The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[chrisp65]

35 minutes ago, Rodders said:

 

See I read that and for the problem is the complete lack of sufficient infrastructure - not the immigrants. 

On the population numbers, what would be relevant is how much they contribute to the pressures versus general population growth anyway. 

A quick google ( https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics ) brings up: 

• According to the latest estimates by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), net migration from overseas to the UK in the year ending March 2019 totalled 226,000 (about double the average level of annual net migration during the period since 1975, which was just over 113,000 per year). See the latest estimates hereand the latest Migration Statistics Quarterly Report.
• The ONS has said the latest estimates are ‘experimental’ following the identification of limitations regarding the main source of the figures – the International Passenger Survey. Here is the ONS’s full briefing on the various adjustments resulting from these findings: ‘Understanding different migration data sources: August 2019 progress report’ (August 2019).

Given that shutting off migration entirely is daft, I really can't see how curtailing migration would have made any significant difference to our problems. You spread that figure out across the country and the impact is going to be a fairly negligible element contribution to each region.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t quite work like that. People don’t tend to spread themselves out equally. Those ONS figures show that the population of Scotland grew by 0.2% last year. I think you can call that negligible, it must be well within any margin of error.
But you then look at the figures for Tower Hamlets, population in 2016 was 302,000 and the population in 2017 was 317,000 increasing at 25 times the rate in Scotland. As pointed out above, an extra 15,000 every year in Tower Hamlets, I doubt they’re building an extra school every year. 

 

**It’s fascinating, I just found Tower Hamlets own figures and projections.
The population in 2012 was 263,000, they estimate that in 2020 it will be 328,000
They estimate that between 2018 and 2028 they’ll see a rise of 40% in the number of over 65’s in the Borough.
 

Edited November 27, 2019 by chrisp65

[bickster]

I'm reading that Best for Britain has changed its recommended Party to vote for in 82 seats from LibDem to Labour

[Rodders]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Unfortunately, it doesn’t quite work like that. People don’t tend to spread themselves out equally. Those ONS figures show that the population of Scotland grew by 0.2% last year. I think you can call that negligible, it must be well within any margin of error.
But you then look at the figures for Tower Hamlets, population in 2016 was 302,000 and the population in 2017 was 317,000 increasing at 25 times the rate in Scotland. As pointed out above, an extra 15,000 every year in Tower Hamlets, I doubt they’re building an extra school every year. 
 

Yes, I was mid posting and got cut off by a colleague so I posted that a little too soon

I was going to add a caveat that migration isn't neatly spread around, and large clusters will emerge, where communities presumably find each other, but the problem is still one of infrastructure though. These clusters might lead to more intense pressure points on GP / school / etc in the area,  but that pressure is going to exist independent of the added migration.  Scaling back numbers might help temporarily, or maybe not - consider where they might be working in that area - but any alleviation on incoming numbers in hot spots is going to be nothing more than a sticking plaster to issues that concern people, they'd soon find out the services are struggling regardless

[Xann]

51 minutes ago, Awol said:

Those were the days, going down the NAAFI for furious debates about climate change and predatory capitalism...

I’m on a third stint at Uni and drowning in leftie gibberish about intersectionality, not right-wing economic theory. Btw, my preferred pronouns are He/Hee (currently identify as Michael Jackson).

Shout when you get the bit about not getting out of a hole witha bigger spade.

Left and Right is outmoded in many countries. The likes of Putin represent themselves.

[mjmooney]

56 minutes ago, Awol said:

Those were the days, going down the NAAFI for furious debates about climate change and predatory capitalism...

I’m on a third stint at Uni and drowning in leftie gibberish about intersectionality, not right-wing economic theory. Btw, my preferred pronouns are He/Hee (currently identify as Michael Jackson).

Hilarious. 

[bickster]

 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I’m on a third stint at Uni and drowning in leftie gibberish about intersectionality, not right-wing economic theory. Btw, my preferred pronouns are He/Hee

Quite a few lefties regard the continual focus on personal identity and remembering preferred pronouns as a diversion from the bigger issues.

But I must admit the thought of you trapped in a room with a group of youngsters trying to discuss these things with you, makes me smile.

[cyrusr]

Couple of interesting points from the documents that I have glanced so far (I've put them in spoiler to shorten the size of the post!): 

From the 2nd set of meetings 13 - 14 November 2017 

Spoiler

Meeting 14 November 2017 - summary from lead negotiator - "Very good atmosphere with strong discussion on substantive IP issues. The US made a strong pitch on geographical indicators, proposing six objectives for the UK in this area. Provided a useful insight into the offensive areas the US is likely to pursue in an FTA. Trade secrets discussion was insightful, indicating this will be a key priority for the US. Unclear how far apart we are on this at present. A more limited discussion on pharmaceuticals. The US stated up front that they were unable to have an in-depth conversation given there are difficulties in NAFTA in this area. The US also said that the current Administration may want a shift in some areas of policy here so they were unable to answer some of the questions we posed. It was nevertheless a very helpful exposition on the key areas we can expect the US to push in an FTA and for us to start to determine the areas where we may find ourselves in difficult territory. The impact of some patent issues raised on NHS access to generic drugs (i.e. cheaper drugs) will be a key consideration going forward. Biologics were hugely contentious under TPP so one we were interested in discussing but unclear how far apart we are in this area. Agreed that for the next Working Group we would discuss: getting a better understanding of each other’s IP systems; our respective governance processes and procedures in trade negotiations; stakeholder engagement in IP. We also agreed to come back to some of the specific issues such as GIs and pharma patents. Good progress on the SME work stream within the STO work plan with agreement to complete product first quarter of next year and to join up with the wider SME (regulation) group."

 

From the 3rd set of meetings on 21 - 22 March 2018

Spoiler

Meeting 10 April 2018 due to weather on State-Owned Enterprises. The query about 'health insurance' was likely a fishing expedition to check the tone of our response. We do not currently believe the US has a major offensive interest in this space – not through the SOE ("state owned enterprise") chapter at least. Our response dealt with this for now, but we will need to be able to go into more detail about the functioning of the NHS and our views on whether or not it is engaged in commercial activities, including through consultation with the Public Services team in TPD.

 

Spoiler

Meeting 21 March 2018 on Intellectual Property - Other actions/follow up 3. IP protection for pharmaceuticals in the U.S. and UK; a. US will provide detail to the UK on how often patent term extensions and adjustments are used (in terms of volume and proportion of patents) and will set up a call between US and UK patent experts to discuss in more detail. b. The UK suggested further discussions on the impact of US pharmaceutical data protection systems on generic entry and drug pricing would be valuable, and US suggested discussions on US legislative history behind the biologic protection period would be interesting to cover.

 

From the 4th Meeting 10 - 11 July 2018

Spoiler

Meeting 11 July 2018 - Intellectual Property: Patents and Pharmaceuticals "There was mutual recognition that this was a conversation between two of the world’s leading countries with regards to patent policy.The US were testing our system and eager to push their positions but all in a highly respectful manner. Nicki Curtis (UK IPO) and Charles Eloshway (USPTO) both demonstrated a depth of knowledge of one another’s systems. I would recommend that a useful way to move the agenda forward is for further expert sessions (via VC) to tackle detailed points. We have reached a point (for Patents in Pharmaceuticals/Health) where beyond specific policy details in niche areas, we are awaiting the clearance to negotiate and exchange text to really take significant further steps. There is however significant scope to discuss patents in other areas at future sessions, in particular: Technology and Agriculture/Chemicals. The agenda for TIWG 5 should focus on broadening the patent discussion to ensure that all areas have been covered and to tease out further thinking from the US in the area of Patent Linkage/ERM/ERPD. (See IP Session 1 note for further IP topics to be discussed at TIWG 5)."

 

From the 5th set of meetings 2 - 7 November 2018

Quote

Economics - 7 November 2018 "US presented preliminary economic modelling results analysing the impact of a UK/US FTA, under ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Brexit scenarios, on the UK/US economies and on bilateral trade. The analysis looked only at tariff and TRQ elimination and did not model NTBs or services trade. The main macroeconomic outputs suggested that UK welfare and GDP gains from elimination of UK and US tariffs and TRQs on goods would be smaller under the ‘hard Brexit’ scenario, whereas for the US, the reverse held. USTR were keen to have an update on our CGE modelling, suggesting a future video call between UK and US modellers."

 

The 6th Set of meetings from 10 - 11 July 2018 is merely the summary and agenda rather than the full read out which is included in the other documents. However these points are noted: 

Spoiler

The TIWG involved 12 chapter-level discussions (see Annex for details), including topics such as procurement and disputes which the U.S. had resisted to date. It means that we have now had at least preliminary discussions across all the major policy areas that we might expect to feature in a UK-U.S. FTA. As I said in the closing plenary, we have completed the first lap (the US delegation said privately that they feel we are at a point they would expect to reach one year into a formal negotiation).

 

Spoiler

This was the first TIWG since we signed the trade Continuity Agreements. Both sides recognised the achievement of having all relevant trade related agreements in place to ensure continuity when we leave EU. These include MRAs (covering sectors worth £12.8 billion of trade) and the Organics, Wine and Spirits agreements – the latter celebrated at a Scotch Whisky Association-hosted reception following the working group. We noted the commercial importance of remaining agreements being progressed in the parallel Economic Working Group – notably the Customs Agreement and Privacy Shield.

 

Spoiler

The USTR team is keen to move into the formal phase of negotiations. Ahead of the publication of UK negotiating objectives, there now little that we will be able to achieve in further pre-negotiation engagement. USTR officials noted continued pressure from their political leadership to pursue an FTA and a desire to be fully prepared for the launch of negotiations after the end of October. They envisage a high cadence negotiation – with rounds every 6 weeks – but it was interesting that my opposite number thought that there would remain a political and resource commitment to a UK negotiation even if it were thought that the chances of completing negotiations in a Trump first term were low. He felt that being able to point to advanced negotiations with the UK was viewed as having political advantages for the President going in to the 2020 elections. USTR were also clear that the UK-EU situation would be determinative: there would be all to play for in a No Deal situation but UK commitment to the Customs Union and Single Market would make a UK-U.S. FTA a non-starter. We will play the sequencing of the next full working group by ear but have agreed a work programme for the next two months for coordination teams to take forward discussions on structure, sequencing and ways of working.

What does come across (IMO) is , but there are clear progress on them. They are certainly non-committal from the UK, but it is the last few quotes that are particularly telling.

1. These really are initial negotiations; 
2. The UK seems relatively non-committal on the whole; 
3. There is discussions around Patents in Pharmaceuticals, with discussions starting on 2nd set of meetings;
4. There needed to be clearance from higher up to discuss the patents issue (cannot see further reference to this though);  
5. Health Insurance, albeit may be more in the private sector rather than removal of NHS; 
6. USA clear it will be more beneficial from a hard Brexit;
7. We've signed Continuity Agreements (don't recall reading about that!); 
8. A free trade agreement would also be a non-starter if the UK was to remain in the Customs Union and Single Market;
9. That a trade deal was unlikely to be concluded by the end of this presidential term (November 2020 - this was when the Brexit date was 31 October 2019); and
10. A lot more seems discussed in 6th set of meetings that no detailed notes for. 

These are lengthy documents and quite technical, so I haven't read everything and if I have misinterpreted anything I apologise in advance. Are they interesting? A little, curious to see the discussions set out. Are they significant? Only in so far that there is open dialogue around a lot of trade issues. The position of the USA remains pretty clear though, and that may be a massive sticking point to a Free Trade Deal. Whether they insist the NHS being a part of that I am not entirely sure... 

Edited November 27, 2019 by cyrusr

[Chindie]

48 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm reading that Best for Britain has changed its recommended Party to vote for in 82 seats from LibDem to Labour

Someone must have told them the pretense that they're not partisan has done it's job re. the piss Tories.

[Chindie]

Speaking of the Acceptable Face of word removed -ery Party, they seem to have spent rather a lot of today rolling back their revoke pledge that had as much connection to reality as my wish to make a time machine.

Good old Piss Tories.

[NurembergVillan]

3 hours ago, Risso said:

Erm, I wouldn't imagine so.  I think the whole point of the advert is that post-Brexit, by allowing people with the relevant skills in from all over the world rather than people from the EU having priority, there will be ample opportunities to make sure the NHS is adequately staffed.

Aha! So instead of having to select from 1) qualified UK nationals, 2) qualified EU nationals who have elected to live here, and 3) qualified applicants from the RotW who want to go through the rigorous and potentially costly visa applications process, we will instead be able to select from 1) qualified UK nationals, and 2) qualified applicants from the EU and the RotW who want to go through the rigorous and potentially costly visa applications process.

Seems like a great strategy. Making it harder and potentially more costly to access a career that already pays shit wages to most of its workforce.

The poster is blatantly aimed at stoking xenophobic mindsets.

The angle it is taking, about pressure on the NHS, would be better represented if it said "We're protecting the NHS by ordering a mandatory cull of over the 75s".

[mjmooney]

7 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

The angle it is taking, about pressure on the NHS, would be better represented if it said "We're protecting the NHS by ordering a mandatory cull of over the 75s".

No way, that's their core demographic. 

They just haven't fully worked out how to cull the under-30s yet. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

That 'Hindu Council' guy that people were joyfully touting around yesterday evening looks worse by the minute. Here he is claiming that an 8-year-old rape victim, wasn't actually raped:

 

Off topic but it’s disgusting what is happening in Kashmir at the moment. Similar things happened in Punjabi and Delhi in the 80s. Many Sikhs have never forgiven the Indian government and never well. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Vive_La_Villa

[sharkyvilla]

The YouGov seat projection thing looks pretty grim with a Tory majority of 68.  I'd still take these things with a pinch of salt though.

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

The YouGov seat projection thing looks pretty grim with a Tory majority of 68.  I'd still take these things with a pinch of salt though.

I’ve seen projections of tory majorities between 20 to 60. i suppose the thing to remember would be everyone was caught out last time by Labour gaining 30 seats. So just to retain the ‘surprise 30’ would be quite a task.

[StefanAVFC]

Horrendous.

[Dodgyknees]

Wow

 

[Dodgyknees]

Where do you all get your news from?

Any sites we can rely on?

[jackbauer24]

It seems incredible to me that anyone can look at the last ten years and think "do you know what, I'd call that a success" and vote for more of the same. More jaw-dropping is that it looks like being a healthy majority.

Boris. Trump. The world is done.

[markavfc40]

In 30 of the seats they reckon Tories will take from Labour their leads is apparently under 5%.

The most likely result has always been a Tory majority and if this poll is correct it seems they have won it by taking leave voting constituencies from Labour in the midlands and north.