Little-known fact about Anne McIntosh: she's half-Danish. We were lynchpins of the all-party Danish group, together with the Wintertons. We all fell out when I criticised Mrs Winterton for telling a dodgy joke at a meeting with a Danish company in London. But AM was a competent, mild-mannered MP and I'm sorry she's apparently come to a sticky end.
Wythenshawe and Sale East SoPN Address given by candidates
UKIP: Eddisbury constituency OMRLP: Wythenshawe and Sale East Con: Stretford and Urmston LD: Wythenshawe and Sale East Lab: Wythenshawe and Sale East BNP: Salford and Eccles Green: Stretford and Urmston
Not sure it matters to many voters. My address on the ballot paper in 1997 was a thousand miles away, in Switzerland. We were a bit nervous about it but nobody commented. As soon as i moved to the constituency, my support started to decline. There's a lesson in there somerwhere.
If you've got any objections to the HS2 phase two route, then you have fourteen minutes in which to submit your objections. In other words, you've probably left it a little late ...
Absolutely. This doesn't ask for an opinion on the project as a whole but comments on the route, so I raised a string of queries that constituents requested.
Come on, Nick.
Tell us the "dodgy joke".
Otherwise you will be forced to drink a bottle of gammel dansk a day until next May in forfeit.
Anyone else building up a list of outstanding bets for the GE and thinking !crikey! thats alot of wagers in total.
Up past a grand now ^^;;; (I'm normally a £5/£10 per bet man)
Get on YES for Scotland before the price plummets. I wish I had some spare cash.
I'm on that at 4-1
Better Together are in melt down along with Scottish Labour
What? Have they lost all five of their directors?
Oh no.....that's the other lot.....
Yes Scotland sheds more senior staff as funding doubts reemerge The five executive directors hired to run the official independence campaign have all now gone, adding to questions about its direction and spending power
Their departures has fueled suspicions that Yes Scotland is running short of cash, and needs to cut costs, while those there have cited internal tensions, doubts over Blair Jenkins' leadership as chief executive and the increase in day-to-day control over Yes Scotland's activities by the Scottish National party, belying its cross-party founding principles.
Well it is not having an immediate effect. We have received another 12 page "newspaper" from Yes today, the third I think, full of the most laughable rubbish and members of the Labour party who will be voting yes, apparently.
I have not received anything remotely similar from the no campaign.
David, that is because they only have lies to peddle and do not have any activists to deliver , they have to rely on the BBC.
It wouldnt be tax and spend dictated by London. A currency union would be shared sovereignty. Both sides would have to agree to certain rules on how it would operate. You could just as easily view it as Edinburgh dictating the rUK's tax and spend policies.
In the same way, the earth technically speaking orbits the moon.
Except the Moon's diameter is 27% of the Earth's......not 8%...
And Scotland is 32% of the UK by area.
That is a bit too much for Carlotta's pea brain to take in
"At most there would be a vague, face-saving assurance that we'd take Scotland's needs into consideration when formulating policy."
Why on Earth should we do that, Mr. Navabi? Telling even white lies seldom helps and never in the case of formulating policy. Why shouldn't everyone be told the truth, "Scotland's needs, as far as they differ from those of England, will be accorded the same degree of consideration as those of Burkina Faso".
We will see when the markets are spooked and financial reality sets in , they will be shaking in their boots.
Oh, come on, Mr. G.. If Scotland wants independence, and, by the cringe, if I were a Scot I would, then it should go independent not feck about trying to pretend that 10% is an equal share. Have your own head of state, have your own currency make your own decisions or what is the point?
Hurst , the word is "Share", it is far from unusual to keep the same currency for a period. It will take many years to unravel the union fully. Hence ladbrokes having a currency union at odds of 1/100.
@malcolmg: “We will see when the markets are spooked and financial reality sets in , they will be shaking in their boots.” “Rump UK will be begging for it once they accept they are whipped.”
LOL. It’s the sobriety of your arguments that makes them so compelling. You’ve got some interesting Freudian fantasies going on there with your last statement.
Thank you for your penetrating insight. By Freudian theory Malcolm has left the Oral Phase and is now encountering the Anal/Sadistic Phase which is typical of three year olds.
Poor old Monica , adding NO value as ever. Do you ever have an independent thought.
Little-known fact about Anne McIntosh: she's half-Danish. We were lynchpins of the all-party Danish group, together with the Wintertons. We all fell out when I criticised Mrs Winterton for telling a dodgy joke at a meeting with a Danish company in London. But AM was a competent, mild-mannered MP and I'm sorry she's apparently come to a sticky end.
Wythenshawe and Sale East SoPN Address given by candidates
UKIP: Eddisbury constituency OMRLP: Wythenshawe and Sale East Con: Stretford and Urmston LD: Wythenshawe and Sale East Lab: Wythenshawe and Sale East BNP: Salford and Eccles Green: Stretford and Urmston
Not sure it matters to many voters. My address on the ballot paper in 1997 was a thousand miles away, in Switzerland. We were a bit nervous about it but nobody commented. As soon as i moved to the constituency, my support started to decline. There's a lesson in there somerwhere.
If you've got any objections to the HS2 phase two route, then you have fourteen minutes in which to submit your objections. In other words, you've probably left it a little late ...
Absolutely. This doesn't ask for an opinion on the project as a whole but comments on the route, so I raised a string of queries that constituents requested.
Cool. I know you and I differ on the project, but I'm all for people submitting comments on it.
But surely they're ex-constituents and possibly to-be constituents? ;-)
have your own currency make your own decisions or what is the point?
Having your own currency doesnt mean you get to make your own decisions. You can sign up to a currency union that requires fiscal discipline or you can have fiscal discipline imposed on you by the markets, there's not much difference when it comes to sovereignty so you might as well go with whatever works best.
Fair go, Mr. Neil, but if the Scots are happy to have their fiscal and monetary policy imposed by London why bother with independence? A currency Union with the England would mean that in any real sense of the word Scotland would not be independent. Indeed it would have less influence over its own affairs than it does now.
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
Dear Dear Hurst, it would be an agreement by both countries , biggest issue would be rump UK meeting its targets , it is little wonder they are bricking it as reality looms.
@malcolmg: “We will see when the markets are spooked and financial reality sets in , they will be shaking in their boots.” “Rump UK will be begging for it once they accept they are whipped.”
LOL. It’s the sobriety of your arguments that makes them so compelling. You’ve got some interesting Freudian fantasies going on there with your last statement.
Thank you for your penetrating insight. By Freudian theory Malcolm has left the Oral Phase and is now encountering the Anal/Sadistic Phase which is typical of three year olds.
Poor old Monica , adding NO value as ever. Do you ever have an independent thought.
I thought you'd have figured out she was against independence
Little-known fact about Anne McIntosh: she's half-Danish. We were lynchpins of the all-party Danish group, together with the Wintertons. We all fell out when I criticised Mrs Winterton for telling a dodgy joke at a meeting with a Danish company in London. But AM was a competent, mild-mannered MP and I'm sorry she's apparently come to a sticky end.
Wythenshawe and Sale East SoPN Address given by candidates
UKIP: Eddisbury constituency OMRLP: Wythenshawe and Sale East Con: Stretford and Urmston LD: Wythenshawe and Sale East Lab: Wythenshawe and Sale East BNP: Salford and Eccles Green: Stretford and Urmston
Not sure it matters to many voters. My address on the ballot paper in 1997 was a thousand miles away, in Switzerland. We were a bit nervous about it but nobody commented. As soon as i moved to the constituency, my support started to decline. There's a lesson in there somerwhere.
If you've got any objections to the HS2 phase two route, then you have fourteen minutes in which to submit your objections. In other words, you've probably left it a little late ...
Absolutely. This doesn't ask for an opinion on the project as a whole but comments on the route, so I raised a string of queries that constituents requested.
So Nick, to continue a different thread some topics ago. If the Lab party wins the next election, is in favour of HS2 (what is their position btw?) and a majority of your constituents are against, is it your job to represent the views of your constituents to the Govt or represent/promote the Govt's view to your constituents?
1) The last quarter where real wages were rising at a 4%pa was 1992q1. That must have had an effect on the general election of April 1992.
2) Real wages rose by less than 1%pa between 1993 and 1997. Which helps explain why the Conservative government reaped so little benefit from a strong economy.
3) The last year where real wages rose at over 3% throughout the year was 2001, the year after what I rate as the all time peak of the UK economy.
4) From 2002 onwards there has been a small overall fall in real wages (can anyone think of what might have been a contributory factor ?) yet retail sales have increased 27%. Now what might the extra trillion of household debt and extra trillion of government debt have been spent on ?
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
Since the EU is going through the final stages of becoming a signatory to the ECHR in its own right it won't matter if Germany or anyone else agrees to treaty amendments allowing the UK to withdraw . We would still be subject to the convention as long as we remained members of the EURO and our courts would still have to enforce ECHR rulings
The LD incumbency boost will work in reverse in the 9 seats where sitting MPs won't be standing again as LDs, and there may yet be a few more to add to that list.
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
Since the EU is going through the final stages of becoming a signatory to the ECHR in its own right it won't matter if Germany or anyone else agrees to treaty amendments allowing the UK to withdraw . We would still be subject to the convention as long as we remained members of the EURO and our courts would still have to enforce ECHR rulings
I don't think that's true.
The EU as a body is going to become subject to the ECHR. So, EU decisions can be challenged in the ECHR.
However, if the British government decides to deny prisoners the vote, then that will be an entirely British decision. There will be no right of appeal to the ECHR.
British courts will no longer be subserviant to the ECHR.
It's pretty rare for a Tory association to pull the plug on a candidate. I can only think of George Gardiner and John Browne in the past 25 years...
Nick Hawkins in Surrey Heath in 2005, was deselected and made way for Michael Gove
Ah yes, I'd forgotten about him. Never did work out why he was deselected...
Clash with the local association members, they had a level of arrogance unparalleled anywhere in the country , and if you know local associations, that is some achievement.
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?
I am saying Germany (under Merkel) would acquiese. I don't know about the other members of the EU!
have your own currency make your own decisions or what is the point?
Having your own currency doesnt mean you get to make your own decisions. You can sign up to a currency union that requires fiscal discipline or you can have fiscal discipline imposed on you by the markets, there's not much difference when it comes to sovereignty so you might as well go with whatever works best.
Fair go, Mr. Neil, but if the Scots are happy to have their fiscal and monetary policy imposed by London why bother with independence? A currency Union with the England would mean that in any real sense of the word Scotland would not be independent. Indeed it would have less influence over its own affairs than it does now.
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
Dear Dear Hurst, it would be an agreement by both countries , biggest issue would be rump UK meeting its targets , it is little wonder they are bricking it as reality looms.
Has there in fact been any serious discussion of whether EWNI would itself qualify for Mr Carney's stipulations (which were carefully symmetrical, to the degree that I am wondering if there were three dogs in that fight - Whitehall, Scotland and the BoE - which last may be staking out its territory?
I am reminded of this by the news yesterday on motorway improvements east of Glasgow - funded by bonds with the debt on, presumably, the books 100%, and not PFI/PPP. Now that's fiscal rectitude for you, as is paying student fees up front rather than risk repayment failure, as a piece in the latest Private Eye reminds me.
The latter says that some heathen financial trick is being used to make the derisory yields from the SLC attractive to the commercial market, but this is beyond me, so if anyone has read it and can please explain ....
The LD incumbency boost will work in reverse in the 9 seats where sitting MPs won't be standing again as LDs, and there may yet be a few more to add to that list.
I can understand why it wouldn't exist, but why would it work in reverse?
The LD incumbency boost will work in reverse in the 9 seats where sitting MPs won't be standing again as LDs, and there may yet be a few more to add to that list.
I can understand why it wouldn't exist, but why would it work in reverse?
Presumably he means the unwinding of a historical benefit?
The EU as a body is going to become subject to the ECHR. So, EU decisions can be challenged in the ECHR.
However, if the British government decides to deny prisoners the vote, then that will be an entirely British decision. There will be no right of appeal to the ECHR.
British courts will no longer be subserviant to the ECHR.
Not my understanding - I believe that the EU accession will be binding on all members for national decisions as well. It would be useful if someone could clarify it.
Otherwise you will be forced to drink a bottle of gammel dansk a day until next May in forfeit.
Think you've probably heard it - it was about the then recently-killed Chinese cockle-pickers in Morecambe Bay and how sharks might see them as Chinese food. I thought it a genuinely unpleasant witticism. Michael Howard suspended her over it, though some Tories felt that the dinner should have been considered private:
Mr W loyally said I had "no honour" for commenting on his wife's remark and they declined to speak to me for many months. Eventually I said to Mrs W that this was getting silly, and perhaps we should bury the hatchet for New Year. She agreed pleasantly enough, and amiable terms were restored.
Citi’s research found that the economy’s growth has happened while the private sector has been paying down its debt. The ratio of household debt to income is back to 2003 levels, and the ratio of companies’ bank deposits to debts is the highest for 50 years. Even first-time buyers, when they get on the ladder, are only spending 11 per cent of their income on mortgage repayments. And now that the economy – and nominal GDP – is growing, the incentives for companies to save is diminishing. They’ll start spending on wages, jobs and investment, fuelling the recovery.
The LD incumbency boost will work in reverse in the 9 seats where sitting MPs won't be standing again as LDs, and there may yet be a few more to add to that list.
I can understand why it wouldn't exist, but why would it work in reverse?
We may not be at cross purposes. What I meant was that if an newly elected MP gets a boost of say 5% of VI share in the subsequent election and then keeps it, then when that MP eventually stands down the replacement candidate can expect a loss of 5% of the established VI share in that election. Removing the incumbency effect is the equivalent to it working in reverse.
Surely you need to take account of the Indyref in Scotland. A yes will almost certainly be followed emergency legislation removing Scotland from GE2015. If that doesn't happen then perhaps we should be betting on a change of remainder UK government on Indepenence day when 50 Labout MP's leave the commons and leave a CON majority.
Surely you need to take account of the Indyref in Scotland. A yes will almost certainly be followed emergency legislation removing Scotland from GE2015. If that doesn't happen then perhaps we should be betting on a change of remainder UK government on Indepenence day when 50 Labout MP's leave the commons and leave a CON majority.
There are 59 Scots MPs of whom 41 are LAB. Taking 59 0ff the current 650 total leaves 591. So the threshold for a majority would be 296. If this had happened before GE2010 the Tories would have had a majority of 18.
The LD incumbency boost will work in reverse in the 9 seats where sitting MPs won't be standing again as LDs, and there may yet be a few more to add to that list.
I can understand why it wouldn't exist, but why would it work in reverse?
We may not be at cross purposes. What I meant was that if an newly elected MP gets a boost of say 5% of VI share in the subsequent election and then keeps it, then when that MP eventually stands down the replacement candidate can expect a loss of 5% of the established VI share in that election. Removing the incumbency effect is the equivalent to it working in reverse.
That depends on whether the incumbency effect is a personal vote or whether its the result of the MP's party being more visible - and better funded - as a result of their having the MP. If the former, then the incumbency effect will go with the retirement; if the latter, it will carry on. I suspect it's a bit of both but in most cases, more the party than the individual (as even where there is a strong individual vote, the right successor candidate can capitalise on it and make transfer the personal to the party).
Surely you need to take account of the Indyref in Scotland. A yes will almost certainly be followed emergency legislation removing Scotland from GE2015. If that doesn't happen then perhaps we should be betting on a change of remainder UK government on Indepenence day when 50 Labout MP's leave the commons and leave a CON majority.
Scots would have as much right to have representation at Westminster as anyone else, prior to independence so why shouldn't they vote?
In any case, it's not as simple as saying that 'emergency legislation would be passed'. In the final year of a parliament, the Lords gets its veto back for new legislation (as the conditions of the Parliament Act can't be met), and besides, what would happen to Scottish MPs - would the carry on through to independence, in which case they'd be the only MPs during the election apart from the Speaker, IIRC, or would Scotland lose all representation for its final year: something that'd surely be seen as undemocratic.
I suspect there'd be much bigger issues to discuss and that the usual British constitutional solution of 'finding a way through' would apply.
Surely you need to take account of the Indyref in Scotland. A yes will almost certainly be followed emergency legislation removing Scotland from GE2015. If that doesn't happen then perhaps we should be betting on a change of remainder UK government on Indepenence day when 50 Labout MP's leave the commons and leave a CON majority.
Scots would have as much right to have representation at Westminster as anyone else, prior to independence so why shouldn't they vote?
In any case, it's not as simple as saying that 'emergency legislation would be passed'. In the final year of a parliament, the Lords gets its veto back for new legislation (as the conditions of the Parliament Act can't be met), and besides, what would happen to Scottish MPs - would the carry on through to independence, in which case they'd be the only MPs during the election apart from the Speaker, IIRC, or would Scotland lose all representation for its final year: something that'd surely be seen as undemocratic.
I suspect there'd be much bigger issues to discuss and that the usual British constitutional solution of 'finding a way through' would apply.
The Scots can always appeal to the Supreme Court, or is that not possible in the UK?
We discussed this before - one solution being to postpone Ge2015 to 1 day and 6 weeks purdah after Indy Day on 24 March as suggested by the SNP (the Scottish MPs having helpfully resigned, or whatever the word is if your constituency evaporates, on Indy Day). Interesting that this ends up as anout 5 May 2016 - nice round number, one more year. However others were not so convinced, it should be said. Of course, if Cameron fell and/or called a snap GE in October 2014 there would be no issue.
Anyway, what it all boils down to is that I think you are quite right in your conclusion!
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
Since the EU is going through the final stages of becoming a signatory to the ECHR in its own right it won't matter if Germany or anyone else agrees to treaty amendments allowing the UK to withdraw . We would still be subject to the convention as long as we remained members of the EURO and our courts would still have to enforce ECHR rulings
I don't think that's true.
The EU as a body is going to become subject to the ECHR. So, EU decisions can be challenged in the ECHR.
However, if the British government decides to deny prisoners the vote, then that will be an entirely British decision. There will be no right of appeal to the ECHR.
British courts will no longer be subserviant to the ECHR.
Given the number of times that Britain thought they were exempt from EU rules only to find those rules being extended into areas they had never been intended (by Britain at least) I think you could probably agree with me that we would be foolish to assume the ECJ will not decide that ECHR membership for the EU also extends to member states.
This is bound to happen (or rather to be tested) since the first time someone is denied access to the ECHR because of British withdrawal they will appeal to the ECJ as the ultimate arbiter of EU law who will then decide whether or not ECHR legislation still applies top the UK via EU membership./ Would you really want to bet on which way they would decide?
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
Since the EU is going through the final stages of becoming a signatory to the ECHR in its own right it won't matter if Germany or anyone else agrees to treaty amendments allowing the UK to withdraw . We would still be subject to the convention as long as we remained members of the EURO and our courts would still have to enforce ECHR rulings
I don't think that's true.
The EU as a body is going to become subject to the ECHR. So, EU decisions can be challenged in the ECHR.
However, if the British government decides to deny prisoners the vote, then that will be an entirely British decision. There will be no right of appeal to the ECHR.
British courts will no longer be subserviant to the ECHR.
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
Since the EU is going through the final stages of becoming a signatory to the ECHR in its own right it won't matter if Germany or anyone else agrees to treaty amendments allowing the UK to withdraw . We would still be subject to the convention as long as we remained members of the EURO and our courts would still have to enforce ECHR rulings
I don't think that's true.
The EU as a body is going to become subject to the ECHR. So, EU decisions can be challenged in the ECHR.
However, if the British government decides to deny prisoners the vote, then that will be an entirely British decision. There will be no right of appeal to the ECHR.
British courts will no longer be subserviant to the ECHR.
Given the number of times that Britain thought they were exempt from EU rules only to find those rules being extended into areas they had never been intended (by Britain at least) I think you could probably agree with me that we would be foolish to assume the ECJ will not decide that ECHR membership for the EU also extends to member states.
This is bound to happen (or rather to be tested) since the first time someone is denied access to the ECHR because of British withdrawal they will appeal to the ECJ as the ultimate arbiter of EU law who will then decide whether or not ECHR legislation still applies top the UK via EU membership./ Would you really want to bet on which way they would decide?
I see Nick Palmer also shares my views on this.
I think we need guidance on this one!
But, to take the example of the prisoners' voting for example. It is not something where we have any treaty obligations to the EU. So, if we left the ECHR, then British courts would simply not recognise the ECHR, were they to attempt to pass judgement on a country that was not a member.
I take the point that, as regards, things that are under the purview of our treaty obligations with the EU, then we might be bound to defer to the ECHR. But from a straight, mechanistic perspective, I don't see how - so long as the EU treaty was changed, and so long as we had left the ECHR - any British court could recognise the primacy of the ECHR,
But, to take the example of the prisoners' voting for example. It is not something where we have any treaty obligations to the EU. So, if we left the ECHR, then British courts would simply not recognise the ECHR, were they to attempt to pass judgement on a country that was not a member.
I take the point that, as regards, things that are under the purview of our treaty obligations with the EU, then we might be bound to defer to the ECHR. But from a straight, mechanistic perspective, I don't see how - so long as the EU treaty was changed, and so long as we had left the ECHR - any British court could recognise the primacy of the ECHR,
We already recognise the primacy of the ECJ and in any disagreement between the EU and member states on points of law they are the final arbiter. I agree it is certainly not clear cut but given their history of always adjudicating on the side of closer union I would be surprised if they did not decide that membership of the EU as a signatory to the ECHR did indeed bind member states to the rules.
Comments
.@David_Cameron has just announced he’s going to re-introduce Referendum Bill in next Parl session and invoke Parl Act if necessary. Hooray!
Tell us the "dodgy joke".
Otherwise you will be forced to drink a bottle of gammel dansk a day until next May in forfeit.
Only UKIP will give the British people a true referendum on Europe
you mean you're going to ask people now?
But surely they're ex-constituents and possibly to-be constituents? ;-)
"How much we wanted Amanda Knox to get away with it":
http://www.philosophersmail.com/310114-tragedy-knox.php
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_351467.pdf
Some very interesting things:
1) The last quarter where real wages were rising at a 4%pa was 1992q1. That must have had an effect on the general election of April 1992.
2) Real wages rose by less than 1%pa between 1993 and 1997. Which helps explain why the Conservative government reaped so little benefit from a strong economy.
3) The last year where real wages rose at over 3% throughout the year was 2001, the year after what I rate as the all time peak of the UK economy.
4) From 2002 onwards there has been a small overall fall in real wages (can anyone think of what might have been a contributory factor ?) yet retail sales have increased 27%. Now what might the extra trillion of household debt and extra trillion of government debt have been spent on ?
The LD incumbency boost will work in reverse in the 9 seats where sitting MPs won't be standing again as LDs, and there may yet be a few more to add to that list.
Also I thought it was an anytime market so went a bit mad :O
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10610379/Woman-electrocuted-after-climbing-on-top-of-train-and-touching-live-cable.html
No wonder some males suffer from 'short man syndrome', says Daisy Buchanan. Too many women dismiss them because of their lack of height":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10608220/How-I-learnt-to-love-short-men.html
The EU as a body is going to become subject to the ECHR. So, EU decisions can be challenged in the ECHR.
However, if the British government decides to deny prisoners the vote, then that will be an entirely British decision. There will be no right of appeal to the ECHR.
British courts will no longer be subserviant to the ECHR.
This time all drivers will be suspect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html
I am reminded of this by the news yesterday on motorway improvements east of Glasgow - funded by bonds with the debt on, presumably, the books 100%, and not PFI/PPP. Now that's fiscal rectitude for you, as is paying student fees up front rather than risk repayment failure, as a piece in the latest Private Eye reminds me.
The latter says that some heathen financial trick is being used to make the derisory yields from the SLC attractive to the commercial market, but this is beyond me, so if anyone has read it and can please explain ....
Mr W loyally said I had "no honour" for commenting on his wife's remark and they declined to speak to me for many months. Eventually I said to Mrs W that this was getting silly, and perhaps we should bury the hatchet for New Year. She agreed pleasantly enough, and amiable terms were restored.
Citi’s research found that the economy’s growth has happened while the private sector has been paying down its debt. The ratio of household debt to income is back to 2003 levels, and the ratio of companies’ bank deposits to debts is the highest for 50 years. Even first-time buyers, when they get on the ladder, are only spending 11 per cent of their income on mortgage repayments. And now that the economy – and nominal GDP – is growing, the incentives for companies to save is diminishing. They’ll start spending on wages, jobs and investment, fuelling the recovery.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/osbornes-recovery-is-real-heres-the-proof/
Knox on box!
Not bad!
In any case, it's not as simple as saying that 'emergency legislation would be passed'. In the final year of a parliament, the Lords gets its veto back for new legislation (as the conditions of the Parliament Act can't be met), and besides, what would happen to Scottish MPs - would the carry on through to independence, in which case they'd be the only MPs during the election apart from the Speaker, IIRC, or would Scotland lose all representation for its final year: something that'd surely be seen as undemocratic.
I suspect there'd be much bigger issues to discuss and that the usual British constitutional solution of 'finding a way through' would apply.
We discussed this before - one solution being to postpone Ge2015 to 1 day and 6 weeks purdah after Indy Day on 24 March as suggested by the SNP (the Scottish MPs having helpfully resigned, or whatever the word is if your constituency evaporates, on Indy Day). Interesting that this ends up as anout 5 May 2016 - nice round number, one more year. However others were not so convinced, it should be said. Of course, if Cameron fell and/or called a snap GE in October 2014 there would be no issue.
Anyway, what it all boils down to is that I think you are quite right in your conclusion!
This is bound to happen (or rather to be tested) since the first time someone is denied access to the ECHR because of British withdrawal they will appeal to the ECJ as the ultimate arbiter of EU law who will then decide whether or not ECHR legislation still applies top the UK via EU membership./ Would you really want to bet on which way they would decide?
I see Nick Palmer also shares my views on this.
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exeter-Tories-choose-Dominic-Morris-represent/story-20478644-detail/story.html#ixzz2s0jm4XHn
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/watchdog-makes-u-turn-on-cycling-safety-advert-ban.23313921
Nick Sutton @suttonnick 2 mins
Updated Independent front page - "Gove sacks Ofsted chief" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/bk0zpMKNtc
But, to take the example of the prisoners' voting for example. It is not something where we have any treaty obligations to the EU. So, if we left the ECHR, then British courts would simply not recognise the ECHR, were they to attempt to pass judgement on a country that was not a member.
I take the point that, as regards, things that are under the purview of our treaty obligations with the EU, then we might be bound to defer to the ECHR. But from a straight, mechanistic perspective, I don't see how - so long as the EU treaty was changed, and so long as we had left the ECHR - any British court could recognise the primacy of the ECHR,
Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html
Exclusive: Michael Gove sacks Ofsted chief Baroness Sally Morgan
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/exclusive-michael-gove-sacks-ofsted-chief-baroness-sally-morgan-9100273.html