it even more difficult than it currently is they'll just move somewhere else.

Perhaps in some cases, in many they won’t/can’t.

> Most people I've worked with were not. 

Ok, cool.

1
SDM 07 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> If you’re talking about the people coming in and where they come from then using net figures is highly misleading.

To only talk about people coming in while ignoring the other side of the equation is highly misleading. 

> The whole point with EU migrants is that you cannot prevent them staying.

Correct if they are employed. We can prevent EU migrants staying if they are still unemployed after 6 months. 

> Why talk about a minority of cases and ignore the majority?

Because I consider the benefits to our country from the migrant workers propping up our struggling health service and maintaining our excellent academic and research capabilities to be far too important to sacrifice. 

thomasadixon 07 Jun 2019
In reply to SDM:

> To only talk about people coming in while ignoring the other side of the equation is highly misleading. 

Not if you’re clear about what you’re talking about, and as I’ve stated I’m talking about those coming in only.

> We can prevent EU migrants staying if they are still unemployed after 6 months. 

Not true - and applies to a small number in any case.

> Because I consider the benefits to our country from the migrant workers propping up our struggling health service and maintaining our excellent academic and research capabilities to be far too important to sacrifice. 

You don’t have to block all immigration to block some.  To say all immigration is necessary/useful/good because some is doesn’t follow.

Post edited at 13:26
1
SDM 07 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Not if you’re clear about what you’re talking about, and as I’ve stated I’m talking about those coming in only.

You can restrict a discussion to half of the topic if you want to. But by doing so, you reduce the relevance and value of any conclusions you reach. I'm not sure why you seek to do that. 

> Not true - and applies to a small number in any case.

The right to reside anywhere in the EU applies to workers, students, those who have sufficient means to support themselves and the families of the above. 

If you don't qualify for the above, there is no right to remain undefinitely. 

You're right that this applies to a small number of people. It's almost as if EU migration is a positive thing, filling vacancies and skill gaps and being a net beneficiary to the UK economy and culture. 

> You don’t have to block all immigration to block some.  To say all immigration is necessary/useful/good because some is doesn’t follow.

We've already thrown the baby out with bathwater. 

thomasadixon 07 Jun 2019
In reply to SDM:

> You can restrict a discussion to half of the topic if you want to. But by doing so, you reduce the relevance and value of any conclusions you reach. I'm not sure why you seek to do that. 

To have clarity in any discussion you need to talk about specifics - whether immigration is bad or good is a meaningless discussion.  Whether unskilled immigration to fill poorly paid roles in factories is good would be meaningful.  Whether doctors immigrating is beneficial is also meaningful - and I think (pretty much) all agree on the answer.

> If you don't qualify for the above, there is no right to remain undefinitely. 

Yes, and that applies to a very small number of people.

> You're right that this applies to a small number of people. It's almost as if EU migration is a positive thing, filling vacancies and skill gaps and being a net beneficiary to the UK economy and culture. 

Waffle.  I do not believe that an inexperienced legal assistant, easily replaced by a school leaver, is needed.  I don’t believe that a warehouse worker, also easily replaced by a school leaver, is needed.  I can’t see the benefit here and you’ve not explained what that benefit is.

RomTheBear 08 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You really need to learn to read Rom.  What I said is correct - 258-200 (latest figures) = less than 100k, so in the tens of thousands.

I am sorry but are you being deliberately thick ? This does't take into account people leaving you twit, subtracting these two numbers makes no sense, the immigration target of 100k was a NET migration target.

The point is that if you have turned off EU immigration completely, net migration would not have gone anywhere below 100k.

> I don’t think they’re entirely unconnected.

Maybe not, but the point is that reducing one mechanically increases the other and the reasons why are perfectly logical.

> The studies are crap, they ignore major costs - we’ve discussed this before.

Ha yes of course the studies are crap and you, with not even getting basic sums correctly, know better.... we should have known...

And BTW, you were wrong, because they do. They even include the future potential cost of children of immigrants, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me, but still, it comes up with a positive figure.

Post edited at 06:15
1
RomTheBear 08 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Not if you’re clear about what you’re talking about, and as I’ve stated I’m talking about those coming in only.

No you didn't because you talked about the 100k  immigration target, which is a net target. Talking about people coming in only is also truly, truly, idiotic.

Post edited at 06:14
RomTheBear 08 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Whether doctors immigrating is beneficial is also meaningful - and I think (pretty much) all agree on the answer.

You remind me of this :

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/971716069315547136?lang=pt

RomTheBear 08 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You don’t have to block all immigration to block some.  To say all immigration is necessary/useful/good because some is doesn’t follow.

The problem you have is that the vast majority of immigration is useful, so if you want to reduce immigration significantly you have no choice but to prevent people we desperately need from coming in. And that is true at all skills levels. 

That’s why in this country we end up making things extremely difficult, even for highly qualified people to come in. We even have pretty much all but banned people with lots of money to invest from coming and building their business in the UK, which is completely nuts. We’re saying no to jobs, not to extra money, just because of a nonsensical numerical obsession totally disconnected from reality.

Post edited at 12:37
krikoman 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> 50% of immigration has nothing to do with immigration!?  Spinning like a Campbell there.  Without EU migrants coming in, in the years quoted, net immigration would have been in the tens of thousands.

And you're now quoting NET, what happened to Gross, which just a couple of posts ago was the figure we should be using, make you mind up>

> Might want to check your facts again - tens of thousands was the (completely missed) promise, and yes the Tories are partly to blame for that.  Not least because they support(ed) membership of the EU.

I'll try again, STILL the majority of immigration into the UK was from outside the EU, whatever figure you use, our government had, and still has, control of this figure, they could turn it down to zero, without flouting any EU rules, but they didn't.

So how has this got anything to do with the EU?

thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> And you're now quoting NET, what happened to Gross, which just a couple of posts ago was the figure we should be using, make you mind up>

I know I’m talking there about net, I said so!  Both figures are useful.  You didn’t say net.  You were saying people should be clear, you were saying they should tell the truth, and you weren’t doing that.

> I'll try again, STILL the majority of immigration into the UK was from outside the EU, whatever figure you use, our government had, and still has, control of this figure, they could turn it down to zero, without flouting any EU rules, but they didn't.

Yes, so?

> So how has this got anything to do with the EU?

You think that only one group of immigrants is relevant and the other should be ignored?

Harry Jarvis 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

Can I ask what you've got against immigration? 

thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
Harry Jarvis 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

That link talks about the need to make better use of our water resources. It doesn't mention immigration. 

thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

“Demand from the country’s rising population”.  Net immigration positive = rise in population.

Harry Jarvis 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

So is your only concern about immigration about issues relating to water security? If that is the case, I would have thought you would be more exercised by the woeful standards of waste and leakage. 

Most immigration is non-EU immigration, so it's not clear to me why you are so concerned about EU immigration. 

thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Obviously not, I said e.g.

Regardless of how good we are at stopping leaks (ignoring the huge cost and disruption necessary to do that) there’s still a finite amount of water, and that’s predicted to fall.  The real issue is population growth.

Ive said several times all immigration matters.  EU immigration is, currently, out of our control.

1
jkarran 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

Britain isn't short of water. Britain needn't be short of water in the future. Britain's infrastructure is maintained to keep the dividends, not the water flowing. As usual, tories, not immigrants underlie the issues raised.

jk

Harry Jarvis 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Regardless of how good we are at stopping leaks (ignoring the huge cost and disruption necessary to do that) there’s still a finite amount of water, and that’s predicted to fall.  

We have a lot of it in Scotland. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of an advanced economy such as ours to make better use of the whole country's resources. 

> Ive said several times all immigration matters.  EU immigration is, currently, out of our control.

As has been said many times, EU immigration is not out of our control. We just happen to have had successive governments who have not chosen to exercise the available controls over it. 

And regardless of EU immigration, we have always had full control over non-EU immigration, running last year to about a quarter of a million. Despite the best (or worst, depending on your perspective) efforts of the Home Office, this figure is not decreasing. If you really are concerned about population growth, you should be most exercised by this failure of government.  

Post edited at 13:36
thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> We have a lot of it in Scotland. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of an advanced economy such as ours to make better use of the whole country's resources. 

Not enough, it costs to transport it, costs to put infrastructure in place - and Scotland may well leave the U.K. anyway.

> As has been said many times, EU immigration is not out of our control. We just happen to have had successive governments who have not chosen to exercise the available controls over it. 

The vast majority of it is out of our control.

> And regardless of EU immigration, we have always had full control over non-EU immigration, running last year to about a quarter of a million. Despite the best (or worst, depending on your perspective) efforts of the Home Office, this figure is not decreasing. If you really are concerned about population growth, you should be most exercised by this failure of government.  

I am.

3
Harry Jarvis 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Not enough, it costs to transport it, costs to put infrastructure in place - and Scotland may well leave the U.K. anyway.

If Scotland were to leave the UK, why would that have prevent water flowing from north to south? Scotland would have an asset required in England, England would have a demand. That's fairly simple market economics. Much of our trade is global, and is not constrained by national boundaries (certainly, trade with the EU isn't constrained by national boundaries, although it does seem that there is a proportion of the population would see such constraints and barriers). 

> The vast majority of it is out of our control.

That may be so, because so many EU migrants meet all the threshold requirements with regard to work, income, ability to support family. Would you prefer that migrants who make a positive contribution to our economy are prevented from doing so? 

> I am.

And yet in all your posts on the topic, you seem entirely untroubled by non-EU migration, which is considerably higher than EU migration, and you seem to keen to brush aside concerns about non-EU migration. 

thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> If Scotland were to leave the UK, why would that have prevent water flowing from north to south? Scotland would have an asset required in England, England would have a demand. That's fairly simple market economics. Much of our trade is global, and is not constrained by national boundaries (certainly, trade with the EU isn't constrained by national boundaries, although it does seem that there is a proportion of the population would see such constraints and barriers).

It would cost us money, and if Scotland leaves its yet another import.

> That may be so, because so many EU migrants meet all the threshold requirements with regard to work, income, ability to support family. Would you prefer that migrants who make a positive contribution to our economy are prevented from doing so?

The thresholds for EU migrants do not mean that individuals need to make a positive contribution to be here.  The claims of positive contributions are based on flawed studies in any case.

> And yet in all your posts on the topic, you seem entirely untroubled by non-EU migration, which is considerably higher than EU migration, and you seem to keen to brush aside concerns about non-EU migration. 

I haven’t brushed aside any concerns - none have been raised as far as I can see - and I was replying to false assertions about EU immigration.

4
Harry Jarvis 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

You didn't answer my question: Would you prefer that migrants who make a positive contribution to our economy are prevented from doing so? 

thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Is the population rise worth the few quid extra per head in tax take we get for it?  No.

Do you think there should be any limit on how many people move here?  What should that limit be, if you do?

jkarran 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Not enough, it costs to transport it, costs to put infrastructure in place - and Scotland may well leave the U.K. anyway.

If Israel can manage water sharing treaties with its neighbours despite regional tensions and genuine national-viability threatening scarcity I think Britain can probably cope whether it remains a United Kingdom or is balkanised by brexit.

> The vast majority of it is out of our control.

If by the 'vast majority' you mean the smaller fraction then sure [facepalm]. Data from 2015-16 (the last 'normal' year)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/dec2016

jk

Post edited at 16:11
Harry Jarvis 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Is the population rise worth the few quid extra per head in tax take we get for it?  No.

So you would prefer that the doctors, the nurses, the care workers, the workers in the hospitality industries, the factory workers, the abattoir workers (did you know that 90% of slaughterhouse vets were EU nationals?) and all the other workers who make positive contributions are prevented from doing so, regardless of the damage that might be done to those sectors of the economy? 

> Do you think there should be any limit on how many people move here?  What should that limit be, if you do?

I don't know. One of the frustrating elements of the debate that it seems to be couched in all or nothing terms. Fortunately, there seems to be a developing realisation that we as a nation are reliant on contributions on immigrants, and that immigration rules need to take account of the needs of different industry sectors. What the precise number should be depends on a wealth of factors. For example, if we want to reduce the number of foreign doctors we need, we will have to increase the number of doctors we train here in the UK, and we also need to make healthcare a more attractive proposition so we don't continue to suffer the dreadful levels of dropout we are currently experiencing. All these changes take time and not inconsiderable long-term commitment from government and employers. Sadly, the fevered atmosphere in which we find ourselves does not lend itself to calm rational considerations of the issues, but seems to be happily placated by trite soundbites and headlines. 

What would you consider to be an appropriate population for the UK?

thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Yea, being in Israel’s position sounds just great.  People can cope with all sorts of crap if they have to, doesn’t mean we should.

The vast majority of EU immigration - as referred to in the post I replied to, which I quoted.

1
thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> So you would prefer that the doctors, the nurses, the care workers, the workers in the hospitality industries, the factory workers, the abattoir workers (did you know that 90% of slaughterhouse vets were EU nationals?) and all the other workers who make positive contributions are prevented from doing so, regardless of the damage that might be done to those sectors of the economy? 

Well no, as above what I’d prefer is that we can choose which ones we let in.  Low paid care workers might well not make a financial contribution, but might be worth it anyway.

> I don't know. One of the frustrating elements of the debate that it seems to be couched in all or nothing terms.

Stop it then.

> What would you consider to be an appropriate population for the UK?

Less than it is now.  Stabilisation would be a good start.

2
jkarran 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Yea, being in Israel’s position sounds just great.

Yes, in many ways despite their tough spot it does. They have nationwide distribution moving water from areas of availability in the north, the coast and the central aquifers to the regions of heaviest use in the south. They recycle extensively to conserve what they have and restock their ground-water. They recognised the existential threat posed by water scarcity and water-conflict then developed and implemented a viable plan to solve the problem responsibly. Terrible.

Still, it's easier to blame immigrants isn't it.

> The vast majority of EU immigration - as referred to in the post I replied to, which I quoted.

EU immigration is largely and well controlled by economics. Take a bow for putting that trend into reverse.

jk

Post edited at 16:46
thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

We’ve currently just got plenty of water, you think we’d be better off if we create a water crisis and then spend loads of money we don’t have to deal with it.  You’re crazy.

4
Harry Jarvis 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Well no, as above what I’d prefer is that we can choose which ones we let in.  Low paid care workers might well not make a financial contribution, but might be worth it anyway.

So who would you like to keep out? Which sectors of the economy would you like to damage? 

> Less than it is now.  Stabilisation would be a good start.

Why? What do you consider the optimum UK population to be? 

krikoman 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Yes, so?

So why do you paint Europe as the big bad wolf?

> You think that only one group of immigrants is relevant and the other should be ignored?

Of course not, but you seem to be blaming being in the EU for, your issue with immigrants, and it's MORE to do with government policy, our government, not Europe. And if they couldn't give a toss before, what makes you think they'll give a toss after Brexit?

You still be here pissing and moaning about immigrants, but at least then it'll be ALL our government's fault, you don't strike me as being someone that'll be happy with that. Give that, since so much was made about stopping the influx and they were the cause of all our woes, how will coming out of the EU help?

thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> So who would you like to keep out?

As above, I'd like to see some explanation as to how letting people in that are going to do low level admin jobs is a benefit to the country.  If there's not a good explanation (and I've never seen one) then that's a start.

> Which sectors of the economy would you like to damage? 

What was that you said above about all or nothing terms?

> Why? What do you consider the optimum UK population to be? 

I've already given one reason why.  The others are similar.  Why do you think that our population can continually grow and that it won't affect those already here?  Especially in the face of evidence that water will have to be rationed in the future due to the ever growing population.

1
thomasadixon 10 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> So why do you paint Europe as the big bad wolf?

You can reword what I say however you like, but I've been quite clear that the issue is our membership of the EU doesn't allow us to select who comes in.

> Of course not, but you seem to be blaming being in the EU for, your issue with immigrants, and it's MORE to do with government policy, our government, not Europe. And if they couldn't give a toss before, what makes you think they'll give a toss after Brexit?

Our membership of the EU *IS* government policy.  I blame them.  You keep telling me I'm blaming the EU, but I'm not and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.  Outside of the EU standard immigration policy would apply to EU citizens and a large number would not be given visas, leading to a fall in (gross and net!) immigration.

Post edited at 19:54
3
jkarran 10 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> We’ve currently just got plenty of water, you think we’d be better off if we create a water crisis...

Yeah, that is definitely exactly what I think should happen.

Jk

krikoman 11 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You can reword what I say however you like, but I've been quite clear that the issue is our membership of the EU doesn't allow us to select who comes in.

But it does, at least for more than 50% (which seems to be a significant figure these days) and it's more like 60%-80%, and we're not doing it, so how will coming out of the EU help in the slightest?

thomasadixon 11 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

80%?  You telling lies again?

We are doing it for the rest of the world, immigration would be far higher if we weren’t.  As said, if we applied the same rules to EU citizens many would not get visas.

2
MargieB 11 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I found this mechanism within European Law on freedom of movement of people.

http://eu-policies.com/competences/economy/new-eu-laws-will-prevent-companies-using-migrant-workers-undercut-locals/

Dave Garnett 11 Jun 2019
In reply to MargieB:

And it was always possible to control immigration of EU citizens who didn't have a job here.

krikoman 11 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> 80%?  You telling lies again?

> We are doing it for the rest of the world, immigration would be far higher if we weren’t.  As said, if we applied the same rules to EU citizens many would not get visas.


Ha ha, you're trolling now, I'm out. Good luck in your brave new world of  no immigrants and 40,000 nurses required in the NHS.

You've had the wool pulled over your eyes by a few unscrupulous "politicians" and you're happy to blame someone else and believe the bollocks you've been told.

Post edited at 11:04
thomasadixon 11 Jun 2019
In reply to krikoman:

It’s funny the responses you get on this subject.  I’ve said above that doctors and similar are necessary, but you revert to the trope of the NHS (most immigrants do not work for the NHS - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-40753751), and suggest I wouldn’t let nurses in.  I’ve not quoted any politicians, but you assert that I’m following some mythical politicians that are anti all immigration.

Sure, leave it there, not much of a conversation when you’re just responding to what you think I think rather than what I actually say.

2
Harry Jarvis 11 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> As above, I'd like to see some explanation as to how letting people in that are going to do low level admin jobs is a benefit to the country.  If there's not a good explanation (and I've never seen one) then that's a start.

It's a benefit in that there are jobs that need to be done and there are people to do those jobs. Better surely to fill vacancies than leave them unfilled? We have historically low levels of unemployment, and most economists would say we are close to what is considered to be full employment, so it is not as if there is a ready pool of the unemployed waiting for such jobs. 

Forgive me, but I'm not convinced that removing low level admin jobs from the pool of jobs currently done by EU immigrants is going to make much of a dent in the net migration figures. I think you might need to be a bit more ambitious. 

krikoman 11 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> It's a benefit in that there are jobs that need to be done and there are people to do those jobs. Better surely to fill vacancies than leave them unfilled? We have historically low levels of unemployment, and most economists would say we are close to what is considered to be full employment, so it is not as if there is a ready pool of the unemployed waiting for such jobs. 

And as a side benefit, get's more income tax into our coffers for people that need them.

thomasadixon 11 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> It's a benefit in that there are jobs that need to be done and there are people to do those jobs. Better surely to fill vacancies than leave them unfilled?

Thst’s it?  No, it’s not surely better, and it’s a false assumption that they’d be unfilled.

> We have historically low levels of unemployment, and most economists would say we are close to what is considered to be full employment, so it is not as if there is a ready pool of the unemployed waiting for such jobs. 

We have massive underemployment, they could instead employ two people on a part time basis.  They could pay a higher salary and reduce the endless turnover of staff quitting because of the crap wages on offer.

> Forgive me, but I'm not convinced that removing low level admin jobs from the pool of jobs currently done by EU immigrants is going to make much of a dent in the net migration figures. I think you might need to be a bit more ambitious. 

If you actually look at the jobs done you’ll see that a very large number are low level, and that if you take them out it makes a big dent.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/where-do-eu-migrants-in-the-uk-work/

Krikoman - try thinking just a little!  On a low salary they’ll pay bugger all in tax and just having them live here incurs costs, if they bring kids they will most likely cost the country more than they bring in.  Paying some tax does not mean you contribute overall.

2
Harry Jarvis 11 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

I will leave you to it. You are clearly convinced against immigration. So be it, but you have not made the case that reducing immigration - even reducing the population - is a sensible way to proceed over the coming years. 

thomasadixon 11 Jun 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I am pretty convinced that not all immigration is beneficial, yes, and easily disprovable assertions (like admin jobs not being a big chunk, when they’re 10%) aren’t likely to convince me otherwise.  I note you’re still using the all or nothing language (“against immigration”) you complained about yourself higher up.

I don’t think there’s the slightest chance that people like yourself will change your minds, but false claims need challenging and it’s interesting to see what you base your opinions on.

3

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.