Labour's bombardment of the Lib Dems shows it is going all out for a majority Rather than preparing for another hung parliament, Labour is focused on "crushing" Clegg's party.
This parliament is an excellent opportunity for both Labour and the Conservatives to target the LDs and attempt to remove an opponent from future contests.
"56% say the government should introduce rent controls – and the majority say governments should be more willing to intervene in markets generally"
Clever really. Old Labour trying to improve life for the average person ended up making them more conservative whereas New Labour allying with big business to destroy any kind of financial security at all let alone prosperity will successfully revive commiedom.
Yay! A prices and incomes policy! I remember one of those it was such a great success the first time around that I can't remember why we got rid of it. Also capital controls, lets have those back - we should not expect rich buggers to be able to take their money out of the country, fifty-quid a head should be enough for working folk to spend on their holiday. Well, all right, maybe inflation has got in the way and maybe £50 for a fortnight is no longer enough but whatever the amount is it should be decided by Mr. Milliband. He is the only person, lets face it, to decide how much you should be allowed to spend on your holiday, how much rent you should pay, how much electricity you can use and, frankly, how much you should pay for food.
However, times have moved on. Mr. Milliband does not want to return to the 1970s. You will therefore be forced to undergo state minimums of exercise, be barred from buying tobacco and have you booze rationed, unless you are on benefits.
If they want a tory party that is even largely committed to campaigning for "in" ticking off Osborne in this way is a really bad move. The conspiracy theorist would of course assume that this is one of the "concessions" Dave is going to achieve in due course but you do have to wonder.
I think we should introduce our own FTT - French Tipple Tax. Anyone who drinks French wine anywhere in Europe should pay an amount "per sip".
Plus we have the limp wristed weakness of the words that Osborne uses that are so infuriating, and such a boon to UKIP . Words like ''entitled'' and ''challenge''
The time for words like this with Europe are long gone, surely.
The most fundamental problem we have with the EU is how we are going to manage a relationship if the EZ countries start acting and voting as a bloc in their own interests. This would seem to be a good example of exactly that. The guarantees I would be looking for from Cameron would be the ability to stop this. If we can't get these then I for one would vote to leave with a heavy heart.
Any which way to produce this the week after the case in the ECJ was dismissed for being premature and 2 weeks before the Euros is playing with fire.
"...the political class is really only part of a bigger metropolitan class, which is as coherent and interconnected as any more traditionally understood establishment, and which includes the broadcast media, publishing, the academic world and so on. There is a remarkable convergence of views within these groups, who tend to hold the same prejudices and uphold the same orthodoxies, and they have essentially made London their own.
The truth is that, far from being individualistic and free-thinking, London's metropolitan elites are profoundly sheep-like, while retaining a view of the people "outside" as being unable to understand issues in the way they can"
Why Eddie Mair should be first choice to replace Paxo
Good spot Mike, but does he have the all important left-leaning credentials?
Mair's a Scot. That should rule him out.
In what respect? Does he not speak clearly? Does he need subtitles or something?
Carnyx, you would be better asking a turnip the question, you would get a more sensible reply.
It did not seem a very funny joke whichever way one looked at it, so I genuinely wondered if he was being serious and if so what reasons could legitimately be adduced for such a statement even before a successful result in the referendum.
However, my reply did allow for some irony just in case - I have been known to point out the (then) 888 button to Londoner friends complaining the couldn't understand the peripatetic Glasgow philosopher Mr R. Nesbit.
If they want a tory party that is even largely committed to campaigning for "in" ticking off Osborne in this way is a really bad move. The conspiracy theorist would of course assume that this is one of the "concessions" Dave is going to achieve in due course but you do have to wonder.
I think we should introduce our own FTT - French Tipple Tax. Anyone who drinks French wine anywhere in Europe should pay an amount "per sip".
Good for raising revenue. Good for health.
I would be content with an opt out of the Common Agricultural Policy myself.
This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.
In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.
It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.
Mr. Me, dividing up Yorkshire is an act of heresy.
Politically speaking North Yorkshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire are solid blue with the People's Republic staunchly Red (Except Clegg's bit) with West Yorkshire being a belle-weather for the country !
I think that Mr Prescott may disagree with you about the East Riding being solid Blue! (Unless you are trying to claim that the fine Yorkshire city of Hull isn't actually in Yorkshire?)
Well there is always the odd seat that 'isn't'. But 4 out of 5 seats are currently Conservative in the region.
Maybe I am missing something but I make it 3 safe seats each - Hull East, Hull North, Hull West and Hessle all Labour. Beverley and Holderness, Howden and Haltemprice and East Yorkshire all Conservative.
The East Riding of Yorkshire is divided into 5 constituencies, each of which has its own Member of Parliament (MP).
Constituency Member of Parliament (MP) Beverley and Holderness Mr Graham Stuart Brigg and Goole Mr Andrew Percy East Yorkshire The Rt. Hon. Greg Knight, FCA Haltemprice and Howden The Rt. Hon. David Davis Hull West and Hessle The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson
Pah - that's the 'Modern' East Riding - I was thinking of the traditional and ceremonial East Riding given the original point being made by Mr Dancer. (And I accept that I didn't count Brigg and Goole - but its a weird cross-county seat). We have probably taken this further than it really needs to go however... ; )
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: “I had a feeling from pretty early on that Roger would emerge as the UKIP candidate in this contest. It did not surprise me in the slightest that he performed so well at the hustings or that NEC members were keen to endorse him.
This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.
In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.
It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.
IIRC, it applies to trade in all European companies, irrespective of where the transaction takes place. So, attempts to evade the tax by - say - trading shares of Vivendi in New York would not succeed.
However, I don't know how it deals with GDRs/ADRs (i.e. the underlying shares stay in the possession of a bank, but you trade a piece of paper that allows to take delivery of the underlying if you desire). History suggests that financial markets tend to find a way around regulation.
It is, of course, worth remembering that in the UK, we already have an FTT on transactions in UK shares, so this is a case of the EU imitating us.
He does rather seem like a UKIP stereotype... at least The Sun will guarantee a lot of publicity, and maybe UKIP think that will work in Helmer's favour
New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506
Thanks. MOE.
Lib Dems on eight points. I'm not really sure they should be included in the debates at that point.
What do you think the hurdle should be? Average of 15% in the polls of ICM in the six months preceding the election?
An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.
History suggests that financial markets tend to find a way around regulation.
Generally by moving to another jurisdiction.
It isn't what the EU is doing that's annoying, we all expect that. Its the incredible girly wet flannel nature of our response, with UKIP pounding on the door.
Osborne should simply say that if there's a financial transaction tax, it will mean the UK can no longer afford payments to the EU, and will be suspending them as soon as its implemented.
Repeat: UKIP is pounding on the f8cking door. show some backbone.
This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.
In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.
It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.
Eh, yes it will. The idea, as I understand it, is that at the very least any French or German bank trading in London will have to account for the FTT to their country of origin and we would have the responsibility to collect it.
In reality London is dominant in financial services so we would be collecting a tax for the rest of Europe which would be a major disincentive to trade in London as opposed to New York (who don't trade quite as many dollars as London at the moment) or Singapore. We would be at risk of losing a major industry and a significant part of our tax base whilst other EU countries would be barely affected. It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.
Helmer seems like a mistake. It's much better to go with people like Diane James or Paul Nuttall. The campaign will be focused on this guy's eccentric views now, rather than the party platform.
New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506
Thanks. MOE.
Lib Dems on eight points. I'm not really sure they should be included in the debates at that point.
What do you think the hurdle should be? Average of 15% in the polls of ICM in the six months preceding the election?
An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.
An average of greater than 10% in the polls OR more than 10 existing MPs would cover it .
New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506
Thanks. MOE.
Lib Dems on eight points. I'm not really sure they should be included in the debates at that point.
What do you think the hurdle should be? Average of 15% in the polls of ICM in the six months preceding the election?
An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.
In danger of including the Greens as well on that basis. (Although a 5 way debate would be interesting...) (Also - what % would the SNP need to be on in Scotland to be above the 5% GB target :-) )
This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.
In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.
It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.
Eh, yes it will. The idea, as I understand it, is that at the very least any French or German bank trading in London will have to account for the FTT to their country of origin and we would have the responsibility to collect it.
In reality London is dominant in financial services so we would be collecting a tax for the rest of Europe which would be a major disincentive to trade in London as opposed to New York (who don't trade quite as many dollars as London at the moment) or Singapore. We would be at risk of losing a major industry and a significant part of our tax base whilst other EU countries would be barely affected. It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.
@rcs1000 Is this the case? Or would a London to Frankfurt trade be in the same situation as a New York to Frankfurt trade?
Helmer seems like a mistake. It's much better to go with people like Diane James or Paul Nuttall. The campaign will be focused on this guy's eccentric views now, rather than the party platform.
It's not his fault but every time I see his picture I want to shout at the computer screen "Don't tell him Pike!"
An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.
I would say less than 40% of the first placed party, as that is quite an efficient way of allowing us to deal with an increasing multiplicity of parties.
It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.
If this is really true then Osborne isn't angry at all. He's being a f8cking useless little girl, as are all the tories. He should be threatening to f8cking nuke Paris.
Repeat again: UKIP is pounding on the door. The time for playing this game is long over.
You bring in an FTT, we stop paying for the CAP. We stop paying full stop. It should be said now. The government are far, far too weak.
I tend to agree with those who think selecting Helmer is a mistake for UKIP. At a GE election he would be a reasonable candidate but in the heat of a by election the chances of him going "off message" are high and he carries the risk of tainting the brand.
From the tories' point of view this is probably the first bit of good news re this by election so far. Another Diane James could have been a serious problem.
New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506
Thanks. MOE.
Lib Dems on eight points. I'm not really sure they should be included in the debates at that point.
What do you think the hurdle should be? Average of 15% in the polls of ICM in the six months preceding the election?
An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.
In danger of including the Greens as well on that basis. (Although a 5 way debate would be interesting...) (Also - what % would the SNP need to be on in Scotland to be above the 5% GB target :-) )
If you are including the Lib Dems in a Euro debate then you need to include the Greens.
On the FTT: It remains to be seen what actually transpires, but it's an interesting example of a case where it's not obvious if it's better to be In or Out.
If we're In, we can challenge it in the European Court, and insist on there being no discrimination against non-Eurozone countries and/or those countries not using the 'Enhanced Cooperation' mechanism. On the downside, that might not actually work.
If we're Out, then we have zero say in the matter. Of course we can tell them to get stuffed as far as levying it in London is concerned. On the downside, we can't prevent them from banning EU-domiciled companies from using the London market if we refuse to play ball with them.
Note that, if we leave the EU but stay in the EEA, we could potentially be vulnerable to the worst of all worlds - no say in the formulation of policy, but obliged to implement it.
It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.
If this is really true then Osborne isn't angry at all. He's being a f8cking useless little girl, as are all the tories. He should be threatening to f8cking nuke Paris.
Repeat again: UKIP is pounding on the door. The time for playing this game is long over.
You bring in an FTT, we stop paying for the CAP. We stop paying full stop. It should be said now. The government are far, far too weak.
Given Inner London's contribution to GDP and the tax take of the country it would be all of us that suffer. We all love to hate the Ruski oligarchs and banskters in Mayfair and the City, but I know where the country's bread is buttered !
Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...
"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"
Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.
I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?
and on the subject of male,pale and stale,there is the selection of Roger Helmer as Ukip candidate.Perhaps,it's the moustache but it strikes me he should have starred in the Guns of Navarone opposite Gregory Peck.If that's charisma,you can keep it.
Helmer seems like a mistake. It's much better to go with people like Diane James or Paul Nuttall. The campaign will be focused on this guy's eccentric views now, rather than the party platform.
Farage doesn't seem to think so:
"He is a massively experienced and respected figure on the national political stage and on the local political stage as well. I know that the UKIP membership will rally to the cause of making Roger our first directly elected MP.”
This by-election will probably test to destruction the theory that 'exposing UKIP candidates views to scrutiny/ridicule (delete as appropriate) increases/decreases (ditto) UKIP popularity'.
Oh well, at least Farage can't turn round later and say 'on reflection another candidate might have fared better'......
This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.
In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.
It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.
Eh, yes it will. The idea, as I understand it, is that at the very least any French or German bank trading in London will have to account for the FTT to their country of origin and we would have the responsibility to collect it.
In reality London is dominant in financial services so we would be collecting a tax for the rest of Europe which would be a major disincentive to trade in London as opposed to New York (who don't trade quite as many dollars as London at the moment) or Singapore. We would be at risk of losing a major industry and a significant part of our tax base whilst other EU countries would be barely affected. It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.
@rcs1000 Is this the case? Or would a London to Frankfurt trade be in the same situation as a New York to Frankfurt trade?
To be honest, the proposals are so badly drafted at present as to be basically unenforceable They are what a school boy would propose, if he wanted to appear 'tough on bankers and tough on the causes of bankers.'
They currently attempt to be extra-territorial, and don't appreciate there are important differences between asset classes, nor the importance of the role of market makers (who are exempt from stamp duty in the UK). They are confused as to what constitutes a derivative contract, and seem incapable of understanding the difference between the value of nominals, and the actual meaningful value of a contract. GDRs/ADRs are barely mentioned, even though a lot of trade in European shares goes through them.
The very incoherence of the proposals has tended to make most in the financial services industry fairly sanguine about them.
One of three things will happen:
1. All (secondary market) financials services related to the EU/Eurozone will be driven out of the continent and to either an independent UK or somewhere else. 2. The massive 'holes' in the proposals mean that we'll all be trading synthetic instruments, ensuring lots of Goldman Sachs bankers get bonuses for working their way around the rules. 3. The proposals will be substantially modified and/or withdrawn.
I suspect they are in increasing order of probability (10:25:65)...
If we're In, we can challenge it in the European Court,
And if we lose (or should I say when?), we still get our number one industry hammered whilst paying an increasing number of billions for the privilege.
On the FTT: It remains to be seen what actually transpires, but it's an interesting example of a case where it's not obvious if it's better to be In or Out.
If we're In, we can challenge it in the European Court, and insist on there being no discrimination against non-Eurozone countries and/or those countries not using the 'Enhanced Cooperation' mechanism.
If we're Out, then we have zero say in the matter. Of course we can tell them to get stuffed as far as levying it in London is concerned, but we can't prevent them from banning EU-domiciled companies from using the London market if we refuse to play ball with them.
Note that, if we leave the EU but stay in the EEA, we could potentially be vulnerable to the worst of all worlds - no say in the formulation of policy, but obliged to implement it.
If we're out of the EU, would this be something that would be covered by the WTO?
(I don't think anyone is suggesting leaving the EU, and joining the EEA. The IEA Brexit recommendation was to join the EFTA.)
and on the subject of male,pale and stale,there is the selection of Roger Helmer as Ukip candidate.Perhaps,it's the moustache but it strikes me he should have starred in the Guns of Navarone opposite Gregory Peck.If that's charisma,you can keep it.
Deadwood fans will recognise Helmer as "Cy Tolliver" played by Powers Boothe.
Helmer seems like a mistake. It's much better to go with people like Diane James or Paul Nuttall. The campaign will be focused on this guy's eccentric views now, rather than the party platform.
Farage doesn't seem to think so:
"He is a massively experienced and respected figure on the national political stage and on the local political stage as well. I know that the UKIP membership will rally to the cause of making Roger our first directly elected MP.”
This by-election will probably test to destruction the theory that 'exposing UKIP candidates views to scrutiny/ridicule (delete as appropriate) increases/decreases (ditto) UKIP popularity'.
Oh well, at least Farage can't turn round later and say 'on reflection another candidate might have fared better'......
"56% say the government should introduce rent controls – and the majority say governments should be more willing to intervene in markets generally"
Clever really. Old Labour trying to improve life for the average person ended up making them more conservative whereas New Labour allying with big business to destroy any kind of financial security at all let alone prosperity will successfully revive commiedom.
Yay! A prices and incomes policy! I remember one of those it was such a great success the first time around that I can't remember why we got rid of it. Also capital controls, lets have those back - we should not expect rich buggers to be able to take their money out of the country, fifty-quid a head should be enough for working folk to spend on their holiday. Well, all right, maybe inflation has got in the way and maybe £50 for a fortnight is no longer enough but whatever the amount is it should be decided by Mr. Milliband. He is the only person, lets face it, to decide how much you should be allowed to spend on your holiday, how much rent you should pay, how much electricity you can use and, frankly, how much you should pay for food.
However, times have moved on. Mr. Milliband does not want to return to the 1970s. You will therefore be forced to undergo state minimums of exercise, be barred from buying tobacco and have you booze rationed, unless you are on benefits.
The political class are driving people's backs against the wall.
On the FTT: It remains to be seen what actually transpires, but it's an interesting example of a case where it's not obvious if it's better to be In or Out.
If we're In, we can challenge it in the European Court, and insist on there being no discrimination against non-Eurozone countries and/or those countries not using the 'Enhanced Cooperation' mechanism.
If we're Out, then we have zero say in the matter. Of course we can tell them to get stuffed as far as levying it in London is concerned, but we can't prevent them from banning EU-domiciled companies from using the London market if we refuse to play ball with them.
Note that, if we leave the EU but stay in the EEA, we could potentially be vulnerable to the worst of all worlds - no say in the formulation of policy, but obliged to implement it.
It is complicated but if we were genuinely "offshore" then we would have no obligation to account for the tax nor provide any information to support its collection from the host country. Of course the individual institutions would still have an obligation to account but I suspect they would all re-register subsidiaries in London (if they have not done that already).
In that scenario we would be in no different position than New York.
If we remain in the club we have to play by the club rules. These seem a little obscure in this case which is why Osborne is going on about extraterritoriality. What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.
I don't disagree with your general point about the EEA.
This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.
In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.
It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.
Eh, yes it will. The idea, as I understand it, is that at the very least any French or German bank trading in London will have to account for the FTT to their country of origin and we would have the responsibility to collect it.
In reality London is dominant in financial services so we would be collecting a tax for the rest of Europe which would be a major disincentive to trade in London as opposed to New York (who don't trade quite as many dollars as London at the moment) or Singapore. We would be at risk of losing a major industry and a significant part of our tax base whilst other EU countries would be barely affected. It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.
@rcs1000 Is this the case? Or would a London to Frankfurt trade be in the same situation as a New York to Frankfurt trade?
To be honest, the proposals are so badly drafted at present as to be basically unenforceable They are what a school boy would propose, if he wanted to appear 'tough on bankers and tough on the causes of bankers.'
They currently attempt to be extra-territorial, and don't appreciate there are important differences between asset classes, nor the importance of the role of market makers (who are exempt from stamp duty in the UK). They are confused as to what constitutes a derivative contract, and seem incapable of understanding the difference between the value of nominals, and the actual meaningful value of a contract. GDRs/ADRs are barely mentioned, even though a lot of trade in European shares goes through them.
On the other hand they have the "We need money. You've got money. Give us your money" bit worked out perfectly.
If we're out of the EU, would this be something that would be covered by the WTO?
(I don't think anyone is suggesting leaving the EU, and joining the EEA. The IEA Brexit recommendation was to join the EFTA.)
I don't know how much protection the WTO would afford. My impression is that it is generally weak on services, but I'm not an expert.
On the EEA, some people do advocate that as an option, but it makes no sense to me: most of the disadvantages of Brexit without many of the advantages.
Hard to say about Helmer. On one hand being seen to not bow to PC pressure from the telly is worth a lot of votes in itself, on the other there's whatever mileage the telly can get out of stuff that goes too far.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 50s UKIP select Roger Helmer for Newark. Ladbrokes lengthen their odds of winning to 5/1. Cons 4/7 Lab 5/2 UKIP 5/1. http://bit.ly/1n0bM8i
What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.
I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
Because it's too soon to be aggressive. There isn't actually a specific proposal yet (which is why the European Court of Justice didn't allow the UK challenge).
Of course, if the UK does have to choose between the EU and the City, we should and probably will choose the City. Our EU friends should be left in no doubt about that.
What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.
I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
I think the belief is that the FTT - as currently proposed - is simply not enforceable. Rightly or wrongly, I think the idea is that it will spend the best part of a decade being redrafted, by which point it will probably have been forgotten, or so narrowed in scope, that it has very little impact.
This is why the financial services press, the investment banks and the fund management community have been so quiet on the subject.
The selection of Helmer helps Labour most. He's a candidate who will take some votes off the Tories, but I can't see him taking votes from Labour in the way that (say) Diane James might have done.
Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...
"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"
Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.
I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?
If I, as a straight bloke, went out for a drink with a gay guy that I knew fancied me, kissed him and got into bed with him back at his, I would feel a lot more responsible were I to get raped than if I had been walking down the street and jumped by a stranger.
But both would still be rape, and both should still be punished, and that's all Helmer said as far as I can see.
On the choice: Neil would be best, by a mile. Sophie Raworth would also be rather good.
I was surprised some time ago when Nick Robinson stood in (not a Robinson fan generally) by how well he did. Much more chairing of discussion rather than scalp-hunting and self-importance.
Sounds like the Conservatives won't mind Helmer. Might contrast gay marriage with Helmer's utterances. However, that would help firm up the more socially conservative for UKIP.
The FTT is despicable, and clearly an attempt to raise taxes disproportionately from us (as it applies to us from one end even if we don't implement it). Do we have French farming taxes and German car taxes?
Leaving aside the generally disgraceful approach of the EU, there's an arguably even more significant problem with the tax: who's collecting, where's it going? Is it to be done by individual nation states, or is it the first step on a path to a Brussels Treasury?
"“I look at David Cameron across the dispatch box and I think to myself, I’m the one with the intellectual self-confidence because I actually know what I believe and I don’t need Lynton Crosby to tell me.”"
Perhaps he does need someone to tell him yes or no occasionally - twerp.
With the first semi-final coming up tonight I notice that the UK are 3rd favourites to win Eurovision. Did I miss The Beatles being reanimated and announced as our entry or something?
"Nigel Evans, cleared by a jury of his peers and welcomed back into the Tory fold, now faces a battle to save his political career. As Guido revealed in the Sun on Sunday, Evans’ local Ribble Valley association has been ringing around Tory MPs asking their opinion on whether he should remain as the candidate for 2015. They harbour reservations about Evans continuing as their MP beyond the next election and want to gauge the “Westminster feeling”. "
It has been put to me that the right approach is Government intervention to protect the LSE from foreign ownership. I reject this argument. This would fly in the face of the traditions that have underpinned the City's success. A policy of protecting “national champions” would damage, not bolster the interests of London and the UK.
''Of course, if the UK does have to choose between the EU and the City, we should and probably will choose the City. Our EU friends should be left in no doubt about that. ''
True but if ed miliband is in power at the time......maybe that's what the EU is calculating...
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
Hopefully in favour of bringing it back
Amazes me how many people are so appalled by the prospect of a death penalty for convicted murderers or paedophiles but shrug at the bombing of innocent foreigners.
Who killed more innocent people, Tony Blair or the Electric chair?
Eurozone: Peston considers whether the eurozone sovereign debt crisis is over. Here's the last bit: "Or to put it another way, if the euro-area's leaders will not or can not use the current financial calm to push through a harder and more controversial political overhaul - which would inevitably see power shift from nations to the centre - then we may not have to wait many years to revisit potential euro catastrophe."
Mr. Taffys, quite. Ed Miliband (whose intellectual self-confidence miraculously leads him to conclude state intervention is the remedy to every ailment) would side with the EU. Maybe he'll complete Blair's work and give away the rest of the rebate in exchange for the French considering the possibility of contemplating, at a future date, a theoretical re-appraisal of certain aspects relating to the CAP.
Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...
"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"
Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.
I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?
If I, as a straight bloke, went out for a drink with a gay guy that I knew fancied me, kissed him and got into bed with him back at his, I would feel a lot more responsible were I to get raped than if I had been walking down the street and jumped by a stranger.
But both would still be rape, and both should still be punished, and that's all Helmer said as far as I can see.
It's at very best very clumsy by Helmer and at worst terrible, depending on some of the ambiguities, things like 'much lighter sentence'. And putting some blame on the victim for being raped is something of a sticking point.
For some offences abusing a position of trust would be considered to make the offence worse.
Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...
"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"
Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.
I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?
If I, as a straight bloke, went out for a drink with a gay guy that I knew fancied me, kissed him and got into bed with him back at his, I would feel a lot more responsible were I to get raped than if I had been walking down the street and jumped by a stranger.
But both would still be rape, and both should still be punished, and that's all Helmer said as far as I can see.
David Starkey almost got lynched for expressing a similar opinion on Question Time.
A little bit of political trivia. One of the candidates for the Morley South ward on Leeds City council is called Bluebell New Jerusalem Eikonoklastes. Now which party would that be do you think? That's right - the Green Party.
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
Reintroduction I think !
Though I suspect a lot of UKIP would support that, their current website doesn't actually mention it either way despite having a variety of 'old fashioned' crime policies (longer sentences and so on). I can't find a copy of the 2010 manifesto but the BBC 'at a glance' summary of it from the time mentions various crime policies but not the death penalty.
Of course, we can't introduce capital punishment in peacetime while being a signatory of the ECHR. And we can't be a member of the EU without the ECHR.
and on the subject of male,pale and stale,there is the selection of Roger Helmer as Ukip candidate.Perhaps,it's the moustache but it strikes me he should have starred in the Guns of Navarone opposite Gregory Peck.If that's charisma,you can keep it.
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
Reintroduction I think !
Though I suspect a lot of UKIP would support that, their current website doesn't actually mention it either way despite having a variety of 'old fashioned' crime policies (longer sentences and so on). I can't find a copy of the 2010 manifesto but the BBC 'at a glance' summary of it from the time mentions various crime policies but not the death penalty.
Of course, we can't introduce capital punishment in peacetime while being a signatory of the ECHR. And we can't be a member of the EU without the ECHR.
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
Hopefully in favour of bringing it back
Amazes me how many people are so appalled by the prospect of a death penalty for convicted murderers or paedophiles but shrug at the bombing of innocent foreigners.
Who killed more innocent people, Tony Blair or the Electric chair?
I'm not so sure he's in the majority, or at least, not clearly.
The last round of polling was almost three years ago (other press coverage is eassy enough to find):
Support for the death penalty for murder hovers at 50% (and no majority for anything less). Even then only 16% would kill every murderer; up to 70% would be prepared to kill some type of murderer.
It's difficult to imagine the re-introduction of the death penalty "just" for at most a handful of cases each year - adding up child murders, mass murderers, and terrorist murderers.
And though it is not official party policy, many UKIP members support the return of capital punishment. A UKIP spokesman told me: ‘We think it’s a question that should be allowed to be raised, but we have no corporate position. It is free-vote territory. You couldn’t impose the whip in [a Commons vote on capital punishment].’
Chief among these supporters is UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall, UKIP MEP for the north-west of England. He wants the death penalty introduced for child murderers, serial killers and those who murder police officers. Nuttall stresses that it is UKIP’s policy to hold a referendum on controversial issues which gain the support of 5% of the population.
In 2011, Nuttall signed a petition on the Downing Street website launched by political blogger Guido Fawkes which had the aim of attracting the necessary 100,000 signatures to trigger a debate. As he pointed out at the time, a YouGov poll found that 62% of people would support the death penalty for child murder and 65% for serial murder.
That a majority of the electorate support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes appears indisputable. Opponents of capital punishment were relieved when the petition closed with just 26,000 signatures – a counter-petition got 33,000.
Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...
"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"
Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.
I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?
If I, as a straight bloke, went out for a drink with a gay guy that I knew fancied me, kissed him and got into bed with him back at his, I would feel a lot more responsible were I to get raped than if I had been walking down the street and jumped by a stranger.
But both would still be rape, and both should still be punished, and that's all Helmer said as far as I can see.
David Starkey almost got lynched for expressing a similar opinion on Question Time.
There's a raging cauldron of controversy around if people can be partially responsible without being morally culpable, or merely having acted inadvisedly without being responsible, or the victim is always entirely without fault. The final position tends to be held with quite stunning vehemence by the loudest part of the feminist community.
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
Reintroduction I think !
Though I suspect a lot of UKIP would support that, their current website doesn't actually mention it either way despite having a variety of 'old fashioned' crime policies (longer sentences and so on). I can't find a copy of the 2010 manifesto but the BBC 'at a glance' summary of it from the time mentions various crime policies but not the death penalty.
Of course, we can't introduce capital punishment in peacetime while being a signatory of the ECHR. And we can't be a member of the EU without the ECHR.
Obviously UKIP would be changing the 'EU' bit ;')
Indeed, hardly a barrier but an additional incentive from their point of view I think!
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
Hopefully in favour of bringing it back
Amazes me how many people are so appalled by the prospect of a death penalty for convicted murderers or paedophiles but shrug at the bombing of innocent foreigners.
Who killed more innocent people, Tony Blair or the Electric chair?
Thin argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. I happen to oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, but it's almost impossible to defend on certainty of guilt grounds (lots if innocent people would have hanged here were it still in force) and as a deterrent (little evidence it is one). It is also a lawyers charter and as such is incredibly expensive
Comments
Newsnight need to find a 'new blood', to refresh what's become a stale format.
Yay! A prices and incomes policy! I remember one of those it was such a great success the first time around that I can't remember why we got rid of it. Also capital controls, lets have those back - we should not expect rich buggers to be able to take their money out of the country, fifty-quid a head should be enough for working folk to spend on their holiday. Well, all right, maybe inflation has got in the way and maybe £50 for a fortnight is no longer enough but whatever the amount is it should be decided by Mr. Milliband. He is the only person, lets face it, to decide how much you should be allowed to spend on your holiday, how much rent you should pay, how much electricity you can use and, frankly, how much you should pay for food.
However, times have moved on. Mr. Milliband does not want to return to the 1970s. You will therefore be forced to undergo state minimums of exercise, be barred from buying tobacco and have you booze rationed, unless you are on benefits.
Good for raising revenue. Good for health.
I agree with you on his spat with Campbell at GE2010. Great moment
UKIP @UKIP
UKIP is delighted to announce that @RogerHelmerMEP has been selected as its candidate to fight the Newark by-election
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 22s
Roger Helmer is UKIP's candidate for the Newark by-election http://guyfawk.es/RofKN0 "A brave choice"
Any which way to produce this the week after the case in the ECJ was dismissed for being premature and 2 weeks before the Euros is playing with fire.
The Paxman interview with him just demonstrates what a ridiculous lightweight he is.
UKIP names Roger Helmer as its Newark by-election candidate. Remarkable choice given his toxic views.
However, my reply did allow for some irony just in case - I have been known to point out the (then) 888 button to Londoner friends complaining the couldn't understand the peripatetic Glasgow philosopher Mr R. Nesbit.
In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.
It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 3m
BREAKING: UKIP select Roger Helmer to fight Newark byelection - has called homosexuality “abnormal and undesirable"
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_announces_newark_parliamentary_by_election_candidate
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: “I had a feeling from pretty early on that Roger would emerge as the UKIP candidate in this contest. It did not surprise me in the slightest that he performed so well at the hustings or that NEC members were keen to endorse him.
Luxury...
However, I don't know how it deals with GDRs/ADRs (i.e. the underlying shares stay in the possession of a bank, but you trade a piece of paper that allows to take delivery of the underlying if you desire). History suggests that financial markets tend to find a way around regulation.
It is, of course, worth remembering that in the UK, we already have an FTT on transactions in UK shares, so this is a case of the EU imitating us.
He does rather seem like a UKIP stereotype... at least The Sun will guarantee a lot of publicity, and maybe UKIP think that will work in Helmer's favour
Generally by moving to another jurisdiction.
It isn't what the EU is doing that's annoying, we all expect that. Its the incredible girly wet flannel nature of our response, with UKIP pounding on the door.
Osborne should simply say that if there's a financial transaction tax, it will mean the UK can no longer afford payments to the EU, and will be suspending them as soon as its implemented.
Repeat: UKIP is pounding on the f8cking door. show some backbone.
In reality London is dominant in financial services so we would be collecting a tax for the rest of Europe which would be a major disincentive to trade in London as opposed to New York (who don't trade quite as many dollars as London at the moment) or Singapore. We would be at risk of losing a major industry and a significant part of our tax base whilst other EU countries would be barely affected. It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.
"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"
Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.
If this is really true then Osborne isn't angry at all. He's being a f8cking useless little girl, as are all the tories. He should be threatening to f8cking nuke Paris.
Repeat again: UKIP is pounding on the door. The time for playing this game is long over.
You bring in an FTT, we stop paying for the CAP. We stop paying full stop. It should be said now. The government are far, far too weak.
Translation: He's not going to win the seat and challenge for Party Leadership...
From the tories' point of view this is probably the first bit of good news re this by election so far. Another Diane James could have been a serious problem.
A UK-based bank trading with a US-based bank would be exempt, as neither country would have adopted the tax.
If we're In, we can challenge it in the European Court, and insist on there being no discrimination against non-Eurozone countries and/or those countries not using the 'Enhanced Cooperation' mechanism. On the downside, that might not actually work.
If we're Out, then we have zero say in the matter. Of course we can tell them to get stuffed as far as levying it in London is concerned. On the downside, we can't prevent them from banning EU-domiciled companies from using the London market if we refuse to play ball with them.
Note that, if we leave the EU but stay in the EEA, we could potentially be vulnerable to the worst of all worlds - no say in the formulation of policy, but obliged to implement it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27224726
"He is a massively experienced and respected figure on the national political stage and on the local political stage as well. I know that the UKIP membership will rally to the cause of making Roger our first directly elected MP.”
This by-election will probably test to destruction the theory that 'exposing UKIP candidates views to scrutiny/ridicule (delete as appropriate) increases/decreases (ditto) UKIP popularity'.
Oh well, at least Farage can't turn round later and say 'on reflection another candidate might have fared better'......
They currently attempt to be extra-territorial, and don't appreciate there are important differences between asset classes, nor the importance of the role of market makers (who are exempt from stamp duty in the UK). They are confused as to what constitutes a derivative contract, and seem incapable of understanding the difference between the value of nominals, and the actual meaningful value of a contract. GDRs/ADRs are barely mentioned, even though a lot of trade in European shares goes through them.
The very incoherence of the proposals has tended to make most in the financial services industry fairly sanguine about them.
One of three things will happen:
1. All (secondary market) financials services related to the EU/Eurozone will be driven out of the continent and to either an independent UK or somewhere else.
2. The massive 'holes' in the proposals mean that we'll all be trading synthetic instruments, ensuring lots of Goldman Sachs bankers get bonuses for working their way around the rules.
3. The proposals will be substantially modified and/or withdrawn.
I suspect they are in increasing order of probability (10:25:65)...
And if we lose (or should I say when?), we still get our number one industry hammered whilst paying an increasing number of billions for the privilege.
(I don't think anyone is suggesting leaving the EU, and joining the EEA. The IEA Brexit recommendation was to join the EFTA.)
In that scenario we would be in no different position than New York.
If we remain in the club we have to play by the club rules. These seem a little obscure in this case which is why Osborne is going on about extraterritoriality. What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.
I don't disagree with your general point about the EEA.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/ken-on-rape-badly-phrased-but-basically-right/
On the EEA, some people do advocate that as an option, but it makes no sense to me: most of the disadvantages of Brexit without many of the advantages.
UKIP select Roger Helmer for Newark. Ladbrokes lengthen their odds of winning to 5/1.
Cons 4/7
Lab 5/2
UKIP 5/1.
http://bit.ly/1n0bM8i
I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.
I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?
Of course, if the UK does have to choose between the EU and the City, we should and probably will choose the City. Our EU friends should be left in no doubt about that.
This is why the financial services press, the investment banks and the fund management community have been so quiet on the subject.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10811204/Ed-Miliband-says-he-has-more-intellectual-self-confidence-than-David-Cameron..html
But both would still be rape, and both should still be punished, and that's all Helmer said as far as I can see.
I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty
What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?
On the choice: Neil would be best, by a mile. Sophie Raworth would also be rather good.
I was surprised some time ago when Nick Robinson stood in (not a Robinson fan generally) by how well he did. Much more chairing of discussion rather than scalp-hunting and self-importance.
Sounds like the Conservatives won't mind Helmer. Might contrast gay marriage with Helmer's utterances. However, that would help firm up the more socially conservative for UKIP.
The FTT is despicable, and clearly an attempt to raise taxes disproportionately from us (as it applies to us from one end even if we don't implement it). Do we have French farming taxes and German car taxes?
Leaving aside the generally disgraceful approach of the EU, there's an arguably even more significant problem with the tax: who's collecting, where's it going? Is it to be done by individual nation states, or is it the first step on a path to a Brussels Treasury?
Perhaps he does need someone to tell him yes or no occasionally - twerp.
In the death penalty he's probably got one badly thought through populist policy that Miliband won't copy......
"Nigel Evans, cleared by a jury of his peers and welcomed back into the Tory fold, now faces a battle to save his political career. As Guido revealed in the Sun on Sunday, Evans’ local Ribble Valley association has been ringing around Tory MPs asking their opinion on whether he should remain as the candidate for 2015. They harbour reservations about Evans continuing as their MP beyond the next election and want to gauge the “Westminster feeling”. "
http://order-order.com/2014/05/06/ribble-valley-tories-weigh-up-evans-re-selection/
It has been put to me that the right approach is Government intervention to protect the LSE from foreign ownership. I reject this argument. This would fly in the face of the traditions that have underpinned the City's success. A policy of protecting “national champions” would damage, not bolster the interests of London and the UK.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2277.htm
True but if ed miliband is in power at the time......maybe that's what the EU is calculating...
I wonder what one of our dear departed friends would have to say about this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27300312
I can't be sure, but Cameron would get it in the neck somehow.
Amazes me how many people are so appalled by the prospect of a death penalty for convicted murderers or paedophiles but shrug at the bombing of innocent foreigners.
Who killed more innocent people, Tony Blair or the Electric chair?
"Or to put it another way, if the euro-area's leaders will not or can not use the current financial calm to push through a harder and more controversial political overhaul - which would inevitably see power shift from nations to the centre - then we may not have to wait many years to revisit potential euro catastrophe."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27296336
Mr. Taffys, quite. Ed Miliband (whose intellectual self-confidence miraculously leads him to conclude state intervention is the remedy to every ailment) would side with the EU. Maybe he'll complete Blair's work and give away the rest of the rebate in exchange for the French considering the possibility of contemplating, at a future date, a theoretical re-appraisal of certain aspects relating to the CAP.
Maybe.
For some offences abusing a position of trust would be considered to make the offence worse.
Of course, we can't introduce capital punishment in peacetime while being a signatory of the ECHR. And we can't be a member of the EU without the ECHR.
Ukip - the only party with 100% ethnic and female representation.
They're decided to be serious instead. A chance missed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/river-island-anti-nag-gag-pulled-from-website-after-being-branded-sexist-and-offensive-9326888.html
Do check the comment (only one at the minute).
http://www.thedrum.com/stuff/2014/05/05/you-kip-premier-inn-ad-featuring-lenny-henry-goes-viral
Clever marketing. What would @Roger think of the slogan?
The last round of polling was almost three years ago (other press coverage is eassy enough to find):
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802
Support for the death penalty for murder hovers at 50% (and no majority for anything less). Even then only 16% would kill every murderer; up to 70% would be prepared to kill some type of murderer.
It's difficult to imagine the re-introduction of the death penalty "just" for at most a handful of cases each year - adding up child murders, mass murderers, and terrorist murderers.
Chief among these supporters is UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall, UKIP MEP for the north-west of England. He wants the death penalty introduced for child murderers, serial killers and those who murder police officers. Nuttall stresses that it is UKIP’s policy to hold a referendum on controversial issues which gain the support of 5% of the population.
In 2011, Nuttall signed a petition on the Downing Street website launched by political blogger Guido Fawkes which had the aim of attracting the necessary 100,000 signatures to trigger a debate. As he pointed out at the time, a YouGov poll found that 62% of people would support the death penalty for child murder and 65% for serial murder.
That a majority of the electorate support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes appears indisputable. Opponents of capital punishment were relieved when the petition closed with just 26,000 signatures – a counter-petition got 33,000.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/bringing-back-the-death-penalty/70817.article