The misunderstanding by all about the difference between mass immigration and controlled immigration has to be seen to be believed.
I know its deliberate, and I know they think they are tripping Farage up, but they are making themselves look stupid and extreme, & making UKIP look measured
All it does is set up Farage to say "we don't want to stop all immigration, we just want to power to be able to choose who we let in"
Highlighting his wife nationality also gets rid of the "racism" issue (if you think racism is about something other than skin colour)
@JosiasJessup "... Hydro-electric: we've done many of the possible schemes already..."
Mr. Jessup, You may be able to answer a question that has vexed me for many years. In the pre-industrial era water power was preferred to wind where ever possible. However, nowadays the power of our rivers to turn wheels is rejected in favour of modern-day wind mills. Any idea why?
There is more wind in more places than suitable locations with water?
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
Even on Avery's preferred measure we borrowed a stonking £75bn last year. And people are debating tax cuts.
I despair.
It is properly the time to debate what new tax on housing is going to be introduced to both reduce the deficit and to dampen down the developing housing bubble.
Annual property tax, perhaps with capital gains tax unless you are resident in the property. Use the money to eliminate stamp duty and various other more economically damaging taxes
Otherwise known as Land Value Tax - that traditional liberal policy which the Lib Dems (and every other major party) have long since abandoned...
No - I'd do it just on residential property. LVT is way too complicated. The economic problem that we have is too much capital is tied up in non-productive uses.
Don't disagree - but ideally you would also want to catch the empty office blocks which are not being used as the owners don't want to write down the value so leave them empty rather than take a much lower rent / sell at a lower price. Also, you still have issues with the definition of 'residential' property - you would most definately want to catch Buy-to-Let and second homes, but at what point does a second home become a 'holiday letting business' and thus no longer residential. I guess what I mean is that the complications would arise anyway, so you may as well do proper LVT and scrap Council Tax and Business Rates.
@JosiasJessup "... Hydro-electric: we've done many of the possible schemes already..."
Mr. Jessup, You may be able to answer a question that has vexed me for many years. In the pre-industrial era water power was preferred to wind where ever possible. However, nowadays the power of our rivers to turn wheels is rejected in favour of modern-day wind mills. Any idea why?
I guess it's because the power from fluvial water is limited, both in power and suitable sites. Water power (or a tidal mill such as at Eling, near Southampton) could be used to turn one or two sets of stones to grind corn. But the head of water is low, and therefore the potential difference. You need a large volume of water with a large fall - ideally hundreds of metres - to generate meaningful MWs of power. Tidal schemes work because you don't get much fall, but you do get massive volume.
There are so few large rivers, and the fall (head) is low in most places. And interrupting streams of water can have very large environmental effects; a pool of water upstream, and interruption of fish and wildlife.
Wind, on the other hand, can be distributed much more widely. Even though the power from wind is less, there is so much more of it to get. Compare the size of just one turbine's blades to the turbine in a water-powered station.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
.... I don't think we take into account sufficiently the anger over Clegg's total volte face over tuition fees, immediately after taking office. I suspect a lot of Lab/LD's won't come back until he, and anyone else closely identified with that business have gone..
I often chide PBers that they forget one of the main tenets of Coalition government - You don't get all you hope for.
Surely so it is with the LibDems and tuition fees. You might argue the viability of the policy and I do but the LibDems lost the policy because quite correctly the Conservatives vetoed it.
If only it hadn't come up within, it seemed "hours" of taking office!
Otherwise I agree, Sir, about Coalitions. That's the whole point; a group of politicians find enough points on which they agree to form a Government. That saying, I take the point about VAT. I think that a reversal here should be the next tax cut!
Why would cutting taxes on consumption make more sense than, say, income or employment?
The rising property prices are accompanied by a fall in borrowing in the Uk - so no bubble.
Property ownership taxes are pernicious - you earn and are taxed - then are taxed again for not spending the money on non property - will have distorting effects and not be efficient to collect. If you want to soak the castles then add some more council tax bands at the top end.
Retail property is a non-productive asset - it should be taxed and the proceeds used to reduceother, more damaging, taxes. Personally, I would eliminate stamp duty and central government mandated council tax and then look at increasing the personal allowance (to the minimum wage), and reducing employer NICs
Jon Cruddas appears to have some idea of what matters to working class people... and he probably knows that Labour mass immigration of a decade ago is what caused it to disappear. Personally I think he should be Labour leader
"To conserve what matters to people – pride in country, the familiarity of a common life, caring family relationships, decent work fairly rewarded, and a sense of belonging – requires radical changes"
Money's too tight to mention: "These could cost up to £1bn each year in subsidies, but the government says they would encourage firms to invest much more than that in low-carbon electricity generation."
Biomass and wind are stupid renewables. Solar and hydro-electric make much more sense for a rainy island covered with rivers. I wonder if hydro-electric pumps could provide an automatic response to rivers that have risen to a dangerous level...
Wind is hardly a stupid renewable resource, unless you base all of your capacity on it. Oh, and how is solar less stupid that wind on, as you say, "a rainy island"? The problem with both wind and solar is one of storage for when it isnae sunny and when the wind doesnae blow.
Interesting things are starting to happen with energy storage, because of the opportunities provided by intermittent renewables. A recent example that I heard about uses liquid nitrogen:
It doesn't mention any efficiency figures to compare with those of pumped storage hydro though.
Like I've always said when people have criticised renewables on intermittency grounds - this is an engineering challenge and it can be overcome.
The other side of the intermittency arguement is the work being done with Smart Meters etc. to modify / adjust demand to better fit the supply curve. This includes household 'backup storage' (basically a car battery) which charges when electricity is plentiful and is used to mitigate demand when it is not, as well as more funky stuff like having fridges and freezers be somewhat responsive to supply changes.
The misunderstanding by all about the difference between mass immigration and controlled immigration has to be seen to be believed.
I know its deliberate, and I know they think they are tripping Farage up, but they are making themselves look stupid and extreme, & making UKIP look measured
All it does is set up Farage to say "we don't want to stop all immigration, we just want to power to be able to choose who we let in"
Highlighting his wife nationality also gets rid of the "racism" issue (if you think racism is about something other than skin colour)
The UKIP poster had none of that nuance. It said Europeans want to take jobs from Brits, and it looks like at least 649 people agree with them...
The misunderstanding by all about the difference between mass immigration and controlled immigration has to be seen to be believed.
I know its deliberate, and I know they think they are tripping Farage up, but they are making themselves look stupid and extreme, & making UKIP look measured
All it does is set up Farage to say "we don't want to stop all immigration, we just want to power to be able to choose who we let in"
Highlighting his wife nationality also gets rid of the "racism" issue (if you think racism is about something other than skin colour)
Farage is another 'Do as I say, not Do as I do' politician. Combined with the troughing, it's hard to see the difference between him and the rest of them.
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
It wont .. we'll all disappear in a puff of smoke!
Well, quite. It's still the union. It's the successor state to the union of 1707.
As I say, I haven't seen the treaties that divided the international waters of the North Sea between the UK, Norway and Denmark. But if, as I suspect, they refer to the UK, then since the UK will still exist, the treaties will surely still apply.
If, on the other hand, the argument is that by leaving the union Scotland has abolished the UK - a claim that will be met some surprise by, oh, the Queen and all UK passport holders, to name but 41 million - then those agreements would need to be renegotiated among the original signatories and their successors.
Scotland would then need to persuade not only the ex-Union, but also Norway and Denmark that some of the oil and gas now belongs to Scotland, a state which did nothing historically to develop any of it (because it didn't exist), but wants to claim it now.
This claim feels roughly comparable in merit to Argentinian claims over the Falkland Islands: we didn't exist then, but we do now and therefore what's always been yours must now be mine. It is surely much more likely that England, Wales and Northern Ireland would simply be recognised as the successor state to the UK, and would inherit its treaty obligations and its overseas assets. The process is well rehearsed; the USSR's embassies mostly now belong to Russia, and the wreck of the Graf Spee legally belongs to federal Germany.
I'd appreciate some reasoned rejoinder to the above rather than the usual spittle-flecked swearing and chortling. I am struggling to see why the UK should just give away its oil.
The misunderstanding by all about the difference between mass immigration and controlled immigration has to be seen to be believed.
I know its deliberate, and I know they think they are tripping Farage up, but they are making themselves look stupid and extreme, & making UKIP look measured
All it does is set up Farage to say "we don't want to stop all immigration, we just want to power to be able to choose who we let in"
Highlighting his wife nationality also gets rid of the "racism" issue (if you think racism is about something other than skin colour)
The UKIP poster had none of that nuance. It said Europeans want to take jobs from Brits, and it looks like at least 649 people agree with them...
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 2h The more political interviewers,seemingly to enhance their own reputations, ask @Nigel_Farage "cute" questions @UKIP will gain more votes.
"To conserve what matters to people – pride in country, the familiarity of a common life, caring family relationships, decent work fairly rewarded, and a sense of belonging – requires radical changes"
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
It wont .. we'll all disappear in a puff of smoke!
Slightly sarky, but if the UK refers to the union between 2 kingdoms, and one decides to leave then the entity known as the Union ceases to be. The Kingdom England will persist, but the United part of "UK" will not.
Besides, BJB is trying to argue that Scotland will effectively have no territorial waters post independence, which is patently nonsense.
Further, the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Combined with the principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), I think it fairly safe to say that once again BJB is talking shite.
Fundamentally, the oil rights currently belong to the UK, not Scotland. If you think about it in ciorporate terms, Scotland would be de-merging from the UK and the precise boundary of that demerger is to be negotiated.
Clearly it makes sense for Scotland to receive the oil rights as one of the assets that they inherit as part of the disolution.
But to argue that Scotland receives 100% of the oil rights and then 8% of all other UK assets is just ridiculous.
(As an aside, if I was in Salmond's shoes, I'd think seriously about allowing the UK to keep a percentage of the oil revenues provided that it is appropriately compensated with other assets (e.g. a lower share of government debt). After all, oil is a finite asset. That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally)
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
It wont .. we'll all disappear in a puff of smoke!
Slightly sarky, but if the UK refers to the union between 2 kingdoms, and one decides to leave then the entity known as the Union ceases to be. The Kingdom England will persist, but the United part of "UK" will not.
Besides, BJB is trying to argue that Scotland will effectively have no territorial waters post independence, which is patently nonsense.
Further, the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Combined with the principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), I think it fairly safe to say that once again BJB is talking shite.
Fundamentally, the oil rights currently belong to the UK, not Scotland. If you think about it in ciorporate terms, Scotland would be de-merging from the UK and the precise boundary of that demerger is to be negotiated.
Clearly it makes sense for Scotland to receive the oil rights as one of the assets that they inherit as part of the disolution.
But to argue that Scotland receives 100% of the oil rights and then 8% of all other UK assets is just ridiculous.
(As an aside, if I was in Salmond's shoes, I'd think seriously about allowing the UK to keep a percentage of the oil revenues provided that it is appropriately compensated with other assets (e.g. a lower share of government debt). After all, oil is a finite asset. That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally)
Although he wants to be careful - what happens when Shetland decides that it wants to leave an Independent Scotland and join Norway (or rUK)?
Classic Guardian article. Completely ignores the key part of the question on blame. It's all well and good to say that people feel that wages have fallen but its no use to Labour when 54% of people blame them for that fall in wages. Additionally we're still a year away from the election. A year in which wages will continue to grow faster than inflation.
To be fair, Patrick Wintour does recognise both those points in his article.
In any case he's describing Labour's thinking, not his own. Actually he does a very good job of showing how vacuous it is. In particular, citing a 700-page book by a French left-wing economist [is there any other sort of French economist?] is hardly going to help deal with the central flaw in Miliband's approach: it's all very well pointing to a problem, but he also needs to convince people that he's got a better solution than Osborne has. That, in turn, is going to be tricky, when we're doing better than nearly all other comparable economies, and in particular a lot better than the country run by Miliband's hero François Hollande.
Fair enough. In that case Labour are stuffed. The most important issue at the next election will be stewardship of the economy if Labour can't make a case beyond their commitment to 2015/16 spending and they can't show what they would do differently or better than the current lot I don't see them winning a majority, and they will also struggle to get the most seats. The polling has been moving toward the Tories, and while I'm not going to make any predictions about crossover in the polls I do believe the current picture is Torieson about 34 and Labour on aabout 36. There is a lot of economic improvement yet to come and I don't see how Labour will continue to poll above about 33 with no economic policy. Especially since they will be campaigning on areas in which they are weaker than the government on jobs, wages and growth.
Also, I'm sure that CCHQ have noted that Axelrod worked as a lobbyist for an energy company to champion higher energy costs in the US so I do not believe Ed will make any headway on energy costs should the subject come back to the fore.
Out of interest, I remember a year or so ago you being very angry and anti-Cameron / flirting with UKIP. Your tone recently seems to be a lot more favourable disposed to the Coalition. Can I ask what changed your views?
Jon Cruddas appears to have some idea of what matters to working class people... and he probably knows that Labour mass immigration of a decade ago is what caused it to disappear. Personally I think he should be Labour leader
"To conserve what matters to people – pride in country, the familiarity of a common life, caring family relationships, decent work fairly rewarded, and a sense of belonging – requires radical changes"
It's a good column, but it entirely misses the elephant in the room - mass immigration - that disrupts so many of those things. Labour, like the Tories, won't put any restrictions at all on half the immigration flow that comes here. Because they're not allowed to while we remain in the EU.
@JosiasJessup "... Hydro-electric: we've done many of the possible schemes already..."
Mr. Jessup, You may be able to answer a question that has vexed me for many years. In the pre-industrial era water power was preferred to wind where ever possible. However, nowadays the power of our rivers to turn wheels is rejected in favour of modern-day wind mills. Any idea why?
Environment Agency is in favour of letting our rivers silt up...
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
It wont .. we'll all disappear in a puff of smoke!
Slightly sarky, but if the UK refers to the union between 2 kingdoms, and one decides to leave then the entity known as the Union ceases to be. The Kingdom England will persist, but the United part of "UK" will not.
Besides, BJB is trying to argue that Scotland will effectively have no territorial waters post independence, which is patently nonsense.
Further, the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Combined with the principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), I think it fairly safe to say that once again BJB is talking shite.
No. Pay attention, please.
Scotland would have territorial waters. The 12 miles around Scotland would be her territorial waters, to be exact. The oil and gas are outwith territorial waters. They are in international waters. Ownership was established and apportioned 50-odd years ago.
The acts you refer to were written in the context of Scotland being in the UK and having a separate legal system. They make no reference to Scotland having separate title, or do they? Furthermore, one can choose any law one likes for the adjudication of a contract. Many oil contracts are under English law, regardless of where agreed, because English courts have a lot of experience interpreting them and will do a better job of resolving a dispute than a French, Danish or Chinese court. This point will carry little weight I would think.
What you might find is that Scotland could claim some of the oil, but would have to pay compensation to the UK. It's ours and you're no longer us.
No room for much comment on Osborne's IMF speech in my last post.
Osborne essentially won the stimulus vs. austerity debate being waged between the IMF and OECD by demonstrating over the past year that the OECD's prescription for recovery had worked. The balance of fiscal consolidation (20% tax rises, 80% spending cuts); the pace of consolidation (1.6% annual reduction in cyclically adjusted current account deficit); the phasing (taxes up first, spending cuts applied over decade plus); and, the cautious use of monetary stimulus (no increase in QE over past two years) have all led to the current position where the UK is achieving the highest growth rate in the G7 at the same time as having the largest rate of consolidation.
There is still a rearguard action being fought by the Krugmanites, Larrry Summer et. al., and the pro-stimulus voice hasn't yet been fully silenced in Obama's White House and Washington, although the volume has been muted to give sound to austerity. Even the IMF's Chief [and French socialist] Economist, Olivier Blanchard has been forced into making a (gracious) apology to Osborne (and indirectly José Ángel Gurría, the OECD's Secretary General, George's mentor).
Although George has won on the fiscal consolidation argument, it is still too early to say he will win or is winning against the counter offensive of the "so-called "hollowing out" hypothesis". And there isn't time enough left before the General Election to win empirically. Some baby steps towards proof will certainly be achieved, but not to the extent that everyone starts believing the 'Neo-Georgian' theory will become law.
So Ed Balls and Ed Miliband will have some academic weight behind their claims that the Coalition's economic recovery is a "recovery for the elite and not the many". This at least remains the currently fashionable consensus view among economists. Greg Mankiw at Harvard and some LSE and Treasury in-house research will not be enough to silence the 'borrow and spend' mob: it will only be results wot do it.
All George can hope for is that the confidence in his judgement hard won in the first round of the economic debate will be carried forward by a grateful public to the second. "Well he has delivered growth and employment, now let us give him the benefit of the doubt on living standards" is the best George can realistically hope for.
"To conserve what matters to people – pride in country, the familiarity of a common life, caring family relationships, decent work fairly rewarded, and a sense of belonging – requires radical changes"
If the same words came out of a UKIP mouth, it would be attacked as being various shades of racist, xenophobic and bigoted..
Quite likely, and they'd be wrong whoever it was that said it... it's a universal truth that these things matter to all communities, not just those in England.
With the economy growing as fast as it is, and some signs of a bubble developing in housing in London, and unemployment going down, the last thing to do is inject money into tax cuts or spending. The sun has come out again, time to fix the roof!
Even on Avery's preferred measure we borrowed a stonking £75bn last year. And people are debating tax cuts.
I despair.
It is properly the time to debate what new tax on housing is going to be introduced to both reduce the deficit and to dampen down the developing housing bubble.
Annual property tax, perhaps with capital gains tax unless you are resident in the property. Use the money to eliminate stamp duty and various other more economically damaging taxes
Otherwise known as Land Value Tax - that traditional liberal policy which the Lib Dems (and every other major party) have long since abandoned...
No - I'd do it just on residential property. LVT is way too complicated. The economic problem that we have is too much capital is tied up in non-productive uses.
Don't disagree - but ideally you would also want to catch the empty office blocks which are not being used as the owners don't want to write down the value so leave them empty rather than take a much lower rent / sell at a lower price. Also, you still have issues with the definition of 'residential' property - you would most definately want to catch Buy-to-Let and second homes, but at what point does a second home become a 'holiday letting business' and thus no longer residential. I guess what I mean is that the complications would arise anyway, so you may as well do proper LVT and scrap Council Tax and Business Rates.
I'd tax all residential property whether it's let out or not. Keep it simple. The only complexity I'd introduce would be to not have a revaluation, but to base it on last purchase/transfer price to avoid the issue of widows in big houses being flung out on the street by a heartless government (TM, Daily Mail).
As for empty office blocks, I'd want to revisit the whole of the business rates mess anyway as it unfairly discriminates against town centres
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
It wont .. we'll all disappear in a puff of smoke!
Slightly sarky, but if the UK refers to the union between 2 kingdoms, and one decides to leave then the entity known as the Union ceases to be. The Kingdom England will persist, but the United part of "UK" will not.
Besides, BJB is trying to argue that Scotland will effectively have no territorial waters post independence, which is patently nonsense.
Further, the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Combined with the principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), I think it fairly safe to say that once again BJB is talking shite.
No. Pay attention, please.
Scotland would have territorial waters. The 12 miles around Scotland would be her territorial waters, to be exact. The oil and gas are outwith territorial waters. They are in international waters. Ownership was established and apportioned 50-odd years ago.
The acts you refer to were written in the context of Scotland being in the UK and having a separate legal system. They make no reference to Scotland having separate title, or do they? Furthermore, one can choose any law one likes for the adjudication of a contract. Many oil contracts are under English law, regardless of where agreed, because English courts have a lot of experience interpreting them and will do a better job of resolving a dispute than a French, Danish or Chinese court. This point will carry little weight I would think.
What you might find is that Scotland could claim some of the oil, but would have to pay compensation to the UK. It's ours and you're no longer us.
I think the only thing which is certain when it comes to a post independence settlement is that it's a ****ing huge mess to sort out.
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
It wont .. we'll all disappear in a puff of smoke!
Slightly sarky, but if the UK refers to the union between 2 kingdoms, and one decides to leave then the entity known as the Union ceases to be. The Kingdom England will persist, but the United part of "UK" will not.
Besides, BJB is trying to argue that Scotland will effectively have no territorial waters post independence, which is patently nonsense.
Further, the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Combined with the principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), I think it fairly safe to say that once again BJB is talking shite.
Fundamentally, the oil rights currently belong to the UK, not Scotland. If you think about it in ciorporate terms, Scotland would be de-merging from the UK and the precise boundary of that demerger is to be negotiated.
Clearly it makes sense for Scotland to receive the oil rights as one of the assets that they inherit as part of the disolution.
But to argue that Scotland receives 100% of the oil rights and then 8% of all other UK assets is just ridiculous.
(As an aside, if I was in Salmond's shoes, I'd think seriously about allowing the UK to keep a percentage of the oil revenues provided that it is appropriately compensated with other assets (e.g. a lower share of government debt). After all, oil is a finite asset. That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally)
Although he wants to be careful - what happens when Shetland decides that it wants to leave an Independent Scotland and join Norway (or rUK)?
Do you seriously think that Salmond and the SNP would give the Shetlanders that choice?
That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally
I suspect you suspect wrongly. In any case I do suspect that a view that says most things are up for negotiation after a Yes vote is substantially more rational than one than jumps from position to position and contradicts & anonymously briefs against its own 'certainties'.
Jon Cruddas appears to have some idea of what matters to working class people... and he probably knows that Labour mass immigration of a decade ago is what caused it to disappear. Personally I think he should be Labour leader
"To conserve what matters to people – pride in country, the familiarity of a common life, caring family relationships, decent work fairly rewarded, and a sense of belonging – requires radical changes"
It's a good column, but it entirely misses the elephant in the room - mass immigration - that disrupts so many of those things. Labour, like the Tories, won't put any restrictions at all on half the immigration flow that comes here. Because they're not allowed to while we remain in the EU.
Being the MP for Dagenham & Rainham, Cruddas would be more aware than most that it is mass immigration that has caused these problems. It's why he was behind "Blue Labour" before Miliband got cold feet.
Given how much I have banged on about that part of the world and the effects of mass immigration on it, it is reassuring to hear words like that from him.
He cant come out and say so though, as the logical next step would be to say "vote UKIP". I am sure many people from the area can read between the lines though...
Poll of english adults. Q. Generally speaking, do you think that the UK's membership of the European Union is a good thing or a bad thing or neither good nor bad?
A. Good thing: 28%, Bad thing: 43%, Neither: 21%, Don't know: 8%
Q. If there was a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, how would you vote?
A. Remain a member: 33%, Leave: 55%, Would not vote: 5%, Don't know: 12%.
This is very different to yesterday's YouGov. But that used a very odd question.
Q. The European elections are held under a proportional voting system which gives smaller parties a better chance of winning seats than in general elections. If there was a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, how would you vote?
A. Remain a member: 42%, Leave 37%, Would not vote: 5%, Don't know: 16%
If Scotland quits the union, in what sense does the UK persist?
It wont .. we'll all disappear in a puff of smoke!
Slightly sarky, but if the UK refers to the union between 2 kingdoms, and one decides to leave then the entity known as the Union ceases to be. The Kingdom England will persist, but the United part of "UK" will not.
Besides, BJB is trying to argue that Scotland will effectively have no territorial waters post independence, which is patently nonsense.
Further, the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Combined with the principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), I think it fairly safe to say that once again BJB is talking shite.
Fundamentally, the oil rights currently belong to the UK, not Scotland. If you think about it in ciorporate terms, Scotland would be de-merging from the UK and the precise boundary of that demerger is to be negotiated.
Clearly it makes sense for Scotland to receive the oil rights as one of the assets that they inherit as part of the disolution.
But to argue that Scotland receives 100% of the oil rights and then 8% of all other UK assets is just ridiculous.
(As an aside, if I was in Salmond's shoes, I'd think seriously about allowing the UK to keep a percentage of the oil revenues provided that it is appropriately compensated with other assets (e.g. a lower share of government debt). After all, oil is a finite asset. That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally)
Although he wants to be careful - what happens when Shetland decides that it wants to leave an Independent Scotland and join Norway (or rUK)?
Perhaps he should let the UK keep Shetland's bit of the oil?
I seem to recall a chap called Nabavi who, to much derision on PoliticalBetting.com, pointed out over three years ago that Osborne had got his strategy right, and who at the start of 2013 predicted (to yet more derision) that in the following 12 months the UK economy would surprise on the upside. No-one is surprised any more, of course - if anything, there is too little appreciation of the potential downside risks.
Incidentally, that CBI survey which Scott_P linked to upthread is quite remarkably upbeat:
Firms are upbeat about the next quarter, with growth expectations for domestic orders and output also the highest since the 1970s. Optimism about export prospects for the year ahead also rose strongly.
Signs of a continued recovery in the manufacturing sector appear to be feeding through to investment plans over the next 12 months, with plans for capital expenditure on plant and machinery (relative to last year) the highest for 17 years. Investment plans for innovation and training and retraining also remain robust.
Very, very good news indeed - if we can start getting growth in business investment and exports, as well as the consumer-led and construction-sector recovery we've seen already, we'll be in good shape for a steady improvement (assuming of course that UK voters don't choose to put it all into reverse in May 2015).
How much are we above peak GDP, seven years later?
We're getting there, following a catastophic fall in 2008/9, and despite the headwinds of the world economy and a significant, though unavoidable, fiscal tightening. Your point is what, exactly?
Out of interest, I remember a year or so ago you being very angry and anti-Cameron / flirting with UKIP. Your tone recently seems to be a lot more favourable disposed to the Coalition. Can I ask what changed your views?
My views haven't really changed, I've always said that the government are doing a decent job on economic matters. My issue is and always has been the illiberal nature of their policies with respect to the internet and personal freedoms. As for Ukip, there was a point in time when their policies were remarkably consistent. But since then they have tried to become all things to all men so their policies are schizophrenic, on the one side they want to be liberal, but then on the other they oppose equal marriage, they want to leave the EU primarily to reduce immigration, but then talk of free trade relationships with countries like Korea and India. Those policies don't make sense and are diametrically opposed in some cases. Most of all, I attended a Ukip event and did not feel very welcome as a non white person, that coupled with all of the above has made me take back any support I previously had for them. The party Ukip used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to the WWC and ex BNP voters is completely different and not one I can support.
No room for much comment on Osborne's IMF speech in my last post.
Osborne essentially won the stimulus vs. austerity debate being waged between the IMF and OECD by demonstrating over the past year that the OECD's prescription for recovery had worked. The balance of fiscal consolidation (20% tax rises, 80% spending cuts); the pace of consolidation (1.6% annual reduction in cyclically adjusted current account deficit); the phasing (taxes up first, spending cuts applied over decade plus); and, the cautious use of monetary stimulus (no increase in QE over past two years) have all led to the current position where the UK is achieving the highest growth rate in the G7 at the same time as having the largest rate of consolidation.
There is still a rearguard action being fought by the Krugmanites, Larrry Summer et. al., and the pro-stimulus voice hasn't yet been fully silenced in Obama's White House and Washington, although the volume has been muted to give sound to austerity. Even the IMF's Chief [and French socialist] Economist, Olivier Blanchard has been forced into making a (gracious) apology to Osborne (and indirectly José Ángel Gurría, the OECD's Secretary General, George's mentor).
Although George has won on the fiscal consolidation argument, it is still too early to say he will win or is winning against the counter offensive of the "so-called "hollowing out" hypothesis". And there isn't time enough left before the General Election to win empirically. Some baby steps towards proof will certainly be achieved, but not to the extent that everyone starts believing the 'Neo-Georgian' theory will become law.
So Ed Balls and Ed Miliband will have some academic weight behind their claims that the Coalition's economic recovery is a "recovery for the elite and not the many". This at least remains the currently fashionable consensus view among economists. Greg Mankiw at Harvard and some LSE and Treasury in-house research will not be enough to silence the 'borrow and spend' mob: it will only be results wot do it.
All George can hope for is that the confidence in his judgement hard won in the first round of the economic debate will be carried forward by a grateful public to the second. "Well he has delivered growth and employment, now let us give him the benefit of the doubt on living standards" is the best George can realistically hope for.
My point is that Osborne's economic strategy should be judged across the entire period, not on the last quarter or next quarter of growth. On that basis, the UK compares poorly with places like the USA. Of course, some of this is out of HMG's hands, due to past policies meaning our export structure is heavily weighted towards the EU disaster zone. However, I still think austerity, while the right strategy, was done too early and unnecessarily delayed the recovery.
Out of interest, I remember a year or so ago you being very angry and anti-Cameron / flirting with UKIP. Your tone recently seems to be a lot more favourable disposed to the Coalition. Can I ask what changed your views?
My views haven't really changed, I've always said that the government are doing a decent job on economic matters. My issue is and always has been the illiberal nature of their policies with respect to the internet and personal freedoms. As for Ukip, there was a point in time when their policies were remarkably consistent. But since then they have tried to become all things to all men so their policies are schizophrenic, on the one side they want to be liberal, but then on the other they oppose equal marriage, they want to leave the EU primarily to reduce immigration, but then talk of free trade relationships with countries like Korea and India. Those policies don't make sense and are diametrically opposed in some cases. Most of all, I attended a Ukip event and did not feel very welcome as a non white person, that coupled with all of the above has made me take back any support I previously had for them. The party Ukip used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to the WWC and ex BNP voters is completely different and not one I can support.
Imagine how you'd react if someone were to write
"The party Labour used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to immigrants and muslim voters is completely different and not one I can support"
We seem to have had similar experiences. I did a Humanities degree a few years ago, thinking I was a leftie, and the attitude towards me from the Marxists and SWP lecturers because I was a straight white man made me take back any support I had for their cause
In 2009 going into the last European elections the LD support was around 18%. Now it is 10%. In 2009 the LDs finished with 13.7% at the European's a drop of 4%. If the same applies we will see the LDs get 7% to 8% in the Europeans....
My point is that Osborne's economic strategy should be judged across the entire period, not on the last quarter or next quarter of growth. On that basis, the UK compares poorly with places like the USA. Of course, some of this is out of HMG's hands, due to past policies meaning our export structure is heavily weighted towards the EU disaster zone. However, I still think austerity, while the right strategy, was done too early and unnecessarily delayed the recovery.
Comparing our recovery to the US is not a good comparison, additionally the US jobs recovery has been built on the back of a much lower labour participation rate. Absolute employment of people of working age in the US is around 65% which is significantly lower than our rate of 73%. Any comparison to the US is flawed on that basis alone.
Incidentally, that CBI survey which Scott_P linked to upthread is quite remarkably upbeat:
Firms are upbeat about the next quarter, with growth expectations for domestic orders and output also the highest since the 1970s. Optimism about export prospects for the year ahead also rose strongly.
Signs of a continued recovery in the manufacturing sector appear to be feeding through to investment plans over the next 12 months, with plans for capital expenditure on plant and machinery (relative to last year) the highest for 17 years. Investment plans for innovation and training and retraining also remain robust.
Very, very good news indeed - if we can start getting growth in business investment and exports, as well as the consumer-led and construction-sector recovery we've seen already, we'll be in good shape for a steady improvement (assuming of course that UK voters don't choose to put it all into reverse in May 2015).
"assuming of course that UK voters don't choose to put it all into reverse in May 2015"
If the massive economic stimulus caused by the flood of money fleeing the BRICs is being driven by internal factors then it may not matter to the people stashing their loot in the UK who the government is.
"they want to leave the EU primarily to reduce immigration, but then talk of free trade relationships with countries like Korea and India."
How are those inconsistent?
I actually sympathise with many of your critiques of UKIP. They really need to modernise on many matters. Their view on gay marriage is just illiberal. They're no worse than the other three parties on misleading claims, but due to media bias, they need to be more disciplined here. They also need to be whiter than all the other parties on things like expenses and spousal jobs. However, faced with the alternatives, I feel they're the least bad option. Labour will be an economic disaster next term. The Lib Dems would do absolutely nothing to stop the many deep problems with the EU. The Tories are absolutely appalling on civil liberties - hacking private webcam conversations of innocent people unconnected to any investigation is just one of the many abuses. My issues with UKIP seem a lot more peripheral.
It was used in a report by the IPPR to support more local devolution in the UK - tho having read the research before the report, I found the report rather unconvincing - apparently its going to be a big part of Labour's 2015 promises. Ed made another 'sunk without trace' speech on it before Easter.
Point 2 is an intereseting one. Why should EU citizens not automatically be included on the EU register as for the local one?
I do wonder if Mrs Farage votes UKIP, there are many applicants for her job, some from Latvia and elsewhere. Nigel must meet a lot of East Europeans while about his politicking, what with so many bar staff in London being Polish or Slovak. It is hard to find English bar staff in London, and the Aussies seem to have abandoned the stranglehold on the trade of twenty years ago.
Got my (London) poll card today and noticed two things I didn't know about the Euros. First, one can vote for a party or an individual candidate, apparently. What's that about? Perhaps single candidates putting up as party lists?
Second, if you're a non-British EU citizen, yes you can vote in the Euros, but whereas for the local election you get your yellow ballot paper automatically, to vote in the Euros you apparently need to fill out a separate application form. Perhaps Mrs Farage will bother, but not many others will. What is the reason for this extra bureaucracy? I remember that the LibDems announced that they were going to drum up support in this group - perhaps they should take up the issue, seeing that they're in government and all.
My point is that Osborne's economic strategy should be judged across the entire period, not on the last quarter or next quarter of growth. On that basis, the UK compares poorly with places like the USA. Of course, some of this is out of HMG's hands, due to past policies meaning our export structure is heavily weighted towards the EU disaster zone. However, I still think austerity, while the right strategy, was done too early and unnecessarily delayed the recovery.
Of course he should be judged over the whole period, which is exactly what I have done all along (and which is why, unlike many others, I didn't panic when there was some noise in the GDP figures in 2012 and early 2013). I absolutely reject the suggestion that, given the starting point and external factors, the UK has done poorly. We started with the worst deficit in the EU other than Greece, we were hit first by high world commodity prices (much more of a problem for us than for the USA), then by the Eurozone crisis (a massive problem for us, not very important for the USA), we don't have the flexibility of the US hire-and-fire labour market, we haven't had energy prices falling rapidly because of the fracking revolution as they have in the US, and we don't have the sheer domestic scale that the US has.
In any case it simply isn't the case that there was too much austerity too early. There was very little - we had a humoungous deficit in 2010-2013, that is hardly 'austerity'. To the contrary, Osborne judged it perfectly, doing enough to keep the markets on side, setting out a credible long-term plan, but not jerking the steering-wheel so fast as to cause the whole economy to jack-knife. It's a text-book example of how to recover from the brink of economic disaster.
Incidentally, that CBI survey which Scott_P linked to upthread is quite remarkably upbeat:
Signs of a continued recovery in the manufacturing sector appear to be feeding through to investment plans over the next 12 months, with plans for capital expenditure on plant and machinery (relative to last year) the highest for 17 years. Investment plans for innovation and training and retraining also remain robust.
Even Allister Heath was in a cheery mood yesterday.......
My point is that Osborne's economic strategy should be judged across the entire period, not on the last quarter or next quarter of growth. On that basis, the UK compares poorly with places like the USA. Of course, some of this is out of HMG's hands, due to past policies meaning our export structure is heavily weighted towards the EU disaster zone. However, I still think austerity, while the right strategy, was done too early and unnecessarily delayed the recovery.
Comparing our recovery to the US is not a good comparison, additionally the US jobs recovery has been built on the back of a much lower labour participation rate. Absolute employment of people of working age in the US is around 65% which is significantly lower than our rate of 73%. Any comparison to the US is flawed on that basis alone.
The US participation rate is 62.9%. I can't find this year's number but it was 62.1% in the UK in 2012. Their unemployment rate is 6.7% versus ours at 6.9%. It doesn't seem spectacularly different.
Most of all, I attended a Ukip event and did not feel very welcome as a non white person, that coupled with all of the above has made me take back any support I previously had for them. The party Ukip used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to the WWC and ex BNP voters is completely different and not one I can support.
I wish there was an upvote button.
This is exactly it. You can tell by reading the posts from UKIPpers on the DT that their primary drivers are rage, hate, and envy. You never read anything from a UKIPper there that is positive about anything.
The funniest research was a YouGov which showed UKIP voters uniquely disturbed by cyclists going through red lights and other anti-social behaviour - while there was virtually no difference between Con, Lab and Lib Dem voters' experience.....
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
"The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament."
The first time I have seen this acknowledged on here and it is something that needs wider circulation. The taxpayer is subsidising employment and housing, to the benefit of employers and landlords, to an unprecedented degree and it is not clear how this will ever be changed.
"The taxpayer is subsidising employment and housing, to the benefit of employers and landlords, to an unprecedented degree and it is not clear how this will ever be changed."
Either abolish the laws of supply and demand or halt immigration as increasing the supply of labour puts upward pressure on housing costs and downward pressure on wages and those two pressures are only being squared by the welfare system. Business will keep "lobbying" the political class for ever more labour because it is in their short term interest but eventually the rubber band on the welfare system will snap and that won't be pretty.
Mostly valid points, though I genuinely don't buy your view that a high deficit was an immediate problem that required a growth hit in an already tough time to deal with. Outside countries which don't have their own central bank, nobody has provided a credible case that a country gets a financial crisis with government debt around our sorts of levels. Given how much people are suffering during this period of high unemployment, austerity should have been left to a time when we had spare room on monetary policy to accommodate it.
EDIT: For the record, I was one of the people saying people shouldn't judge any nation's record on a few quarters of growth when they were bad too. Also, we haven't had to suffer from idiot Republicans in Congress threatening default and shutdowns every now and again.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Gordon Brown is probably the best example of how being part of the Union allows Scots to achieve more than they would if we were independent and that we punch above our weight already. Would a Scot have been at the centre of dealing with the credit crunch in 2008 if it wasn't for the Union?
My three problems with independence are that the transaction costs will be horrendous and probably outweigh any hypothetical improved economic performance, that we will loose out from not being part of a single UK market and the labour mobility that comes with it, and that it will take us off the global stage - eg security council seat loss.
LOL, JD, the global stage my arse , we are invisible at present. labour mobility will not change one iota and teh transaction costs and employment from them will be better for Scotland than paying Trident and HS2 to name but a few items.
@Socrates - Unemployment hasn't been too bad, relatively speaking - broadly the same as in the US, although of course one would wish it to be lower. Again, I'd cite that as evidence that Osborne got the balance between the conflicting aims just right.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
Most of all, I attended a Ukip event and did not feel very welcome as a non white person, that coupled with all of the above has made me take back any support I previously had for them. The party Ukip used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to the WWC and ex BNP voters is completely different and not one I can support.
I wish there was an upvote button.
This is exactly it. You can tell by reading the posts from UKIPpers on the DT that their primary drivers are rage, hate, and envy. You never read anything from a UKIPper there that is positive about anything.
The funniest research was a YouGov which showed UKIP voters uniquely disturbed by cyclists going through red lights and other anti-social behaviour - while there was virtually no difference between Con, Lab and Lib Dem voters' experience.....
That's a cracker, I missed that one somehow.
You've put your finger on something I failed to express, which is UKIP's characteristic angry preoccupation with utter, crushing trivia. Cyclists going through red lights, trains not painted in traditional colours, taxi drivers failing to wear uniforms.
On The Buses was on ITV3 over the weekend. I was marvelling at the astonishingly smart appearance, by modern standards, of Stan, Jack, and Blakey. Today's bus drivers wear scruffy fleeces and slacks. Those of 1973 wore natty Prussian blue-black uniform suits, cut from what looked like rather nice barathea and set off with brass.
I just hope Farage wasn't watching too, otherwise that'll be in the 2015 UKIP manifesto.
"The sad truth is that the extent of our in work benefits is now such that growth has a more marginal effect on the public finances than hitherto. This makes the continuing scale of our deficit truly frightening. We are not going to grow our way out of this in a decade. Cuts in spending or increases in taxes or both will be required throughout the next Parliament."
The first time I have seen this acknowledged on here and it is something that needs wider circulation. The taxpayer is subsidising employment and housing, to the benefit of employers and landlords, to an unprecedented degree and it is not clear how this will ever be changed.
The government is a big buyer of rental services. They should use their monopsonistic power to cut prices.
Sorry, Mr. C., you have lost me there. If you have time could you expand a little, please?
What happens if the government goes to all the current landlords and tells them they will cut their payments by 10%? Or requires them to enter into 5 year agreements to lease the property to the government at a fixed price & if they don't then the government will not renew the current lease when it expires?
A lot of the properties are poor quality and/or in poor locations and yet the government was paying through the nose for them. There has been some work by the government to reduce the rents paid, but I am certain that there is more they can do.
What they absolutely should be doing is encouraging the development of institutional investment in the rental sector (e.g. I think Avivia is doing it).
Wouldn't reducing rents by 10% mean cutting housing benefit by the same amount? Imagine the screams! It may have no actual impact on the recipients of the benefit, as long as the rent did fall, but politically it would be poison.
That said, something will have to be done because the current situation is unsustainable, the country can't afford it and the social effects, which I think are just starting to be recognised, are going to be awful.
Of course, housing benefit is not the only thing that has to be sorted out. The whole system of in work benefits has to be reformed, and, preferably, over time, abolished. Wages paid ought to enable a reasonably careful family to live a reasonably comfortable life without being subsidised by other taxpayers. If an employer has a business model which depends on state subsidies to enable his employees to survive then that model is, I suggest, flawed and he should go out of business or, and I think more likely, enables him to draw profits for his own benefit that he hasn't actually earned.
A couple of years back Miliband started talking about pre-distribution. Of course, he fecked it up, but actually I think he had a point.
Most of all, I attended a Ukip event and did not feel very welcome as a non white person, that coupled with all of the above has made me take back any support I previously had for them. The party Ukip used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to the WWC and ex BNP voters is completely different and not one I can support.
I wish there was an upvote button.
This is exactly it. You can tell by reading the posts from UKIPpers on the DT that their primary drivers are rage, hate, and envy. You never read anything from a UKIPper there that is positive about anything. There seems to be nothing in the world they think is good, or if there is, it is too trivial to mention.
Everything they articulate as a UKIP principle turns out, on closer inspection, to be a polished turd of bigotry. When they complain about unfettered immigration, what they rally mean is that they hate wogs. When they bang on about house prices, they mean they hate wogs. When they complain about the EU, they mean they hate wogs. When they talk about traditional British culture, they mean they hate wogs. When they talk about overseas aid, they mean they hate wogs. When they say they think foreign aid should be spent in the UK (which in fact it largely is, but they don't know this) on flood defences, they mean they hate poofs. When they bang on about corrupt pocket lining MPs they mean they envy people with more money than themselves. They are fine with their own MEPs going to jail because they only robbed wogs.
There is an eerie Village of the Damned homogeneity to them. About a micron underneath the bland bonhomie are some seriously nasty people.
Is that a joke?
How did those words get through the spam filter?!
It's not a joke. It's how you're widely - and IMHO accurately - perceived, by many of the 97% of us who didn't vote for you in 2010.
There's a franchise out there for such a party, and that's why it exists, but the MEPs are all in it for the expenses troughing and not one of its senior figures is a remotely serious person. Farage can only dream of having the gravitas of Owen Jones or Penny Laurie.
That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally
I suspect you suspect wrongly. In any case I do suspect that a view that says most things are up for negotiation after a Yes vote is substantially more rational than one than jumps from position to position and contradicts & anonymously briefs against its own 'certainties'.
My position is very simple.
I hope you don't go, but if you do decide to, I'd rather than a settlement that both sides are broadly happy with. Better to have a good neighbour than to squeeze for an extra 5% and have someone annoyed with us on the other side of the fence
Most of all, I attended a Ukip event and did not feel very welcome as a non white person, that coupled with all of the above has made me take back any support I previously had for them. The party Ukip used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to the WWC and ex BNP voters is completely different and not one I can support.
I wish there was an upvote button.
This is exactly it. You can tell by reading the posts from UKIPpers on the DT that their primary drivers are rage, hate, and envy. You never read anything from a UKIPper there that is positive about anything. There seems to be nothing in the world they think is good, or if there is, it is too trivial to mention.
Everything they articulate as a UKIP principle turns out, on closer inspection, to be a polished turd of bigotry. When they complain about unfettered immigration, what they rally mean is that they hate wogs. When they bang on about house prices, they mean they hate wogs. When they complain about the EU, they mean they hate wogs. When they talk about traditional British culture, they mean they hate wogs. When they talk about overseas aid, they mean they hate wogs. When they say they think foreign aid should be spent in the UK (which in fact it largely is, but they don't know this) on flood defences, they mean they hate poofs. When they bang on about corrupt pocket lining MPs they mean they envy people with more money than themselves. They are fine with their own MEPs going to jail because they only robbed wogs.
There is an eerie Village of the Damned homogeneity to them. About a micron underneath the bland bonhomie are some seriously nasty people.
Is that a joke?
How did those words get through the spam filter?!
If things chug along as they are there's likely to be a lot of melt-downs, enjoy.
That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally
I suspect you suspect wrongly. In any case I do suspect that a view that says most things are up for negotiation after a Yes vote is substantially more rational than one than jumps from position to position and contradicts & anonymously briefs against its own 'certainties'.
My position is very simple.
I hope you don't go, but if you do decide to, I'd rather than a settlement that both sides are broadly happy with. Better to have a good neighbour than to squeeze for an extra 5% and have someone annoyed with us on the other side of the fence
Personally I don't think it's any more possible for the SNP to be "happy" than it is for UKIP to be "happy". You cannot placate institutionalised anger. At what point would Stalin have been "happy" about the position of the kulaks?
We should therefore screw them to the floor, because they hate us anyway and letting them keep 5% more won't make them hate us an iota less.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 1m UKIP's Election Broadcast, when it's aired, will no doubt release a cage full of cats amongst the pigeons....
They should just have Nigel Farage kicking a Manuel Barroso impersonator up the arse with steel-capped boots and occasionally kicking Clegg, Cameron and Milliband in the shins. For 5 minutes.
Well, I suspect that will be the subtext of the PPB anyway.
Most of all, I attended a Ukip event and did not feel very welcome as a non white person, that coupled with all of the above has made me take back any support I previously had for them. The party Ukip used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to the WWC and ex BNP voters is completely different and not one I can support.
I wish there was an upvote button.
This is exactly it. You can tell by reading the posts from UKIPpers on the DT that their primary drivers are rage, hate, and envy. You never read anything from a UKIPper there that is positive about anything.
The funniest research was a YouGov which showed UKIP voters uniquely disturbed by cyclists going through red lights and other anti-social behaviour - while there was virtually no difference between Con, Lab and Lib Dem voters' experience.....
That must make me more of a Kipper than I thought then!
The number of cyclists who speed through the red lights on Ken High Street and think it is okay to dodge around my daughter's pram is ridiculous.
@JosiasJessup "... Hydro-electric: we've done many of the possible schemes already..."
Mr. Jessup, You may be able to answer a question that has vexed me for many years. In the pre-industrial era water power was preferred to wind where ever possible. However, nowadays the power of our rivers to turn wheels is rejected in favour of modern-day wind mills. Any idea why?
I guess it's because the power from fluvial water is limited, both in power and suitable sites. Water power (or a tidal mill such as at Eling, near Southampton) could be used to turn one or two sets of stones to grind corn. But the head of water is low, and therefore the potential difference. You need a large volume of water with a large fall - ideally hundreds of metres - to generate meaningful MWs of power. Tidal schemes work because you don't get much fall, but you do get massive volume.
There are so few large rivers, and the fall (head) is low in most places. And interrupting streams of water can have very large environmental effects; a pool of water upstream, and interruption of fish and wildlife.
Wind, on the other hand, can be distributed much more widely. Even though the power from wind is less, there is so much more of it to get. Compare the size of just one turbine's blades to the turbine in a water-powered station.
Thanks for that, Mr. J.. A single wind turbine generates very little as would a single water-powered turbine at say Teddington. Lots of wind turbines are useful when the wind blows, lots of Turbines on the river Thames would be useful 24 hours a day every day, because the water doesn't stop flowing.
As for the environmental effects; we had mill streams, mill ponds and mill races for centuries, even on slow moving rivers like the Cam, and there was no environmental disaster. On our big rivers, e.g. the Thames, there are weirs every few miles which have been there for well over a hundred years and again no environmental nastiness seems to have occurred.
So could not a lot of small water-powered turbines do a better job than a similar number of wind-powered turbines? Is this a matter of physics or is it a matter of politico-economics?
That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally
I suspect you suspect wrongly. In any case I do suspect that a view that says most things are up for negotiation after a Yes vote is substantially more rational than one than jumps from position to position and contradicts & anonymously briefs against its own 'certainties'.
My position is very simple.
I hope you don't go, but if you do decide to, I'd rather than a settlement that both sides are broadly happy with. Better to have a good neighbour than to squeeze for an extra 5% and have someone annoyed with us on the other side of the fence
Personally I don't think it's any more possible for the SNP to be "happy" than it is for UKIP to be "happy". You cannot placate institutionalised anger. At what point would Stalin have been "happy" about the position of the kulaks?
We should therefore screw them to the floor, because they hate us anyway and letting them keep 5% more won't make them hate us an iota less.
The majority of Scottish voters don't hate us. I'm sure there are a few activists who do, but that doesn't matter. 10 years post independence, the SNP won't exist in its current form: it may have migrated to become a Christian Democrat party, or it may have ceased to exist, but it will have achieved the primary objective and, in so doing, will dissolve the political glue that keeps the disparate traditions together.
Most of all, I attended a Ukip event and did not feel very welcome as a non white person, that coupled with all of the above has made me take back any support I previously had for them. The party Ukip used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to the WWC and ex BNP voters is completely different and not one I can support.
I wish there was an upvote button.
This is exactly it. You can tell by reading the posts from UKIPpers on the DT that their primary drivers are rage, hate, and envy. You never read anything from a UKIPper there that is positive about anything. There seems to be nothing in the world they think is good, or if there is, it is too trivial to mention.
Everything they articulate as a UKIP principle turns out, on closer inspection, to be a polished turd of bigotry. When they complain about unfettered immigration, what they rally mean is that they hate wogs. When they bang on about house prices, they mean they hate wogs. When they complain about the EU, they mean they hate wogs. When they talk about traditional British culture, they mean they hate wogs. When they talk about overseas aid, they mean they hate wogs. When they say they think foreign aid should be spent in the UK (which in fact it largely is, but they don't know this) on flood defences, they mean they hate poofs. When they bang on about corrupt pocket lining MPs they mean they envy people with more money than themselves. They are fine with their own MEPs going to jail because they only robbed wogs.
There is an eerie Village of the Damned homogeneity to them. About a micron underneath the bland bonhomie are some seriously nasty people.
Is that a joke?
How did those words get through the spam filter?!
It's not a joke. It's how you're widely - and IMHO accurately - perceived, by many of the 97% of us who didn't vote for you in 2010.
There's a franchise out there for such a party, and that's why it exists, but the MEPs are all in it for the expenses troughing and not one of its senior figures is a remotely serious person. Farage can only dream of having the gravitas of Owen Jones or Penny Laurie.
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
So could not a lot of small water-powered turbines do a better job than a similar number of wind-powered turbines? Is this a matter of physics or is it a matter of politico-economics?
That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally
I suspect you suspect wrongly. In any case I do suspect that a view that says most things are up for negotiation after a Yes vote is substantially more rational than one than jumps from position to position and contradicts & anonymously briefs against its own 'certainties'.
My position is very simple.
I hope you don't go, but if you do decide to, I'd rather than a settlement that both sides are broadly happy with. Better to have a good neighbour than to squeeze for an extra 5% and have someone annoyed with us on the other side of the fence
Personally I don't think it's any more possible for the SNP to be "happy" than it is for UKIP to be "happy". You cannot placate institutionalised anger. At what point would Stalin have been "happy" about the position of the kulaks?
We should therefore screw them to the floor, because they hate us anyway and letting them keep 5% more won't make them hate us an iota less.
UKIP will prove a net benefit to the Tories in the medium to long term, I think. The more toxic views found among Tories d'un age certain align much better with those of UKIP so eventually these vicious old bugg3rs will all end up there.
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
While clearly you are enjoying trolling the kippers, perhaps you should choose another moniker when trolling the Scots.
As I recall the OE James Bond was part Scots and part Swiss, yet very British. Better together, some may say...
Oh, come off it, fox. There are no similarities between an independent Scotland and Ian Fleming's James Bond.
One is a laughable fantasy creation cooked up by a superficially plausible bull5hitter whose outpourings nobody thoughtful takes seriously. The other is a fictional spy.
UKIP will prove a net benefit to the Tories in the medium to long term, I think. The more toxic views found among Tories d'un age certain align much better with those of UKIP so eventually these vicious old bugg3rs will all end up there.
Is this the Guardian-readers-vote-Conservative vision? I thought that had been dropped.
In Canada, UKIP (Reform Party of Canada), displaced the Conservatives.
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
"... Why should EU citizens not automatically be included on the EU register as for the local one? ..."
Maybe I can shed some light. I have no idea what Nick Palmer is talking about.
In order to get the Voters Register as accurate and up to date as possible I spent several happy weeks last winter banging on doors wherein lay people who had not returned the voter registration forms (my work was on behalf of the local council and not any political party). Anyone in the household who was not entitled to vote in any of our elections was not put down on the form to start with, those that were had their nationality included.
Thus a EU national, who can vote in the Euros but not in a GE, will appear on the electoral register as a matter of right but his/her name will be marked as such and it is the poll clerks job on the day to make sure ballot papers are only issued to those who have a right to vote in that election on the day*. Where Nick gets this second application form business from I have no idea.
*At the last council election I had an enormous row with a local titled lady who had come to vote but the electoral register showed she was a postal voter (her husband had asked for one on her behalf but not told her I discovered later).
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
"One is a laughable fantasy creation cooked up by a superficially plausible bull5hitter whose outpourings nobody thoughtful takes seriously. The other is a fictional spy."
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
Don't agree with them on that. Wonder why they voted that way?
It's obviously not as simple as the spoof poster alleges. Among many other things, the EU Parliament resolution said:
Calls for the establishment of a specialised Wildlife Crime Unit within Europol, which would have full transnational powers and responsibilities as well as sufficient and skilled human resources and adequate funding...
I can see why UKIP would object to full transnational powers to a unit within Europol. It doesn't make them in favour of exterminating elephants.
There's also a lot of stuff in the resolution which conflates the [currently] legal trade in existing ivory objects with the illegal trade in ivory. I strongly disagree with those who argue that existing ivory objects should be destroyed to discourage the trade in ivory objects made from new pieces of ivory. That would be cultural vandalism.
Just think how many steaks we can get out of a full-grown elephant. I'm against poachers - they run off with the tusks and leave the meat for the vultures. Such a waste.
The misunderstanding by all about the difference between mass immigration and controlled immigration has to be seen to be believed.
I know its deliberate, and I know they think they are tripping Farage up, but they are making themselves look stupid and extreme, & making UKIP look measured
All it does is set up Farage to say "we don't want to stop all immigration, we just want to power to be able to choose who we let in"
Highlighting his wife nationality also gets rid of the "racism" issue (if you think racism is about something other than skin colour)
The UKIP poster had none of that nuance. It said Europeans want to take jobs from Brits, and it looks like at least 649 people agree with them...
649 people applying to be Nigel Farage's secretary is another sign of UKIP's support surging.
So could not a lot of small water-powered turbines do a better job than a similar number of wind-powered turbines? Is this a matter of physics or is it a matter of politico-economics?
Any reason why we shouldn't have both?
Not that I know of, Mr. Me, I have simply being trying to work out why water power has been ignored, Mr. Jessup is, as we know, smarter than a Grenadier on the QBP when it comes to matters engineering and so I thought I'd ask him.
Comments
I know its deliberate, and I know they think they are tripping Farage up, but they are making themselves look stupid and extreme, & making UKIP look measured
All it does is set up Farage to say "we don't want to stop all immigration, we just want to power to be able to choose who we let in"
Highlighting his wife nationality also gets rid of the "racism" issue (if you think racism is about something other than skin colour)
There are so few large rivers, and the fall (head) is low in most places. And interrupting streams of water can have very large environmental effects; a pool of water upstream, and interruption of fish and wildlife.
Wind, on the other hand, can be distributed much more widely. Even though the power from wind is less, there is so much more of it to get. Compare the size of just one turbine's blades to the turbine in a water-powered station.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/essay-douglas-alexander-on-a-postive-no-vote-1-3383895
"To conserve what matters to people – pride in country, the familiarity of a common life, caring family relationships, decent work fairly rewarded, and a sense of belonging – requires radical changes"
http://labourlist.org/2014/04/ukip-england-and-st-george/
As I say, I haven't seen the treaties that divided the international waters of the North Sea between the UK, Norway and Denmark. But if, as I suspect, they refer to the UK, then since the UK will still exist, the treaties will surely still apply.
If, on the other hand, the argument is that by leaving the union Scotland has abolished the UK - a claim that will be met some surprise by, oh, the Queen and all UK passport holders, to name but 41 million - then those agreements would need to be renegotiated among the original signatories and their successors.
Scotland would then need to persuade not only the ex-Union, but also Norway and Denmark that some of the oil and gas now belongs to Scotland, a state which did nothing historically to develop any of it (because it didn't exist), but wants to claim it now.
This claim feels roughly comparable in merit to Argentinian claims over the Falkland Islands: we didn't exist then, but we do now and therefore what's always been yours must now be mine. It is surely much more likely that England, Wales and Northern Ireland would simply be recognised as the successor state to the UK, and would inherit its treaty obligations and its overseas assets. The process is well rehearsed; the USSR's embassies mostly now belong to Russia, and the wreck of the Graf Spee legally belongs to federal Germany.
I'd appreciate some reasoned rejoinder to the above rather than the usual spittle-flecked swearing and chortling. I am struggling to see why the UK should just give away its oil.
The more political interviewers,seemingly to enhance their own reputations, ask @Nigel_Farage "cute" questions @UKIP will gain more votes.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynndirector 1h
@LordAshcroft @Nigel_Farage @UKIP Shhh, don't let them know that!!
Q. Which of the following do you think currently HAS the most influence over the way England is run?
A. Local councils: 3%, UK Government: 55%, EU: 31%
Q. And which of the following do you think SHOULD have the most influence over the way England is run?
A. Local councils: 18%, UK Government: 71%, EU: 2%
(page 15)
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n7j4epfe7j/University of Cardiff_England sample Results 121128.pdf
Clearly it makes sense for Scotland to receive the oil rights as one of the assets that they inherit as part of the disolution.
But to argue that Scotland receives 100% of the oil rights and then 8% of all other UK assets is just ridiculous.
(As an aside, if I was in Salmond's shoes, I'd think seriously about allowing the UK to keep a percentage of the oil revenues provided that it is appropriately compensated with other assets (e.g. a lower share of government debt). After all, oil is a finite asset. That said I suspect "Scotland' Oil" is too emotive a rallying cry to allow him to think about it rationally)
Scotland would have territorial waters. The 12 miles around Scotland would be her territorial waters, to be exact. The oil and gas are outwith territorial waters. They are in international waters. Ownership was established and apportioned 50-odd years ago.
The acts you refer to were written in the context of Scotland being in the UK and having a separate legal system. They make no reference to Scotland having separate title, or do they? Furthermore, one can choose any law one likes for the adjudication of a contract. Many oil contracts are under English law, regardless of where agreed, because English courts have a lot of experience interpreting them and will do a better job of resolving a dispute than a French, Danish or Chinese court. This point will carry little weight I would think.
What you might find is that Scotland could claim some of the oil, but would have to pay compensation to the UK. It's ours and you're no longer us.
No room for much comment on Osborne's IMF speech in my last post.
Osborne essentially won the stimulus vs. austerity debate being waged between the IMF and OECD by demonstrating over the past year that the OECD's prescription for recovery had worked. The balance of fiscal consolidation (20% tax rises, 80% spending cuts); the pace of consolidation (1.6% annual reduction in cyclically adjusted current account deficit); the phasing (taxes up first, spending cuts applied over decade plus); and, the cautious use of monetary stimulus (no increase in QE over past two years) have all led to the current position where the UK is achieving the highest growth rate in the G7 at the same time as having the largest rate of consolidation.
There is still a rearguard action being fought by the Krugmanites, Larrry Summer et. al., and the pro-stimulus voice hasn't yet been fully silenced in Obama's White House and Washington, although the volume has been muted to give sound to austerity. Even the IMF's Chief [and French socialist] Economist, Olivier Blanchard has been forced into making a (gracious) apology to Osborne (and indirectly José Ángel Gurría, the OECD's Secretary General, George's mentor).
Although George has won on the fiscal consolidation argument, it is still too early to say he will win or is winning against the counter offensive of the "so-called "hollowing out" hypothesis". And there isn't time enough left before the General Election to win empirically. Some baby steps towards proof will certainly be achieved, but not to the extent that everyone starts believing the 'Neo-Georgian' theory will become law.
So Ed Balls and Ed Miliband will have some academic weight behind their claims that the Coalition's economic recovery is a "recovery for the elite and not the many". This at least remains the currently fashionable consensus view among economists. Greg Mankiw at Harvard and some LSE and Treasury in-house research will not be enough to silence the 'borrow and spend' mob: it will only be results wot do it.
All George can hope for is that the confidence in his judgement hard won in the first round of the economic debate will be carried forward by a grateful public to the second. "Well he has delivered growth and employment, now let us give him the benefit of the doubt on living standards" is the best George can realistically hope for.
Nothing succeeds like success.
(TM, Daily Mail).
As for empty office blocks, I'd want to revisit the whole of the business rates mess anyway as it unfairly discriminates against town centres
Given how much I have banged on about that part of the world and the effects of mass immigration on it, it is reassuring to hear words like that from him.
He cant come out and say so though, as the logical next step would be to say "vote UKIP". I am sure many people from the area can read between the lines though...
Q. Generally speaking, do you think that the UK's membership of the European Union is a good thing or a bad thing or neither good nor bad?
A. Good thing: 28%, Bad thing: 43%, Neither: 21%, Don't know: 8%
Q. If there was a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, how would you vote?
A. Remain a member: 33%, Leave: 55%, Would not vote: 5%, Don't know: 12%.
(page 45)
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n7j4epfe7j/University of Cardiff_England sample Results 121128.pdf
This is very different to yesterday's YouGov. But that used a very odd question.
Q. The European elections are held under a proportional voting system which gives smaller parties a better chance of winning seats than in general elections.
If there was a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, how would you vote?
A. Remain a member: 42%, Leave 37%, Would not vote: 5%, Don't know: 16%
(page 2)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/zvvptj27x4/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-220414.pdf
Or, to put it more succinctly, the boy done well.
I seem to recall a chap called Nabavi who, to much derision on PoliticalBetting.com, pointed out over three years ago that Osborne had got his strategy right, and who at the start of 2013 predicted (to yet more derision) that in the following 12 months the UK economy would surprise on the upside. No-one is surprised any more, of course - if anything, there is too little appreciation of the potential downside risks.
How much are we above peak GDP, seven years later?
Firms are upbeat about the next quarter, with growth expectations for domestic orders and output also the highest since the 1970s. Optimism about export prospects for the year ahead also rose strongly.
Signs of a continued recovery in the manufacturing sector appear to be feeding through to investment plans over the next 12 months, with plans for capital expenditure on plant and machinery (relative to last year) the highest for 17 years. Investment plans for innovation and training and retraining also remain robust.
Very, very good news indeed - if we can start getting growth in business investment and exports, as well as the consumer-led and construction-sector recovery we've seen already, we'll be in good shape for a steady improvement (assuming of course that UK voters don't choose to put it all into reverse in May 2015).
Labour needs periods of Tory government to repair the economy. The Tories don't need periods of Labour government, though.
'Alexander can't avoid the Tory-bashing Brown wisely eschewed'
But does anyone take wee Dougie seriously?
My point is that Osborne's economic strategy should be judged across the entire period, not on the last quarter or next quarter of growth. On that basis, the UK compares poorly with places like the USA. Of course, some of this is out of HMG's hands, due to past policies meaning our export structure is heavily weighted towards the EU disaster zone. However, I still think austerity, while the right strategy, was done too early and unnecessarily delayed the recovery.
Sorry. Well spotted.
It was published earlier this month, I didn't think to check for another date.
http://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/9920/
"The party Labour used to be and what they are now with their huge appeal to immigrants and muslim voters is completely different and not one I can support"
We seem to have had similar experiences. I did a Humanities degree a few years ago, thinking I was a leftie, and the attitude towards me from the Marxists and SWP lecturers because I was a straight white man made me take back any support I had for their cause
In 2009 the LDs finished with 13.7% at the European's a drop of 4%. If the same applies we will see the LDs get 7% to 8% in the Europeans....
If the massive economic stimulus caused by the flood of money fleeing the BRICs is being driven by internal factors then it may not matter to the people stashing their loot in the UK who the government is.
How are those inconsistent?
I actually sympathise with many of your critiques of UKIP. They really need to modernise on many matters. Their view on gay marriage is just illiberal. They're no worse than the other three parties on misleading claims, but due to media bias, they need to be more disciplined here. They also need to be whiter than all the other parties on things like expenses and spousal jobs. However, faced with the alternatives, I feel they're the least bad option. Labour will be an economic disaster next term. The Lib Dems would do absolutely nothing to stop the many deep problems with the EU. The Tories are absolutely appalling on civil liberties - hacking private webcam conversations of innocent people unconnected to any investigation is just one of the many abuses. My issues with UKIP seem a lot more peripheral.
Here's the report:
http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/12120/the-future-of-england-the-local-dimension
I do wonder if Mrs Farage votes UKIP, there are many applicants for her job, some from Latvia and elsewhere. Nigel must meet a lot of East Europeans while about his politicking, what with so many bar staff in London being Polish or Slovak. It is hard to find English bar staff in London, and the Aussies seem to have abandoned the stranglehold on the trade of twenty years ago.
In any case it simply isn't the case that there was too much austerity too early. There was very little - we had a humoungous deficit in 2010-2013, that is hardly 'austerity'. To the contrary, Osborne judged it perfectly, doing enough to keep the markets on side, setting out a credible long-term plan, but not jerking the steering-wheel so fast as to cause the whole economy to jack-knife. It's a text-book example of how to recover from the brink of economic disaster.
It is like riding in an Aston Martin DB5 on a sunny spring day with the roof down.
Pure bliss, especially when passing Malcolm and tooting as he polishes his Beemer.
Either abolish the laws of supply and demand or halt immigration as increasing the supply of labour puts upward pressure on housing costs and downward pressure on wages and those two pressures are only being squared by the welfare system. Business will keep "lobbying" the political class for ever more labour because it is in their short term interest but eventually the rubber band on the welfare system will snap and that won't be pretty.
Mostly valid points, though I genuinely don't buy your view that a high deficit was an immediate problem that required a growth hit in an already tough time to deal with. Outside countries which don't have their own central bank, nobody has provided a credible case that a country gets a financial crisis with government debt around our sorts of levels. Given how much people are suffering during this period of high unemployment, austerity should have been left to a time when we had spare room on monetary policy to accommodate it.
EDIT: For the record, I was one of the people saying people shouldn't judge any nation's record on a few quarters of growth when they were bad too. Also, we haven't had to suffer from idiot Republicans in Congress threatening default and shutdowns every now and again.
UKIP's Election Broadcast, when it's aired, will no doubt release a cage full of cats amongst the pigeons....
You've put your finger on something I failed to express, which is UKIP's characteristic angry preoccupation with utter, crushing trivia. Cyclists going through red lights, trains not painted in traditional colours, taxi drivers failing to wear uniforms.
On The Buses was on ITV3 over the weekend. I was marvelling at the astonishingly smart appearance, by modern standards, of Stan, Jack, and Blakey. Today's bus drivers wear scruffy fleeces and slacks. Those of 1973 wore natty Prussian blue-black uniform suits, cut from what looked like rather nice barathea and set off with brass.
I just hope Farage wasn't watching too, otherwise that'll be in the 2015 UKIP manifesto.
That said, something will have to be done because the current situation is unsustainable, the country can't afford it and the social effects, which I think are just starting to be recognised, are going to be awful.
Of course, housing benefit is not the only thing that has to be sorted out. The whole system of in work benefits has to be reformed, and, preferably, over time, abolished. Wages paid ought to enable a reasonably careful family to live a reasonably comfortable life without being subsidised by other taxpayers. If an employer has a business model which depends on state subsidies to enable his employees to survive then that model is, I suggest, flawed and he should go out of business or, and I think more likely, enables him to draw profits for his own benefit that he hasn't actually earned.
A couple of years back Miliband started talking about pre-distribution. Of course, he fecked it up, but actually I think he had a point.
There's a franchise out there for such a party, and that's why it exists, but the MEPs are all in it for the expenses troughing and not one of its senior figures is a remotely serious person. Farage can only dream of having the gravitas of Owen Jones or Penny Laurie.
I hope you don't go, but if you do decide to, I'd rather than a settlement that both sides are broadly happy with. Better to have a good neighbour than to squeeze for an extra 5% and have someone annoyed with us on the other side of the fence
We should therefore screw them to the floor, because they hate us anyway and letting them keep 5% more won't make them hate us an iota less.
Well, I suspect that will be the subtext of the PPB anyway.
The number of cyclists who speed through the red lights on Ken High Street and think it is okay to dodge around my daughter's pram is ridiculous.
As for the environmental effects; we had mill streams, mill ponds and mill races for centuries, even on slow moving rivers like the Cam, and there was no environmental disaster. On our big rivers, e.g. the Thames, there are weirs every few miles which have been there for well over a hundred years and again no environmental nastiness seems to have occurred.
So could not a lot of small water-powered turbines do a better job than a similar number of wind-powered turbines? Is this a matter of physics or is it a matter of politico-economics?
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/23/ukip-poster-parody-misses-the-point
While clearly you are enjoying trolling the kippers, perhaps you should choose another moniker when trolling the Scots.
As I recall the OE James Bond was part Scots and part Swiss, yet very British. Better together, some may say...
http://bit.ly/RLasfb
A recruiting sergeant for Nick Palmer?
One is a laughable fantasy creation cooked up by a superficially plausible bull5hitter whose outpourings nobody thoughtful takes seriously. The other is a fictional spy.
In Canada, UKIP (Reform Party of Canada), displaced the Conservatives.
Don't agree with them on that. Wonder why they voted that way?
I thought it was only the Spanish royal family that still believed in hunting elephants.
UKIP are the only party prepared to deal with the "elephant in the room"? (or anywhere else for that matter)
Maybe I can shed some light. I have no idea what Nick Palmer is talking about.
In order to get the Voters Register as accurate and up to date as possible I spent several happy weeks last winter banging on doors wherein lay people who had not returned the voter registration forms (my work was on behalf of the local council and not any political party). Anyone in the household who was not entitled to vote in any of our elections was not put down on the form to start with, those that were had their nationality included.
Thus a EU national, who can vote in the Euros but not in a GE, will appear on the electoral register as a matter of right but his/her name will be marked as such and it is the poll clerks job on the day to make sure ballot papers are only issued to those who have a right to vote in that election on the day*. Where Nick gets this second application form business from I have no idea.
*At the last council election I had an enormous row with a local titled lady who had come to vote but the electoral register showed she was a postal voter (her husband had asked for one on her behalf but not told her I discovered later).
https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/motherhood-and-apple-pie/
It makes no scientific or logical sense. Is it because waste has chemicals in it and biomass is pure chemical-free?
I wish we still had the 'Like' button.
I liked that article from Helmer
There's also a lot of stuff in the resolution which conflates the [currently] legal trade in existing ivory objects with the illegal trade in ivory. I strongly disagree with those who argue that existing ivory objects should be destroyed to discourage the trade in ivory objects made from new pieces of ivory. That would be cultural vandalism.
Just think how many steaks we can get out of a full-grown elephant. I'm against poachers - they run off with the tusks and leave the meat for the vultures. Such a waste.