As OGH says it all depends on the election, if the Tories lose Osborne is toast and Boris or Theresa May will take over. If the Tories win and there is another coalition with a weakened LDs, with perhaps Tory gains from the LDs making up for a few losses to Labour, then Osborne would have a good chance, but when Cameron hands over after a 2017 EU referendum which will at best be a narrow yes if not a NO, the Tories may well need to recapture their base from a resurgent UKIP, and with Labour perhaps led by the charismatic Chukka Umunna, Osborne may not decide even to run for a leadership which will likely lead to an election loss, perhaps even David Davis could step in as an experienced hand who could at least unite the right
In the short term the eurozone will be in some pain, particularly Italy and France, but in the longer term the Eurozone will be stronger for having sound money.
Serial devaluation is a chimera, not a route to prosperity. The Euro countries (and the great British public) will be stronger when they learn to pay their debts off rather than shirk them.
What Cameron needs is a pretext to avoid having to underwrite Hollande's stimulus proposals.
Are you arguing that these are the 'consequences' Cameron is talking about? No more debt underwriting?
Absolutely what this is all about.
But not completely black and white. It is in the UK's long term interests for the French and Italian economies in particular and the Eurozone in general to return to reasonable growth levels, and for deflation to be avoided and unemployment to fall.
I don't think Cameron is saying that UK will never contribute to the revival of Europe. The issue is whether France and Italy should be permitted to avoid the structural reforms to their economies which the periphery have had forced on them, and ,which Germany, the UK and Northern European Countries have mostly implemented (semi) voluntarily.
What Cameron is saying is that there is no pain free exit from the debt fuelled socialist binge of the early noughties and that he will not underwrite further debt fuelled stimulus without such structural reform.
The UK (and Germany to a lesser extent and the peripheral countries in early returns) are winning the argument not in words but numbers. Every quarter that the UK produces the highest growth figures in the G7 (and amongst the EU's largest economies) and especially when such growth is coupled with the highest fiscal consolidation figures is a demonstration that OECD/Osbornomics works.
Much better for the UK to sit back and demonstrate than to risk the progress it has made by joining in a chase of the Eurozone's tail.
In the short term the eurozone will be in some pain, particularly Italy and France, but in the longer term the Eurozone will be stronger for having sound money.
Serial devaluation is a chimera, not a route to prosperity. The Euro countries (and the great British public) will be stronger when they learn to pay their debts off rather than shirk them.
What Cameron needs is a pretext to avoid having to underwrite Hollande's stimulus proposals.
Are you arguing that these are the 'consequences' Cameron is talking about? No more debt underwriting?
Absolutely what this is all about.
But not completely black and white. It is in the UK's long term interests for the French and Italian economies in particular and the Eurozone in general to return to reasonable growth levels, and for deflation to be avoided and unemployment to fall.
I don't think Cameron is saying that UK will never contribute to the revival of Europe. The issue is whether France and Italy should be permitted to avoid the structural reforms to their economies which the periphery have had forced on them, and ,which Germany, the UK and Northern European Countries have mostly implemented (semi) voluntarily.
What Cameron is saying is that there is no pain free exit from the debt fuelled socialist binge of the early noughties and that he will not underwrite further debt fuelled stimulus without such structural reform.
The UK (and Germany to a lesser extent and the peripheral countries in early returns) are winning the argument not in words but numbers. Every quarter that the UK produces the highest growth figures in the G7 (and amongst the EU's largest economies) and especially when such growth is coupled with the highest fiscal consolidation figures is a demonstration that OECD/Osbornomics works.
Much better for the UK to sit back and demonstrate than to risk the progress it has made by joining in a chase of the Eurozone's tail.
''The quarterly immigration figures that I linked to show that the majority of non EU migration is from Asia and Africa.''
So we get more immigrants from areas we have the power to control (Asia and Africa), than we do from the areas of free movement.
That being the case, what will getting back the power to control EU immigration achieve, exactly?
If we really wanted to slash immigration to 'tens of thousands' we could do it legally by having a moratorium on immigration from Asia and Africa (I'm using this an an example only, not advocating it). There would be nothing the ECHR could do about that.
Puzzled as to why we have any immigration from these areas, we could learn a lot from Israel.
Osborne as leader would be the suicide note of the Conservative party.
As OGH says it all depends on the election, if the Tories lose Osborne is toast and Boris or Theresa May will take over. If the Tories win and there is another coalition with a weakened LDs, with perhaps Tory gains from the LDs making up for a few losses to Labour, then Osborne would have a good chance, but when Cameron hands over after a 2017 EU referendum which will at best be a narrow yes if not a NO, the Tories may well need to recapture their base from a resurgent UKIP, and with Labour perhaps led by the charismatic Chukka Umunna, Osborne may not decide even to run for a leadership which will likely lead to an election loss, perhaps even David Davis could step in as an experienced hand who could at least unite the right
Bod on the news from the sugar industry saying it's a question of calories in versus calories out i.e. sugar is no different to fat but what if part of the problem is people's ability to *process* sugar compared with their ability to process fat.
"The ONS said the UK population had increased by about five million since 2001"
And the infrastructure hasn't been increased at all so it's hard to see how the political class can say there's been no negative consequences with a straight face (unless they're a pack of blank blanks of course in which case they could say anything with a straight face).
Stodge, when Cameron removed the Conservatives from the EPP it was widely predicted that it would be a disaster and they would be unable to form a group that met EC criteria etc etc. Now that group, the ECR is the 3rd largest in the EC. Bigger than the Liberals ALDE. If the other countries wish to choose another Federalist President and one that lacks other skills, so be it. It will bring about a quicker Brexit. The stupidity is with the Europhiles. If they really really wanted their EC to thrive and survive they would have picked real reformers from the pre-2014 election groupings. instead the previous "big 3" all picked Federalists that lacked the drive and understanding to create an EC that can compete in the global economy.
Nick Clegg summed it up with his vision of the EC in 5+ years time. "much the same as it is". Another complacent EC dinosaur.
Nice try but you know and I know Cameron doesn't really want to leave the EU - he knows and I know that will tear the Conservative Party apart much as the 1975 Referendum did for Labour.
Will it? I know Clarke and Hezza would be upset, as would a few of the Tory Grandees in the Lords, but most of the current Parliamentary Conservatives Party would be happy as would most of the Conservative grassroots.
For all its problems, the euro has survived. It is now worth 1.25 to the pound, so a 15% appreciation from ten years ago. Holders of eurobonds have done a lot better than holders of UK gilts...
In the short term the eurozone will be in some pain, particularly Italy and France, but in the longer term the Eurozone will be stronger for having sound money.
Serial devaluation is a chimera, not a route to prosperity. The Euro countries (and the great British public) will be stronger when they learn to pay their debts off rather than shirk them.
What Cameron needs is a pretext to avoid having to underwrite Hollande's stimulus proposals.
Are you arguing that these are the 'consequences' Cameron is talking about? No more debt underwriting?
Absolutely what this is all about.
But not completely black and white. It is in the UK's long term interests for the French and Italian economies in particular and the Eurozone in general to return to reasonable growth levels, and for deflation to be avoided and unemployment to fall.
I don't think Cameron is saying that UK will never contribute to the revival of Europe. The issue is whether France and Italy should be permitted to avoid the structural reforms to their economies which the periphery have had forced on them, and ,which Germany, the UK and Northern European Countries have mostly implemented (semi) voluntarily.
What Cameron is saying is that there is no pain free exit from the debt fuelled socialist binge of the early noughties and that he will not underwrite further debt fuelled stimulus without such structural reform.
The UK (and Germany to a lesser extent and the peripheral countries in early returns) are winning the argument not in words but numbers. Every quarter that the UK produces the highest growth figures in the G7 (and amongst the EU's largest economies) and especially when such growth is coupled with the highest fiscal consolidation figures is a demonstration that OECD/Osbornomics works.
Much better for the UK to sit back and demonstrate than to risk the progress it has made by joining in a chase of the Eurozone's tail.
I think that the Coalition has it right in attempting to control population increase by restricting non EU migration.
Non EU immigration is everything from Aussia doctors to ISIS fighters. Is there a breakdown of where the non EU immigration is coming from by location?
Comments
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014/06/jerry-hayes-my-time-in-parliament-drunkenness-obscenity-and-thatcher.html
Serial devaluation is a chimera, not a route to prosperity. The Euro countries (and the great British public) will be stronger when they learn to pay their debts off rather than shirk them.
Eurozone sound money ? Lolz.
Osborne as leader would be the suicide note of the Conservative party.
Bod on the news from the sugar industry saying it's a question of calories in versus calories out i.e. sugar is no different to fat but what if part of the problem is people's ability to *process* sugar compared with their ability to process fat.
"The ONS said the UK population had increased by about five million since 2001"
And the infrastructure hasn't been increased at all so it's hard to see how the political class can say there's been no negative consequences with a straight face (unless they're a pack of blank blanks of course in which case they could say anything with a straight face).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2014.00721.x/pdf
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=RADSTATS;5c0578fa.1403
Particularly the bit about Willie Whitelaw looking white-faced, Maggie and ... well, read it yourselves!