David Davis resigns

[nil_desperandum]

It's a novel approach, and quite useful to make the majority seem less than it was. In a general election, if one candidate gets 25,000 votes and the other gets 24,000, has he got a majority of 500?

Don't be silly dsr. You're better than that.
You work with numbers so therefore understand that a majority of 1,000 is wiped out if 500 people swap sides.
That's where the 1.9% figure comes from - and you fully understand it.

[Quickenthetempo]

The only thing the remainers argue about is the economy.
I know we can't but if we scrapped all the political crap and just went back to pure trade deals with them would that suit everyone?

[Lancasterclaret]

If you did Brexit in a way which didn't damage the economy, then yes.

But that would require planning, certainly a long period where we gradually withdraw as our own version become ready.

That is pie in the sky though, because those who want to leave with "No deal" are terrified that people will change their minds and won't even think about doing this sensibly.

[nil_desperandum]

The only thing the remainers argue about is the economy.

I really don't think it is.
There's a whole range of issues from, security, education, flights, drugs, the Irish border, the Scottish border, stability in Europe, opportunities for young people and more.

[aggi]

Key votes going on at the moment.

The government has been defeated on the vote re: medicines amendment and it's looking close re: the customs union as a backstop position.

[If it be your will]

.

[aggi]

I imagine it's going to come down to how people like Kate Hoey vote.

EDIT: The government has won by 307 votes to 301 - a majority of six.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

Both - four Lab MPs again plus probably a couple less Conservative MPs

[If it be your will]

.

[claretandy]

Soubry will be at the Gin tonight after another crushing defeat.

[claretandy]

Do you know which 4? It looks like they have just turned down a GE.

Probably the usual 4 of Hoey, Hopkins, Stringer and Field.

[nil_desperandum]

Do you know which 4? It looks like they have just turned down a GE.

It's the missing MPs that we should be questioning. (Cowards on both sides).
307 votes is nowhere near to a majority in the house, (not I hasten to add, that I am questioning the validity of the result).

[If it be your will]

.

[AndrewJB]

It's also the speed in which the migration has occurred and how quickly the EU has developed from a supposed trading bloc, into this huge political behemoth. The EU is about big business and protectionism and is surely more beneficial for the top 1%, as it's far easier and less costly to control the single entity of the EU, than individual nation states?

With the greatest respect, I think your reasoning is faulty here. Firstly the financial crisis of 2008, subsequent government austerity (an economic choice), and nearly forty years of government appeasement of the very rich (another economic choice), are the major reasons this country is in the brown stuff.

Every single surface issue you can point to in this country - whether lack of decent jobs, lack of affordable housing, NHS crisis, not enough police, expensive and crap train system, underfunded schools, high utility bills, even the immigration system's failings (whether in letting too many people in, or in being cruel and unjust to people) - all of these problems can be related back to the financial crisis of 2008, subsequent government austerity, and nearly forty years of government appeasement of the very rich. And those three things are all linked together in the same ideology that has governed us nationally for the last forty years.

Immigration is a nothing issue compared to those three things. The problems of immigration, when you set them next to the pluses of immigration (which unless you're going to say that all immigrants have been a detriment to the country then there have to be some) are nothing compared to the problems of those three things.

The EU has had little to do with the surface problems of this country. It's our national governments that have dropped us in it. Neither the EU nor immigration has caused lack of decent jobs, lack of affordable housing, NHS crisis, not enough police, expensive and crap train system, underfunded schools, or high utility bills. It's our government who screwed up. They are to blame.

Your answer to JohnMcGreal misses his most important points entirely.

[claretandy]

Probably the usual 4 of Hoey, Hopkins, Stringer and Field.

Plus John Mann, (Hopkins is suspended for alleged knee touching)

[claretandy]

It's the missing MPs that we should be questioning. (Cowards on both sides).
307 votes is nowhere near to a majority in the house, (not I hasten to add, that I am questioning the validity of the result).

There were probably abstentions.

[Billy Balfour]

Did the Lib Dem leader turn up this time or did he find something else to do, like yesterday?

[Greenmile]

This was the problem, maybe if the remain campaign and the left of the spectrum had allowed time to sit down and spend time trying to show some positives of open door immigration, debating the subject and understanding that austerity also played a part then who know what the outcome would have been, instead every time the working classes raised the issues of immigration they were screamed down as racist, xenophobes, bigots, uneducated etc. And to be honest it's still the same to this day.

The fact is austerity and open door policies cannot work together and seeing as though the country has no money (remember the Labour note?), there was only one way of easing that burden....

Show me where I have called Crosspool any of those names. I just tried to correct his misconception that immigrants are to blame for all of the woes of the working classes over the last 10 years.

Here’s how I imagine the debate you allude to playing out with some (by no means all, or even a majority of) brexiters.

Brexiteer - every problem the working man faces today is the fault of immigration.

Remainer - well, actually, if you look at the facts, the majority of the blame can be attributed to Tory austerity and the lack of regulations which led to the Financial...

B - so you’re calling me a racist just because I don’t want unlimited immigration.

R - No. it’s just...

B - I’m not a racist. How dare you call me a racist!

You see, there’s more than one way to shut down a sensible debate.

I would just add, racism does still exist in this country, and when a racist uses racist arguments against immigration I, for one, am going to pull them up on it (nobody has here, yet). That doesn’t mean I think everyone with the same opinions on immigration is racist.

* you could replace every use of the word “racist” in this post with “xenophobe(ic)”, “bigot(ed)” or “uneducated (person)” and my point still stands

[AndrewJB]

If you did Brexit in a way which didn't damage the economy, then yes.

But that would require planning, certainly a long period where we gradually withdraw as our own version become ready.

That is pie in the sky though, because those who want to leave with "No deal" are terrified that people will change their minds and won't even think about doing this sensibly.

Are they terrified of that, or do they want a no deal brexit so they can turn Britain into a kind of tax haven more than we already are?

Oh, I see a few leavers tossing off over this (you really should cover you laptop cameras); but it won't be low tax for us. For us it'll be lower working conditions, a crapper NHS, crapper everything for us, while the rich milk it.

[nil_desperandum]

There were probably abstentions.

Abstaining or missing - irrelevant, (unless ill and one side refused to "pair")
It's their duty to have a view and vote on this one way or the other.

[aggi]

It's the missing MPs that we should be questioning. (Cowards on both sides).
307 votes is nowhere near to a majority in the house, (not I hasten to add, that I am questioning the validity of the result).

Generally the missing MPs (assuming it is for some good reason such as ill health) have an agreement with someone on the other side that both will miss the vote.

The Lib Dem one yesterday was a bit weird. It seems that originally labour had planned to abstain so the vote would be meaningless but then changed their mind (although I'm not sure if that really excuses it).

[nil_desperandum]

Generally the missing MPs (assuming it is for some good reason such as ill health) have an agreement with someone on the other side that both will miss the vote.

The Lib Dem one yesterday was a bit weird. It seems that originally labour had planned to abstain so the vote would be meaningless but then changed their mind (although I'm not sure if that really excuses it).

So far as I can add up, if there were 12 Tory rebels and 4 Labour rebels and the rest were "paired" then the Amendment would have been passed.

[aggi]

So far as I can add up, if there were 12 Tory rebels and 4 Labour rebels and the rest were "paired" then the Amendment would have been passed.

I haven't looked at the full numbers. There are six or seven Sinn Fein MPs who never vote which would be part of it. Not sure of who else.

[burnleymik]

Show me where I have called Crosspool any of those names. I just tried to correct his misconception that immigrants are to blame for all of the woes of the working classes over the last 10 years.

Here’s how I imagine the debate you allude to playing out with some (by no means all, or even a majority of) brexiters.

Brexiteer - every problem the working man faces today is the fault of immigration.

Remainer - well, actually, if you look at the facts, the majority of the blame can be attributed to Tory austerity and the lack of regulations which led to the Financial...

B - so you’re calling me a racist just because I don’t want unlimited immigration.

R - No. it’s just...

B - I’m not a racist. How dare you call me a racist!

You see, there’s more than one way to shut down a sensible debate.

I would just add, racism does still exist in this country, and when a racist uses racist arguments against immigration I, for one, am going to pull them up on it (nobody has here, yet). That doesn’t mean I think everyone with the same opinions on immigration is racist.

* you could replace every use of the word “racist” in this post with “xenophobe(ic)”, “bigot(ed)” or “uneducated (person)” and my point still stands

I didn't claim you personally, did, but, a simple example is look at the question time series just before the referendum. People were trying to raise the issue of immigration and they were immediately shut down. Try having a conversation with someone who has convinced themselves you are a racist... it is not possible.

I mean I can back it up with more examples if you wish?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/h ... rexit-bag/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-m ... -qb7hd7xl7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even vince Cable was at it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 51331.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a fact that Brexiteers, before and after the referendum have been hit with those labels at every opportunity by political opposition.

[burnleymik]

With the greatest respect, I think your reasoning is faulty here. Firstly the financial crisis of 2008, subsequent government austerity (an economic choice), and nearly forty years of government appeasement of the very rich (another economic choice), are the major reasons this country is in the brown stuff.

Every single surface issue you can point to in this country - whether lack of decent jobs, lack of affordable housing, NHS crisis, not enough police, expensive and crap train system, underfunded schools, high utility bills, even the immigration system's failings (whether in letting too many people in, or in being cruel and unjust to people) - all of these problems can be related back to the financial crisis of 2008, subsequent government austerity, and nearly forty years of government appeasement of the very rich. And those three things are all linked together in the same ideology that has governed us nationally for the last forty years.

Immigration is a nothing issue compared to those three things. The problems of immigration, when you set them next to the pluses of immigration (which unless you're going to say that all immigrants have been a detriment to the country then there have to be some) are nothing compared to the problems of those three things.

The EU has had little to do with the surface problems of this country. It's our national governments that have dropped us in it. Neither the EU nor immigration has caused lack of decent jobs, lack of affordable housing, NHS crisis, not enough police, expensive and crap train system, underfunded schools, or high utility bills. It's our government who screwed up. They are to blame.

Your answer to JohnMcGreal misses his most important points entirely.

You make some very valid points, but if you are trying to tell me the EU has no impact then we are definitely going to disagree. The majority of EU migrants are low skilled workers and that HAS to have an effect on the jobs market, housing and wages, if not much wider implications.

The EU is another layer of government we don't want or need. We want people directly accountable to the people and not indirectly accountable to MEP's. The protectionism and tarriff barriers also have a detrimental effect to British consumers, we pay more simply for the protectionism of big business.

There are more ways in which the EU affects our every day lives.

[Lancasterclaret]

Anything to make sure the government won

https://twitter.com/joswinson/status/10 ... 9344219137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[burnleymik]

Anything to make sure the government won

https://twitter.com/joswinson/status/10 ... 9344219137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah that is very naughty, but I don't expect any less of any of them right now. I'd be happy for the Queen to step in and declare them all corrupt like in the 1975 Constitutional crisis in Australia! . Very few of them actually seem to be working for the electorate anymore and are all about their party politics and purely selfish interests.

[Lancasterclaret]

And Labour still don't learn

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 3bfe020?dh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

So far as I can add up, if there were 12 Tory rebels and 4 Labour rebels and the rest were "paired" then the Amendment would have been passed.

Seems that the "pairing" was not quite what it should have been.
Can we sink any lower?

[Greenmile]

I didn't claim you personally, did, but, a simple example is look at the question time series just before the referendum. People were trying to raise the issue of immigration and they were immediately shut down. Try having a conversation with someone who has convinced themselves you are a racist... it is not possible.

I mean I can back it up with more examples if you wish?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/h ... rexit-bag/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-m ... -qb7hd7xl7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even vince Cable was at it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 51331.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a fact that Brexiteers, before and after the referendum have been hit with those labels at every opportunity by political opposition.

Yep, I think I’m going to need more (or better) examples than a possibly fictitious anecdote from a Spectator journalist, a comment from a UN inspector that was backed up by statistics (like it or not, the Brexit vote emboldened a lot of actual racists - that doesn’t mean that all brexiters are racist) and an admittedly terrible choice of words from Cable which didn’t amount to an accusation of racism, more a strange kind of nostalgia.

Tbf I try to avoid Newsnight as the shouty audience members tend to make me a bit depressed, but I can believe you on that one, and I couldn’t get past the paywall for the Times article you linked, so maybe there’s more to that article than I can tell from the first 3 paragraphs.

[Greenmile]

Yeah that is very naughty, but I don't expect any less of any of them right now. I'd be happy for the Queen to step in and declare them all corrupt like in the 1975 Constitutional crisis in Australia! . Very few of them actually seem to be working for the electorate anymore and are all about their party politics and purely selfish interests.

Now this I can agree with.

[tiger76]

So far as I can add up, if there were 12 Tory rebels and 4 Labour rebels and the rest were "paired" then the Amendment would have been passed.

The 12 MPs that voted against the government on customs and trade were: Heidi Allan, Guto Bebb, Ken Clarke, Jonathan Djanogly, Dominic Grieve, Stephen Hammond, Philip Lee, Nicky Morgan, Bob Neill, Antoinette Sandbach, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston.

On the other side, four Labour MPs voted with the government: Frank Field, Kate Hoey, John Mann, and Graham Stringer.

Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable and his predecessor Tim Farron - who were criticised after missing Monday night's knife-edge Brexit votes - were back at Westminster and voted against the government.

No great surprises there,Cable and Farron couldn't be seen to be ducking this vote after yesterday.

[burnleymik]

Yep, I think I’m going to need more (or better) examples than a possibly fictitious anecdote from a Spectator journalist, a comment from a UN inspector that was backed up by statistics (like it or not, the Brexit vote emboldened a lot of actual racists - that doesn’t mean that all brexiters are racist) and an admittedly terrible choice of words from Cable which didn’t amount to an accusation of racism, more a strange kind of nostalgia.

Tbf I try to avoid Newsnight as the shouty audience members tend to make me a bit depressed, but I can believe you on that one, and I couldn’t get past the paywall for the Times article you linked, so maybe there’s more to that article than I can tell from the first 3 paragraphs.

Appreciate you actually taking the time to read and respond. I think this guys sums it up quite well:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -brexiters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sadly, many remain voters care little for the reasoning or rationale behind the decision of Brexit voters. I’ve seen Brexiters being grouped together and called “idiot”, “racist”, and other derogatory terms, simply by virtue of being Brexit voters

The media also continuously portrayed the rise in racism as down to Brexit voters, when as you said it was the minority of idiots, that didn't stop them tarring us all with the same brush.

[tiger76]

Yeah that is very naughty, but I don't expect any less of any of them right now. I'd be happy for the Queen to step in and declare them all corrupt like in the 1975 Constitutional crisis in Australia! . Very few of them actually seem to be working for the electorate anymore and are all about their party politics and purely selfish interests.

I don't think it will happen but can the Queen actually do that,i agree whichever way people voted in 2016,the job of Parliament is to find the best solution to what was after all an advisory vote,but most of them seem more concerned with Prime Ministerial ambitions (Boris) or General Elections (Corbyn).

Common sense should have kicked in by now,and we need to start getting serious about negotiations,the Chequer's plan was a starting point,but that alone has taken 2 years,surely nobody sensible wants to crash out in March 2019 with no deal.

[aggi]

Generally the missing MPs (assuming it is for some good reason such as ill health) have an agreement with someone on the other side that both will miss the vote.

The Lib Dem one yesterday was a bit weird. It seems that originally labour had planned to abstain so the vote would be meaningless but then changed their mind (although I'm not sure if that really excuses it).

This is what I got from a swift review of abstain:

Debbie Abrahams Lab
Mr Ronnie Campbell Lab
Sir David Crausby Lab
John Cryer Lab
Anneliese Dodds Lab
Colleen Fletcher Lab
Paul Flynn Lab
Sir Lindsay Hoyle Lab
Ian C. Lucas Lab
Steve McCabe Lab
Laura Pidcock Lab
Joan Ryan Lab
Cat Smith Lab
Derek Twigg Lab
Dame Rosie Winterton Lab
Damian Collins Con
Philip Davies Con
Vicky Ford Con
George Freeman Con
James Gray Con
Dame Eleanor Laing Con
Andrea Leadsom Con
Dr Andrew Murrison Con
Tom Tugendhat Con
Mr Edward Vaizey Con
Hannah Bardell SNP
Martin Docherty-Hughes SNP
Órfhlaith Begley SF
Mickey Brady SF
Michelle Gildernew SF
Chris Hazzard SF
Elisha McCallion SF
Paul Maskey SF
Francie Molloy SF
John Bercow A
Jo Swinson LD
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson DUP
Jared O'Mara Ind

Seems to be 15 labour but only 10 conservative. No idea why

[Greenmile]

Appreciate you actually taking the time to read and respond. I think this guys sums it up quite well:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -brexiters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The media also continuously portrayed the rise in racism as down to Brexit voters, when as you said it was the minority of idiots, that didn't stop them tarring us all with the same brush.

Tbf, when you said “every time the working classes raised the issues of immigration they were screamed down as racist, xenophobes, bigots, uneducated etc” (emphasis mine) you were sort of tarring all remainers (or pro-immigration people) with the same brush, weren’t you?

I agree with what I think is your general point, though - ie it’s difficult to have a sensible, reasoned debate or discussion on immigration, but I think the blame for that lies on both sides.

[Paul Waine]

Yeah that is very naughty, but I don't expect any less of any of them right now. I'd be happy for the Queen to step in and declare them all corrupt like in the 1975 Constitutional crisis in Australia! . Very few of them actually seem to be working for the electorate anymore and are all about their party politics and purely selfish interests.

Welcome to the mb, burnleymik.

I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to the "political discourse."

I've posted a number of times in the past couple of years or so about the poor quality of our MPs (and other members of the political establishment).

A selection of my thoughts:
1) limit political positions to no more than 1 member of a family group at any one time. Open up parliament by prohibiting more than one family member to be an MP - or hold other political positions: the Johnson family, Stanley, Boris and the younger brother; the Millibands; the Mr and Mrs X and Y (there are a surprising number of couples who are both MPs). It would be interesting if someone could do a count, perhaps fewer than 500 individual families represented in HoC.
2) No MP can serve for more than 10 years if they haven't spent at least 10 years outside and away from politics. Yes, a youngster can leave uni and enter parliament, but can't stay more than 10 years and then their political career is over. Politics would be better with people with "real life" experiences, whatever those experiences are.
3) All MPs, government ministers, senior civil servants and other senior "quasi-autonomous non-government organisation" employees to receive only direct contribution pensions - remove all defined benefit pensions for all in these groups, the taxpayers should not be guaranteeing them a pension for their mistakes.
4) Parliament to move to Manchester/Northern Powerhouse in 2022 within an Assembly type structure (less adversarial); and after 5 years move again to one of the other regions: Bristol/South West, Birmingham/Midlands, Newcastle/N.East - return to London, for a 5 year period after this tour - but, not to the Palace of Westminister - turn the latter into a tourist attraction. Open up the country to politics - burst the "westminster bubble."
If we hadn't devolved powers to Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland I'd also include those regions in the "it's important you know your country parliaments."
5) In the same way that arguments are made for gender balance, political parties should include representation for MPs who have "experienced life abroad" (excluding any political experience - Brussels as an MEP or EU Commissioner wont count). Seeing how other countries do things might chance some perspectives, it might burst the "Britain is always best" perspective. Who knows, we might start (much needed) reform of the NHS if some MPs were appointed with experience of European health systems.

EDIT: And, on Brexit, I believe we can lay the blame with the Government(s) and all the MPs that had the opportunity to debate the Lisbon Treaty and Article 50 - plus, of course, the EU Commission and all the MEPs (Farage does not escape criticism) - and did not include any provisions about what happens between the EU member states and any member state choosing to exercise the rights granted by Article 50 and leave the EU. That is the root cause of all the "Brexit troubles." Hence the need to "clean the political Aegean stables."

[dsr]

Don't be silly dsr. You're better than that.
You work with numbers so therefore understand that a majority of 1,000 is wiped out if 500 people swap sides.
That's where the 1.9% figure comes from - and you fully understand it.

No, I understand perfectly that under normal electoral jargon, a person who gets 1,000 more votes than the opponent is said to have a majority of 1,000. It may be that some people think it would be better expressed as a majority of 500, but that doesn't make it so.

Here's a question. When we were first relegated from the Premier League, we got 30 points, Wigan got 36. If we had beaten them the week before, all else being equal, we would have stopped up. So would you say Wigan finished three points ahead of us, or 6?

[RingoMcCartney]

So far as I can add up, if there were 12 Tory rebels and 4 Labour rebels and the rest were "paired" then the Amendment would have been passed.

I could be wrong on this. But I reckon the vast majority of MPs who voted tonight, were elected on a manifesto pledge of leaving the single market/customs union.

[Jakubclaret]

No, I understand perfectly that under normal electoral jargon, a person who gets 1,000 more votes than the opponent is said to have a majority of 1,000. It may be that some people think it would be better expressed as a majority of 500, but that doesn't make it so.

Here's a question. When we were first relegated from the Premier League, we got 30 points, Wigan got 36. If we had beaten them the week before, all else being equal, we would have stopped up. So would you say Wigan finished three points ahead of us, or 6?

Your friend could perhaps need some help from carol vorderman with the numbers.

[aggi]

I could be wrong on this. But I reckon the vast majority of MPs who voted tonight, were elected on a manifesto pledge of leaving the single market/customs union.

Possibly in Ringo world where a few percent is a vast majority.

[burnleymik]

Welcome to the mb, burnleymik.

I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to the "political discourse."

I've posted a number of times in the past couple of years or so about the poor quality of our MPs (and other members of the political establishment).

A selection of my thoughts:
1) limit political positions to no more than 1 member of a family group at any one time. Open up parliament by prohibiting more than one family member to be an MP - or hold other political positions: the Johnson family, Stanley, Boris and the younger brother; the Millibands; the Mr and Mrs X and Y (there are a surprising number of couples who are both MPs). It would be interesting if someone could do a count, perhaps fewer than 500 individual families represented in HoC.
2) No MP can serve for more than 10 years if they haven't spent at least 10 years outside and away from politics. Yes, a youngster can leave uni and enter parliament, but can't stay more than 10 years and then their political career is over. Politics would be better with people with "real life" experiences, whatever those experiences are.
3) All MPs, government ministers, senior civil servants and other senior "quasi-autonomous non-government organisation" employees to receive only direct contribution pensions - remove all defined benefit pensions for all in these groups, the taxpayers should not be guaranteeing them a pension for their mistakes.
4) Parliament to move to Manchester/Northern Powerhouse in 2022 within an Assembly type structure (less adversarial); and after 5 years move again to one of the other regions: Bristol/South West, Birmingham/Midlands, Newcastle/N.East - return to London, for a 5 year period after this tour - but, not to the Palace of Westminister - turn the latter into a tourist attraction. Open up the country to politics - burst the "westminster bubble."
If we hadn't devolved powers to Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland I'd also include those regions in the "it's important you know your country parliaments."
5) In the same way that arguments are made for gender balance, political parties should include representation for MPs who have "experienced life abroad" (excluding any political experience - Brussels as an MEP or EU Commissioner wont count). Seeing how other countries do things might chance some perspectives, it might burst the "Britain is always best" perspective. Who knows, we might start (much needed) reform of the NHS if some MPs were appointed with experience of European health systems.

Wow, some great points, you have clearly put plenty of thought into this.

1. I totally agree, too often it becomes a family affair, it should definitely be limited and that should include hiring each other's family as staff too, which I know goes on.

2. I agree upto a point, I think they should be able to have a political career again as long as they have had some real world experience somewhere along the line for X number of years. Too many politicians have no idea what a real and honest days work even looks like and I think that helps create the disconnect.

3. Spot on. I would add into that that anyone with financial interests should not be allowed any kind of representation or political sway over the areas where they hold those concerns, i.e. pharmaceuticals.

4. I think there is definitely a disconnect between London and the rest of the UK, that is something Brexit definitely highlighted and it's quite clear it would do some of these MP's good to see life outside London. I like the idea of moving it around, but would the public be outraged at the costs that would incur. I mean look at the feeling towards the waste of moving the whole EU to Starsbourg at a cost of 150 million per year and they do it once per month for just 4 days! I know it;s not in the same ballpark, but these MP's like their creature comforts and would hammer the expense system!

5. I think any external experiences can only be for the good. We should actively be recruiting people who can give strong views on new ways of doing things, but the problem with our current system is that it is very rigid and traditionalist, not sure if they would ever change that.

Great stuff though. Enjoyed reading your thoughts and ideas.

[burnleymik]

I could be wrong on this. But I reckon the vast majority of MPs who voted tonight, were elected on a manifesto pledge of leaving the single market/customs union.

I know it's not possible right now, but I would like to see Manifesto's hold some kind of legal binding. It gets tiresome that people waste their democratic votes, often based on those manifesto promises, and they can just be tossed aside and ignored. All the parties are guilty of it and as a voter it is incredibly frustrating as you have to wait 4 years to have another say.

[RingoMcCartney]

Possibly in Ringo world where a few percent is a vast majority.

In "Ringo world" which is the world the rest of us, minus aggi, share.

Every single current sitting Labour and Tory MP has been elected on an manifesto pledge of leaving the single market/customs union.

Apparently, tonight, many of them have conveniently forgotten that.

Democracy when it suits eh?

[RingoMcCartney]

I know it's not possible right now, but I would like to see Manifesto's hold some kind of legal binding. It gets tiresome that people waste their democratic votes, often based on those manifesto promises, and they can just be tossed aside and ignored. All the parties are guilty of it and as a voter it is incredibly frustrating as you have to wait 4 years to have another say.

Anna Soubrey.

Voted for the EU referendum.

Has a constituency that voted to Leave

Re-elected on a manifesto pledge of leaving the single market/ customs union, ending free movement of people, and the juridstiction of the ECJ.

I reckon her memorys been affected by saying "easy on the tonic steward" once too often.....

[aggi]

In "Ringo world" which is the world the rest of us minus aggi share.

Every single current sitting Labour and Tory MP has been elected on an manifesto pledge of leaving the single market/customs union.

Apparently, tonight many of them have conveniently forgotten that.

Really? I must admit I didn't read

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union

as a pledge of leaving the single market/customs union. I'm sure you can point out where in the manifesto it did say that though.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Yep. Nothing to do with the Global Financial Crisis, or years of Tory austerity. It’s all the fault of those damn immigrants.

Why punch up when it’s so much easier to punch down, eh Crosspool?

Edit to add - I’m fairly sure there was mass migration prior to 2008. I vaguely remember the Daily Mail editorial “what have the Huguenots ever done for us?”

The trouble is that the media, think tanks and politicians are so liberal they shut down any debate on this topic and suffer from confirmation bias and group think.

I’m a qualified economist (though it’s as an accountant that I have generally made a living). I tend to keep things simple, thus what seems to be the case, usually is.

I’d simply make these points:

• 1. I made a mistake in an earlier tweet, it was since 2004 that Poland et al joined the EU, and since then our GDP per capita has not risen much if at all, whereas Germany has and the US has shot up. That is 14 years.
  2. Simple supply and demand economics would suggest that if worker numbers go up, wages go down. We are at the point in the economic cycle when companies should be short of workers and this pushes up wages, but it isn’t happening - because there isn’t a shortfall.
  3. Not only that but companies have little incentive to invest in training and development, pay full time wages (they prefer a flexible workforce of part timers), improve working conditions to attract workers, and negotiate with unions. Why should they - there is an endless supply of cheap labour.
  4. That means very, very low productivity - a huge problem for our economy (as is those same migrants sending much of the money home instead of reinvesting it in our economy).
  5. The Phillips Curve is the thing that is meant to prove wages should be rising. But it applies to closed systems. Ours is open, with a never ending labour supply. It is an economic anomaly (not unique, but rare).
  6. Governments have a perverse incentive to promote GDP growth, not GDP per capita. It makes them look good. We are NOT booming. Far from it (prior to the Brexit vote).

That’s why I feel certain that mass low skilled migration is very, very bad for ordinary British workers. That, as Remainers like to do, is focused on economic issues. Add cultural and social issues and the effect is devastating. A steady decline in quality of life for many people. Many justifiably think this adds to our culture, but we have to accept many do not.

Who knows though, maybe I’m wrong? Maybe I’m a soft touch? I just go with my conscience on how to vote and get a bit naffed off when the virtue signallers imply they are somehow more caring than I am. They just think differently, that’s all.

[RingoMcCartney]

Really? I must admit I didn't read

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union

as a pledge of leaving the single market/customs union. I'm sure you can point out where in the manifesto it did say that though.

If you're pledging to "retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union". That clearly means you accept the existing relationship , between the EU and the UK will change. I.e. not in the single market/ customs union. Otherwise Labour's manifesto would have stated that. If you struggle to understand the implication of the wording in the manifesto here's some sources I've found that help to clarify for you.

"Jeremy Corbyn insists UK cannot remain in single market after Brexit"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ter-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Immediately after the election, John McDonnell said “I think people will interpret membership of the single market as not respecting that referendum.” This was consistent with Labour’s manifesto, which promised to retain the “benefits or the single market and the customs union” without being a member of either.

That's Labour's top 2 saying it.

This is the New Statesman saying it-

"On 23 June 2016, voters were simply asked if they would like to remain a member of the EU or leave it. But the Labour manifesto in 2017 was a hard Brexit manifesto. It promised to leave the European Union by “accepting the result”, and that “freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union”. By definition for freedom of movement to end, we will have to leave the single market, since, since, as the EU’s chief negotiator has observed, the four freedoms are indivisble.

So Michel Barnier says, if as Labour did, pledge to end free movement of people, you have to leave the single market


https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... ard-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So thats the Labour leader, the Shadow chancellor, the EUs chief negotiator, Michel Barnier and the New Statesman all saying that Labour pledged to leave the customs union/ single market.

Oh and Ringo Mcartney.

But not aggi!

"Labour would take Britain out of the EU single market, Jeremy Corbyn says"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 20%251%24s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Independent says it.

But not aggi.

Labour List says so.

"Labour conference was right to block a vote on membership of the single market."

https://labourlist.org/2017/11/the-sing ... -anywhere/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So thats the Labour leader, the Shadow chancellor, the EUs chief negotiator, Michel Barnier and the New Statesman The Independent and Labour List all saying that Labour pledged to leave the customs union/ single market.

and Ringo Mcartney.

But definately definately not aggi!!

[nil_desperandum]

Your friend could perhaps need some help from carol vorderman with the numbers.

Can you explain why I need any help with numbers?
I don't even understand why dsr is pursuing this point.
Have you ever heard of a "6 pointer" in football, when you can only get 3 points for a win?
It's exactly the same point.
Wigan beat us - they got 3 points, but that put them 6 ahead of where they would have been had we taken the 3 points.
It's exactly the same when it comes to a vote. If 3 people change sides then it makes a net difference of 6.
As in my example: a majority of 1000 is eradicated if 500 people change sides.
In General elections the swing from one party to another is always the crucial equation that analysts and parties look for. That's why we get lists of key seats where a tiny percentage swing results in a change of MP.
At the referendum the margin was 3.8%, so there is no argument that if just over 1.9% had voted the other way, (i.e. a 1.9% swing) - then the result would have been the opposite.
(I'm not making any political or anti-brexit statement, just simply giving you the numbers. So in what sense - Jakub - could Ms Vorderman explain this more clearly or reach a different mathematical conclusion to me?)