I wonder what will happen if the result is very close. Say the Yes campaign won 51/49.....would Scotland automatically become independent, do you think, or could there might be some kind of last ditch devomax offer/deal done to keep the countries together?
How can anyone suggest Ed is less than perfect as Labour's leader?
This genius picked the fact that the economy was apparently flatlining as his battleground. By the next election it will be the fastest growing in the EU and the developed economies.
Making David Moyes' leadership look not the worst is a genuine public service which should be commended.
I grew up with David Moyes. He is a fine chap from a lovely family. He has just not had the best of 1st years in his new job. Alex Ferguson seemed to have the same teething troubles and look where he ended up!
Im a Tory, but im a fiscal conservative above everything else. I try to point out to my labour supporting colleagues, that making the sums add up shouldnt be a dividing line between left and right. Under Blair we had fiscal conservatism, though Brown towards 2007/8 though, we had a deficit at the peak of a boom, which ballooned enormously following the crash. But he had his golden rule (though fudged), that debt should not be used to fund non capital expenditure over the cycle.
What we had after 2008 though was spectacular financial incontinence designed to push off all and any difficult decisions until after the 2010 general election.
Not sure I agree with some of that. Under Labour we had fiscal conservatism until about 2002 during the period Brown was following Ken Clarke's plans. After 2002 we had Brownian motion and there was nothing conservative about it.
It was a kind of bastardised Keynesianism, and worked on the basis that growth generated by additional public spending would through some multiplier effect create yet more growth and tax revenue in the future. This proved to be deluded and created the largest structural deficit in the western world.
To think that the problems were caused in 2008 was wrong. All that happened then was that the tide went out and we were found to be more than a little short of swimming wear. The scary thing is that there are still adherents to this Brownian idea. You can usually tell because they will say things like "you cannot compare the accounts of the country and those of a corner shop". Well, actually, you can. It is not a complete parallel but you are much less likely to make mistakes if you bear that model in mind.
If Scotland votes yes these deluded souls will never see power in rUK again.
I remember Tony Blair making a claim out of the blue on Sunday AM that he wanted to increase health spending up to the European average.
Was this the point of no return to fiscal prudence? Was Brown then only trying to out do Tony on spending commitments?
right I'm off to have a nap or do some work on an interminable family tree in preparation for the arrival of lots of overseas clansfolks in September. Maybe time for some chocolate egg too.
Im a Tory, but im a fiscal conservative above everything else. I try to point out to my labour supporting colleagues, that making the sums add up shouldnt be a dividing line between left and right. Under Blair we had fiscal conservatism, though Brown towards 2007/8 though, we had a deficit at the peak of a boom, which ballooned enormously following the crash. But he had his golden rule (though fudged), that debt should not be used to fund non capital expenditure over the cycle.
What we had after 2008 though was spectacular financial incontinence designed to push off all and any difficult decisions until after the 2010 general election.
Not sure I agree with some of that. Under Labour we had fiscal conservatism until about 2002 during the period Brown was following Ken Clarke's plans. After 2002 we had Brownian motion and there was nothing conservative about it.
It was a kind of bastardised Keynesianism, and worked on the basis that growth generated by additional public spending would through some multiplier effect create yet more growth and tax revenue in the future. This proved to be deluded and created the largest structural deficit in the western world.
To think that the problems were caused in 2008 was wrong. All that happened then was that the tide went out and we were found to be more than a little short of swimming wear. The scary thing is that there are still adherents to this Brownian idea. You can usually tell because they will say things like "you cannot compare the accounts of the country and those of a corner shop". Well, actually, you can. It is not a complete parallel but you are much less likely to make mistakes if you bear that model in mind.
If Scotland votes yes these deluded souls will never see power in rUK again.
I remember Tony Blair making a claim out of the blue on Sunday AM that he wanted to increase health spending up to the European average.
Was this the point of no return to fiscal prudence?
It was the main plank of their 2001 re-election campaign. They paid for the extra NHS spending through higher employee, employer and self-employed NI contributions.
I wonder what will happen if the result is very close. Say the Yes campaign won 51/49.....would Scotland automatically become independent, do you think, or could there might be some kind of last ditch devomax offer/deal done to keep the countries together?
50% + 1 will lead to negotiations, then separation and independence.
Of course, what happens if, as some of the less charitable contend, the SNP prospectus is bogus and this emerges in negotiations, then who knows?
There could be a change of government in Scotland.....
.....Which is why I think we should crack on with it
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly.
"I remember Tony Blair making a claim out of the blue on Sunday AM that he wanted to increase health spending up to the European average."
I remember that too. I often wonder if it was a planned announcement or he just let his mouth run away from him. The papers carried lots of stories about how Brown was incensed and dreadfully angry that the announcement had been made without his consent and in breach of the Blair/Brown agreement. As a way of pissing Brown off it was a great success, but it was a strange way to run a government.
The interesting thing about the UKIP posters I have seen is they are aimed much more at working class traditional labour voters than tory ones.
Farage clearly thinks he already has enough tory votes, thanks very much.
He has soft Tory votes most of which will return by GE2015.
He is sensibly making a play for the WWC constituency. Everyone since Maggie has forgotten and forsaken them. They have no natural home now and NFarage wants UKIP to be one for them.
How can anyone suggest Ed is less than perfect as Labour's leader?
This genius picked the fact that the economy was apparently flatlining as his battleground. By the next election it will be the fastest growing in the EU and the developed economies.
Making David Moyes' leadership look not the worst is a genuine public service which should be commended.
I grew up with David Moyes. He is a fine chap from a lovely family. He has just not had the best of 1st years in his new job. Alex Ferguson seemed to have the same teething troubles and look where he ended up!
He may be a fine chap but he is not a succesful manager. To the best of my knowledge he has never won anything. And it does not look as if that is going to change any time soon.
I do think a thread on how UKIP is responding to greater media scrutiny would be worthwhile....
Is european a race?
You can be racist against more than one race at a time. Most racists are.
That said, I don't regard these ads as racist. Xenophobic would be a better adjective.
Neither, surely?
It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic. All countries have border controls, they are simply stating we should be allowed to set our own - and be fussier about whom we allow in.
I remember when we used to have lunchtime threads (this may be a false memory). I'm off to Netflix - you'll miss the scots posting on a Scottish thread I'm sure
Im a Tory, but im a fiscal conservative above everything else. I try to point out to my labour supporting colleagues, that making the sums add up shouldnt be a dividing line between left and right. Under Blair we had fiscal conservatism, though Brown towards 2007/8 though, we had a deficit at the peak of a boom, which ballooned enormously following the crash. But he had his golden rule (though fudged), that debt should not be used to fund non capital expenditure over the cycle.
What we had after 2008 though was spectacular financial incontinence designed to push off all and any difficult decisions until after the 2010 general election.
Not sure I agree with some of that. Under Labour we had fiscal conservatism until about 2002 during the period Brown was following Ken Clarke's plans. After 2002 we had Brownian motion and there was nothing conservative about it.
It was a kind of bastardised Keynesianism, and worked on the basis that growth generated by additional public spending would through some multiplier effect create yet more growth and tax revenue in the future. This proved to be deluded and created the largest structural deficit in the western world.
To think that the problems were caused in 2008 was wrong. All that happened then was that the tide went out and we were found to be more than a little short of swimming wear. The scary thing is that there are still adherents to this Brownian idea. You can usually tell because they will say things like "you cannot compare the accounts of the country and those of a corner shop". Well, actually, you can. It is not a complete parallel but you are much less likely to make mistakes if you bear that model in mind.
If Scotland votes yes these deluded souls will never see power in rUK again.
I remember Tony Blair making a claim out of the blue on Sunday AM that he wanted to increase health spending up to the European average.
Was this the point of no return to fiscal prudence? Was Brown then only trying to out do Tony on spending commitments?
I think that the largest single turning point was the massive increase in in work benefits. Once a government gets into the job of subsidising labour for the private sector the whole price mechanism which allows efficient allocation of resources becomes irreparably distorted.
But there were quite a number of other points as well.
The interesting thing about the UKIP posters I have seen is they are aimed much more at working class traditional labour voters than tory ones.
Farage clearly thinks he already has enough tory votes, thanks very much.
He has soft Tory votes most of which will return by GE2015.
He is sensibly making a play for the WWC constituency. Everyone since Maggie has forgotten and forsaken them. They have no natural home now and NFarage wants UKIP to be one for them.
UKIP are going to make trying to predict the 2015 result a lot more entertaining. Journalists should be out campaigning for UKIP!
I do think a thread on how UKIP is responding to greater media scrutiny would be worthwhile....
Is european a race?
You can be racist against more than one race at a time. Most racists are.
That said, I don't regard these ads as racist. Xenophobic would be a better adjective.
Neither, surely?
It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic. All countries have border controls, they are simply stating we should be allowed to set our own - and be fussier about whom we allow in.
This poster in particular seems unambiguously xenophobic:
The one with the guy in the hi-viz jacket begging is silly. He'd do better with a dog on a string, and health and safety hasn't gone so mad that the hard hat is required for sitting on street corners.
Hear, hear. New thread please - we've got another 5 months of this fun.
How long do you think Post-Yes negotiations are going to last?
With some advance planning, it could be done in a day, depends how helpful rUK want to be. Independence day of 1st May 2015 should not be impossible, the Scots wouldn't like that too much but into every life a little rain must fall.
''It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic.''
Its also a straw man argument to claim that overseas workers are depressing British workers wages. If they weren't here wages would go up initially, true - but then the companies that pay them would either move or go bankrupt. The result would be the same.
Globalisation, not immigration, is depressing British wages. And there's absolutely nothing UKIP or anybody else could do about globalisation short of moving Britain to another planet.
How does tax collection is Scotland work? I assume that the revenue people have offices up there dealing with local people and businesses, but does anyone know where the computer systems they use are located? What about National Insurance? Does Scotland use the same Newcastle based offices as England? Driver and Vehicle Licensing is I assume centralised in Swansea for Scotland as for the rest of us.
It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic
Its also a straw man argument to claim that overseas workers are depressing British workers wages. If they weren't here wages would go up initially, true - but then the companies that pay them would either move or go bankrupt. The result would be the same.
Globalisation, not immigration, is depressing British wages. And there's absolutely nothing UKIP or anybody else could do about globalisation short of moving Britain to another planet.
You could use tariff barriers and capital controls to go along with your labour market controls. That would make economic sense on its own terms, unlike "your boss can give your job to a Romanian, but they'll have to move it and the related jobs overseas", which may have a coherent cultural justification but for the reasons you give makes no sense as economics.
How does tax collection is Scotland work? I assume that the revenue people have offices up there dealing with local people and businesses, but does anyone know where the computer systems they use are located?
The two main revenue accounts offices are in Cumbernauld and Shipley. So Scotland handles revenue collection for large parts of the rUK. I'm sure they will continue to do so after independence (for an appropriate fee) until rUK manages to transfer such activities south of the new border.
How does tax collection is Scotland work? I assume that the revenue people have offices up there dealing with local people and businesses, but does anyone know where the computer systems they use are located? What about National Insurance? Does Scotland use the same Newcastle based offices as England? Driver and Vehicle Licensing is I assume centralised in Swansea for Scotland as for the rest of us.
Mr L my tax office for some reason is currently in Scotland. Can't see that lasting post Indy.
''It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic.''
Its also a straw man argument to claim that overseas workers are depressing British workers wages. If they weren't here wages would go up initially, true - but then the companies that pay them would either move or go bankrupt. The result would be the same.
Globalisation, not immigration, is depressing British wages. And there's absolutely nothing UKIP or anybody else could do about globalisation short of moving Britain to another planet.
You don't get to London much then, or at least to the building sites that are everywhere in central London? Nor it seems does Antifrank (who thinks a picture of a builder taking a fag and coffee break is one of someone begging). Playing spot the Brit on even prestigious projects can be a frustrating game.
Someone can move a bank offshore they cannot move St. James's Square or Babmaes Street or 100 other up-market locations where big developments are taking place using mainly imported labour. The WWC are not harmed too much by the Banks importing high flyers they are harmed by the developers importing tradesmen.
''It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic.''
Its also a straw man argument to claim that overseas workers are depressing British workers wages. If they weren't here wages would go up initially, true - but then the companies that pay them would either move or go bankrupt. The result would be the same.
Globalisation, not immigration, is depressing British wages. And there's absolutely nothing UKIP or anybody else could do about globalisation short of moving Britain to another planet.
I think it's quite well proven that immigration depresses wages amongst a particular labour (small "l") demographic (young, low-skilled) but benefits both owners of capital and consumers and results in a net economic benefit to the host country.
Of course part of the increased investment may mean incentives to re-skill are higher and the incentive in any case to re-skill is significant but there remain losers in the immigration debate and not to acknowledge that is playing into the hands of anti-immigrationers.
''It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic.''
Its also a straw man argument to claim that overseas workers are depressing British workers wages. If they weren't here wages would go up initially, true - but then the companies that pay them would either move or go bankrupt. The result would be the same.
Globalisation, not immigration, is depressing British wages. And there's absolutely nothing UKIP or anybody else could do about globalisation short of moving Britain to another planet.
That's only partly true. Tesco can't outsource its delivery drivers or checkout operators to India. I can't outsource my plumber to Poland, because my bathroom is in Hampshire.
''It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic.''
Its also a straw man argument to claim that overseas workers are depressing British workers wages. If they weren't here wages would go up initially, true - but then the companies that pay them would either move or go bankrupt. The result would be the same.
Globalisation, not immigration, is depressing British wages. And there's absolutely nothing UKIP or anybody else could do about globalisation short of moving Britain to another planet.
You don't get to London much then, or at least to the building sites that are everywhere in central London? Nor it seems does Antifrank (who thinks a picture of a builder taking a fag and coffee break is one of someone begging). Playing spot the Brit on even prestigious projects can be a frustrating game.
Someone can move a bank offshore they cannot move St. James's Square or Babmaes Street or 100 other up-market locations where big developments are taking place using mainly imported labour. The WWC are not harmed too much by the Banks importing high flyers they are harmed by the developers importing tradesmen.
I once stood in Starbucks staffed by nob-brit Labour and couldn't help thinking how is a tax avoiding multinational employing imported labour a benefit to the UK economy. I can see what starbucks gets out of it it but UK plc ?
I think it's quite well proven that immigration depresses wages amongst a particular labour (small "l") demographic (young, low-skilled) but benefits both owners of capital and consumers and results in a net economic benefit to the host country.
Of course part of the increased investment may mean incentives to re-skill are higher and the incentive in any case to re-skill is significant but there remain losers in the immigration debate and not to acknowledge that is playing into the hands of anti-immigrationers, not to say UKIP.
I do think a thread on how UKIP is responding to greater media scrutiny would be worthwhile....
Is european a race?
You can be racist against more than one race at a time. Most racists are.
That said, I don't regard these ads as racist. Xenophobic would be a better adjective.
Neither, surely?
It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic. All countries have border controls, they are simply stating we should be allowed to set our own - and be fussier about whom we allow in.
This poster in particular seems unambiguously xenophobic:
The one with the guy in the hi-viz jacket begging is silly. He'd do better with a dog on a string, and health and safety hasn't gone so mad that the hard hat is required for sitting on street corners.
In Spain, by law, roadside hookers are required to wear hi-viz jackets.
I think it's quite well proven that immigration depresses wages amongst a particular labour (small "l") demographic (young, low-skilled) but benefits both owners of capital and consumers and results in a net economic benefit to the host country.
Of course part of the increased investment may mean incentives to re-skill are higher and the incentive in any case to re-skill is significant but there remain losers in the immigration debate and not to acknowledge that is playing into the hands of anti-immigrationers, not to say UKIP.
The research seems to point that way for the lowest-skilled domestic workers (in the US, people who dropped out of high school) but only for the very short term. They benefit over a span of more than a few years. The people whose wages get clobbered the most by immigration are the existing immigrants.
Interesting UKIP posters. They are well done, but it's a bit odd that they've gone in so hard on unemployment, for two reasons. Firstly unemployment is not particularly high and is falling. Secondly they are on dodgy ground if their argument is that EU membership reduces UK employment; do they really want to give their opponents an opportunity to talk (perhaps disingenuously) about how many jobs would be lost if we left the EU?
Anyway, it's all rather academic, given that they are working for a Miliband government and therefore to keep us in the EU.
I do think a thread on how UKIP is responding to greater media scrutiny would be worthwhile....
It seems UKIP are thinking what the Tories were thinking in 2005.
Did the Greens expel that 'coconut' bod?
The comments underneath the Standard and Telegraph pieces are, in a rough count, running 4 to 1 for UKIP. What a transformation in less than 18 months.
How does tax collection is Scotland work? I assume that the revenue people have offices up there dealing with local people and businesses, but does anyone know where the computer systems they use are located? What about National Insurance? Does Scotland use the same Newcastle based offices as England? Driver and Vehicle Licensing is I assume centralised in Swansea for Scotland as for the rest of us.
There are at least 2 tax centres in Scotland, East Kilbride as Tax Centre 1 was always the main one. I believe they also handle at least parts of England as well.
Comments
Cameron and Christianity, the CEBR on the economy (and George's potential 7bn war chest), religious trouble in Birmingham, UKIP's ad campaign.....
OGH was literally in Edinburgh, literally last week. We literally are going to have another 5 months of this. I hope you're having fun.
I trust Eck on this one. I've not been paying enough attention to know the timetable off my head but I'm sure Eck can get it done.
Nigel Farage defends Ukip posters and says 'racist' tag is from 'chattering classes'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-posters-and-says-racist-tag-is-from-chattering-classes-9273208.html
Ukip accused of 'hissy fits' as immigration posters launched
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10777924/Ukip-accused-of-hissy-fits-as-immigration-posters-launched.html
I do think a thread on how UKIP is responding to greater media scrutiny would be worthwhile....
I wonder what will happen if the result is very close. Say the Yes campaign won 51/49.....would Scotland automatically become independent, do you think, or could there might be some kind of last ditch devomax offer/deal done to keep the countries together?
http://www.ukip.org
Was this the point of no return to fiscal prudence? Was Brown then only trying to out do Tony on spending commitments?
http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article9273211.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/Ukip-3.jpg
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5308a93901925b5b09000002/attachments/original/1397750311/localmanifesto2014.pdf
Of course, what happens if, as some of the less charitable contend, the SNP prospectus is bogus and this emerges in negotiations, then who knows?
There could be a change of government in Scotland.....
.....Which is why I think we should crack on with it
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly.
That said, I don't regard these ads as racist. Xenophobic would be a better adjective.
I remember that too. I often wonder if it was a planned announcement or he just let his mouth run away from him. The papers carried lots of stories about how Brown was incensed and dreadfully angry that the announcement had been made without his consent and in breach of the Blair/Brown agreement. As a way of pissing Brown off it was a great success, but it was a strange way to run a government.
Farage clearly thinks he already has enough tory votes, thanks very much.
He is sensibly making a play for the WWC constituency. Everyone since Maggie has forgotten and forsaken them. They have no natural home now and NFarage wants UKIP to be one for them.
It's a huge straw man argument to say that the argument that fewer people should be allowed to come here, live here and work here, is either racist or xenophobic. All countries have border controls, they are simply stating we should be allowed to set our own - and be fussier about whom we allow in.
But there were quite a number of other points as well.
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9273207.ece/ALTERNATES/w300/Ukipposter.jpg
The one with the guy in the hi-viz jacket begging is silly. He'd do better with a dog on a string, and health and safety hasn't gone so mad that the hard hat is required for sitting on street corners.
Its also a straw man argument to claim that overseas workers are depressing British workers wages. If they weren't here wages would go up initially, true - but then the companies that pay them would either move or go bankrupt. The result would be the same.
Globalisation, not immigration, is depressing British wages. And there's absolutely nothing UKIP or anybody else could do about globalisation short of moving Britain to another planet.
Agreed but has nothing changed since 2005?
Someone can move a bank offshore they cannot move St. James's Square or Babmaes Street or 100 other up-market locations where big developments are taking place using mainly imported labour. The WWC are not harmed too much by the Banks importing high flyers they are harmed by the developers importing tradesmen.
Of course part of the increased investment may mean incentives to re-skill are higher and the incentive in any case to re-skill is significant but there remain losers in the immigration debate and not to acknowledge that is playing into the hands of anti-immigrationers.
I think it's quite well proven that immigration depresses wages amongst a particular labour (small "l") demographic (young, low-skilled) but benefits both owners of capital and consumers and results in a net economic benefit to the host country.
Of course part of the increased investment may mean incentives to re-skill are higher and the incentive in any case to re-skill is significant but there remain losers in the immigration debate and not to acknowledge that is playing into the hands of anti-immigrationers, not to say UKIP.
Anyway, it's all rather academic, given that they are working for a Miliband government and therefore to keep us in the EU.