The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
What Labour would want to do is probably something similar to what they did with the personal allowance, i.e withdraw it over some threshold.
So we can look forward to a rolled-up mansion tax, a death tax per person, IHT at 40% and perhaps £100k of the under-exemption amount deducted.
Why they don't simply pass a law expropriating estates in the south-east I don't really know.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
Mr. G., as you know I am a great proponent of independence for Scotland and if I was a Scot I'd be doing all in my power to bring it about. However, by independence I mean independence not some half way house which will, if it happens, just produce more ill-feeling and this time on both sides of the border.
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
Of course it's easy to forget that months ago we were done and dusted here on the actual aim being Devomax and if only we could forego the absurd diversion of a referendum and move straight there we would all save a lot of time and energy.
And then we forgot about that conclusion and have been pondering at length the whys and wherefores of YES/NO for ages.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Everyone expects Salmond to win.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
If Salmond wins it's largely as expected.
I'd stick Farage-Clegg in as a slight counterexample to that - everyone expected Farage to win.
He did, quite well I thought. But when the echo-chamber of the media got involved it turned into a monstering, a hammering, a battering. People expected Clegg to lose - but not as badly as he did - or as badly as he was effectively reported to have done.
It gave UKIP a decent boost and didn't do the Lib Dems any favours at all. If Salmond wins "big" enough it could still swing some DKs.
It's a huge ask though.
Salmond is a very poor debater, he's generally bested by Lamont at FMQs.
Cuckoo, Cuckoo
We'll have to wait and see. I expect mild-mannered Mr Darling to perform well against your blowhard.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
What Labour would want to do is probably something similar to what they did with the personal allowance, i.e withdraw it over some threshold.
So we can look forward to a rolled-up mansion tax, a death tax per person, IHT at 40% and perhaps £100k of the under-exemption amount deducted.
Why they don't simply pass a law expropriating estates in the south-east I don't really know.
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
I don't think they have quite grasped the asymmetry of their position.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....
Well, a no vote plus devomax means they remain in a de facto currency union, called the UK.
Independence, the pound and no currency union puts Scotland in the same position as Ireland (until that country joined the Euro). However, since Westminster will want to bolster a sterling zone as a counter to the Eurozone, terms for Scotland will probably be made quite attractive.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
What Labour would want to do is probably something similar to what they did with the personal allowance, i.e withdraw it over some threshold.
So we can look forward to a rolled-up mansion tax, a death tax per person, IHT at 40% and perhaps £100k of the under-exemption amount deducted.
Why they don't simply pass a law expropriating estates in the south-east I don't really know.
Christ almighty! Don't give them ideas.
I sometimes wonder if SPADs and stuff lurk this board looking for ideas... it'd certainly be a better idea than say lurking Guido.
We provide a free of charge thinktank pretty much... (Once you get past all the trolls and spammers)
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
I don't think they have quite grasped the asymmetry of their position.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....
, terms for Scotland will probably be made quite attractive.
Good luck to whoever puts that in their 2015 manifesto!
The UK economy shrunk by more in the Labour recession than it will after the departure of Scotland. While it makes sense to offer reasonable terms, it would be electoral suicide in rUK to offer "attractive" ones - especially as all 3 parties have said no to a currency union.
I don't think they have quite grasped the asymmetry of their position.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....
I agree, Miss Vance. However, I also think that similar pressures will apply in the event of negotiations for DevoMax, and more so after is brought into being.
For example, suppose Mr. G's idea of Devomax comes about - taxes raised in Scotland stay in Scotland (less a contribution for defence and foreign affairs). Who has the say on borrowing? Say, one year tax receipts in Scotland don't match expectations, what happens then? Will Scotland be able to go to the markets to borrow, will Westminster bung them a sub, will that sub have to be paid back? What happens if tax receipts don't meet expectations for two years running or longer? Another example some new ships have to be ordered for the Royal Navy, what proportion of the work will go to Scottish yards?
Devomax, as per Mr G.'s expectation of it will be unworkable. An unholy mess that will cause great resentment all round. If it can be done at all then it can only be done as a new equitable constitutional settlement in which all four parts of the UK are treated equally.
All major parties are turning into kleptocrats to feed the ravenous beast that is the public purse. Even the tories are entertaining plans to allow HMRC to steal our money without a court order, something that would have been instantly rejected when conservatives were actually conservatives.
Political party A gift to a political party qualifies for exemption from inheritance tax if at the last general election preceding the transfer either two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons, or one member of the party was so elected and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
And here we have it - losing the referendum is a victory for the SNP.
That's what it means isn't it, to be a member of NATO and the EU?
"Landslide to NO"
SNP : "Ha ha - told you we would keep the pound after the referendum - Westminster liars"
Political party A gift to a political party qualifies for exemption from inheritance tax if at the last general election preceding the transfer either two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons, or one member of the party was so elected and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.
Interesting....
In other words a sneaky way of getting the taxpayer to fund political parties. Bastards!
Let them pay tax like the rest of us. It might make them rather more careful about not dreaming up new ones all the time and concerned about how effectively the money is spent.
Political party A gift to a political party qualifies for exemption from inheritance tax if at the last general election preceding the transfer either two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons, or one member of the party was so elected and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.
Interesting....
In other words a sneaky way of getting the taxpayer to fund political parties. Bastards!
Let them pay tax like the rest of us. It might make them rather more careful about not dreaming up new ones all the time and concerned about how effectively the money is spent.
Note the definition keeps IT in for donations to UKIP ^_~
This is a new slant on an old topic - not only would SIndy lose its share of the UK rebate - it would have to contribute to it to!
An independent Scotland may also have to contribute to the money the UK gets back, which would cost £540million, also over seven years. That would be a major blow to Scotland's finances, with the country £12billion in the red last year - a proportionately higher deficit than the rest of the UK.
Even a 60/40 vote (either way) will leave a lasting legacy of bitterness and anger for the losing side. 40% will lose their country unwillingly or 40% fail to get one as they hoped. Imagine what MalcolmG will have to say the morning after a NO!
* splutter*
The idea of poor old malcolm and a "legacy of bitterness and anger" is comedy gold. Malcolm starts with a 500 mile headstart of bitterness and anger.
As might I, had I the misfortune to be a penniless and illiterate racist Scotch loser.
Ha Ha Ha , what a Little Englander prize turnip. You better watch or JackW will try to have you banned.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Salmond has inadvertently talked himself into a corner and can't get out.
He was quite happy to challenge Cameron to a debate, on the quite simple reasons that an Ex- english public school/oxford/bullingdon/Carlton Communications PR type would show up the worst type of Englishness to the Scots. Salmond would win the publicity even if he lost the debate.
Cameron, thankfully, had the trap explained to him and he refused as "he did not have a vote".
Darling on the other hand is a Scottish legal type, sharp and clever who could not only make mince meat of Salmond as well as win the debate.
Salmond has the unfortunate propensity to make things up on the hoof and as they say, shoot from the lip. Letting Darling loose on him, taking all the YESNP fantasies apart will make interesting viewing.
As to allowing Sturgeon, another legal type, to debate with Darling instead, would make some sense, however, her machine gun delivery of fantasies in which no one can get a word edgeways is beginning to put people off, chiefly because they have no idea what she has waffled on about (and I suspect, neither has she).
Ha Ha Ha , old Blinky sharp , you must be kidding. You posting from Outer Mongolia.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
Mr. G., as you know I am a great proponent of independence for Scotland and if I was a Scot I'd be doing all in my power to bring it about. However, by independence I mean independence not some half way house which will, if it happens, just produce more ill-feeling and this time on both sides of the border.
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
Hurst , we will only be looking for our fair share and it will not be some half way house, it will be real independence, same as the 200 other independent countries in the world..
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
I don't think they have quite grasped the asymmetry of their position.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....
Well, a no vote plus devomax means they remain in a de facto currency union, called the UK.
Independence, the pound and no currency union puts Scotland in the same position as Ireland (until that country joined the Euro). However, since Westminster will want to bolster a sterling zone as a counter to the Eurozone, terms for Scotland will probably be made quite attractive.
John , it would be easier explaining that to a brick wall than Carlotta. She hates Scotland and so everything is just bad and evil and not true.
I don't think they have quite grasped the asymmetry of their position.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....
I agree, Miss Vance. However, I also think that similar pressures will apply in the event of negotiations for DevoMax, and more so after is brought into being.
For example, suppose Mr. G's idea of Devomax comes about - taxes raised in Scotland stay in Scotland (less a contribution for defence and foreign affairs). Who has the say on borrowing? Say, one year tax receipts in Scotland don't match expectations, what happens then? Will Scotland be able to go to the markets to borrow, will Westminster bung them a sub, will that sub have to be paid back? What happens if tax receipts don't meet expectations for two years running or longer? Another example some new ships have to be ordered for the Royal Navy, what proportion of the work will go to Scottish yards?
Devomax, as per Mr G.'s expectation of it will be unworkable. An unholy mess that will cause great resentment all round. If it can be done at all then it can only be done as a new equitable constitutional settlement in which all four parts of the UK are treated equally.
Hurst, considering we have been shortchanged for almost all of the last 40 years , that would be of little concern. It will never happen though as Westminster will not relinquish the power. It is all or nothing.
Political party A gift to a political party qualifies for exemption from inheritance tax if at the last general election preceding the transfer either two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons, or one member of the party was so elected and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.
Interesting....
In other words a sneaky way of getting the taxpayer to fund political parties. Bastards!
Let them pay tax like the rest of us. It might make them rather more careful about not dreaming up new ones all the time and concerned about how effectively the money is spent.
Is this the time to return to the idea that all corporate bodies should be taxed in the same manner as individuals, that is to say on income? Its what happened before 1964 when an additional "profits tax" was introduced that gradually morphed into the corporation tax mess we have today.
Have some exemptions for genuine charities (e.g. those that look after homeless pussy cats) but otherwise nothing above a flat-rate tax free allowance and just one rate. Easy to collect hard to avoid and very transparent.
P.S. The directors of any company found to be fiddling its tax affairs to be sent down for five years in the Scrubs (no parole, no home detention curfew), and disqualified for life from holding any directorship or publicly funded post.
I don't think they have quite grasped the asymmetry of their position.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....
I agree, Miss Vance. However, I also think that similar pressures will apply in the event of negotiations for DevoMax, and more so after is brought into being.
For example, suppose Mr. G's idea of Devomax comes about - taxes raised in Scotland stay in Scotland (less a contribution for defence and foreign affairs). Who has the say on borrowing? Say, one year tax receipts in Scotland don't match expectations, what happens then? Will Scotland be able to go to the markets to borrow, will Westminster bung them a sub, will that sub have to be paid back? What happens if tax receipts don't meet expectations for two years running or longer? Another example some new ships have to be ordered for the Royal Navy, what proportion of the work will go to Scottish yards?
Devomax, as per Mr G.'s expectation of it will be unworkable. An unholy mess that will cause great resentment all round. If it can be done at all then it can only be done as a new equitable constitutional settlement in which all four parts of the UK are treated equally.
Hurst, considering we have been shortchanged for almost all of the last 40 years , that would be of little concern. It will never happen though as Westminster will not relinquish the power. It is all or nothing.
Shortchanged for 40 years? That's just delusional.
Show some evidence, solid evidence, to back that up.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
Mr. G., as you know I am a great proponent of independence for Scotland and if I was a Scot I'd be doing all in my power to bring it about. However, by independence I mean independence not some half way house which will, if it happens, just produce more ill-feeling and this time on both sides of the border.
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
it will be real independence, same as the 200 other independent countries in the world..
Who almost all have their own currencies! Why not Scotland?
" It [Devomax] will never happen though as Westminster will not relinquish the power. It is all or nothing."
I agree and am keeping my fingers crossed for a "yes" vote. I won't put money on it though.
Incidentally, someone up-thread said that if the polls looked like a Conservative victor next May then the chances of a Yes vote would increase. If that is true then really the Union has had its day and should be wound up by mutual agreement and never mind the referendum.
Does anyone know why Cameron gobs off on any issue that makes the press, let alone why he says such stupid things. Sometimes he seems not so much a Prime Minister as a rent a mouth gob-shite pundit ready to comment on anything.
Political party A gift to a political party qualifies for exemption from inheritance tax if at the last general election preceding the transfer either two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons, or one member of the party was so elected and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.
Interesting....
In other words a sneaky way of getting the taxpayer to fund political parties. Bastards!
Let them pay tax like the rest of us. It might make them rather more careful about not dreaming up new ones all the time and concerned about how effectively the money is spent.
Is this the time to return to the idea that all corporate bodies should be taxed in the same manner as individuals, that is to say on income? Its what happened before 1964 when an additional "profits tax" was introduced that gradually morphed into the corporation tax mess we have today.
Have some exemptions for genuine charities (e.g. those that look after homeless pussy cats) but otherwise nothing above a flat-rate tax free allowance and just one rate. Easy to collect hard to avoid and very transparent.
P.S. The directors of any company found to be fiddling its tax affairs to be sent down for five years in the Scrubs (no parole, no home detention curfew), and disqualified for life from holding any directorship or publicly funded post.
I quite agree. The simpler the tax system the better. There should be very few, if any, exemptions.
"The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace it had reported last month."
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The LD idea of taxing such inheritances as income is a better one. It would encourage the break up of larger estates as more sensible to have more smaller benificiaries.
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
The LD idea would mean that even more of the estate is taxed at a much higher rate. And it's not income. More sensible would be to have a much lower rate but make it payable on the whole estate. It widens the tax base and reduces the incentive to find ways round it. Interestingly a lot of countries are moving to abolish or very significantly reduce inheritance tax.
IHT is the most expensive tax for the state to administer, and given it only raises about 3-4bn a year, could be scrapped if the political will was there.
Australia, that great bastion of privilege, abolished inheritance tax years ago. Given that it is paid only by the stupid or the unlucky and almost never by the seriously wealthy, we should follow suit. However, can you imagine the screaming that such a move would induce. Politically it would be a very bad move, so it will stay.
As for Burnham's death tax, I think he was giving his own view on his own pet project and there seems very little chance of it being adopted as Labour policy. Even Brown recognised the idea was political poison when it was floated a few years back.
Indeed. The only way to do it would be at a point of time where the economy was booming, with a large tory majority. IE not now, and probably at the start of the governments term in a 'feel good' budget.
But you're right, politically it would be very difficult.
Osbourne's proposal to raise iht to 1 mil was very popular.
I don't think they have quite grasped the asymmetry of their position.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....
I agree, Miss Vance. However, I also think that similar pressures will apply in the event of negotiations for DevoMax, and more so after is brought into being.
For example, suppose Mr. G's idea of Devomax comes about - taxes raised in Scotland stay in Scotland (less a contribution for defence and foreign affairs). Who has the say on borrowing? Say, one year tax receipts in Scotland don't match expectations, what happens then? Will Scotland be able to go to the markets to borrow, will Westminster bung them a sub, will that sub have to be paid back? What happens if tax receipts don't meet expectations for two years running or longer? Another example some new ships have to be ordered for the Royal Navy, what proportion of the work will go to Scottish yards?
Devomax, as per Mr G.'s expectation of it will be unworkable. An unholy mess that will cause great resentment all round. If it can be done at all then it can only be done as a new equitable constitutional settlement in which all four parts of the UK are treated equally.
Hurst, considering we have been shortchanged for almost all of the last 40 years , that would be of little concern. It will never happen though as Westminster will not relinquish the power. It is all or nothing.
Shortchanged for 40 years? That's just delusional. Show some evidence, solid evidence, to back that up.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Root and Cook in... - India will be doing their best to keep these two in I reckon !
Root and Cook currently going at 5.8 per over so I don't think so. What I think this innings is showing is what a good batting track this is, how well England bowled first time around and how poorly India played.
The only remaining question is whether India can do so badly and England so well again. The speed with which England have accumulated runs is both encouraging and worrying at the same time.
"The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace it had reported last month."
He is the sort of chap "we used to describe at school as an utter spastic", that's what he is. Leader of the Nation? He couldn't lead a squad of duckling across a fire-bucket.
Mind you, Miliband is no better. His speech the other day telling us that he didn't believe in worrying about image which was actually free of any content or ideas except those about his own image.
Do politicians think that people are really as stupid as they treat them? I don't know, maybe as a body we are. We keep voting for the buggers after all - though I suspect the next GE will have the lowest turnout ever.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
"The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace it had reported last month."
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
@HurstLlama We deserve what we get. The population takes more interest on who gets voted out of reality shows, than who gets elected to parliament in their seat. Shallow people breed shallow politicians?
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Afternoon all, much as though I should be heartened by anything suggesting a NO vote win, any poll taken in Scotland at present is a waste of time. We are right in the middle of the main Scottish holiday period. The Scottish schools start back in a fortnight on Monday/Tuesday and only then, in mid August, is any pollster possibly going to get a genuine response from a Scottish panel which reflects the general community.
I have always been wary of the IndyRef polls because so many pollsters will simply not be reaching many of the YES constituency simply because they don't have landline phones and don't participate in YouGov type polling panels.
Tuesday's debate will only be interesting for 2 reasons, 1) the actual number of Scots households estimated to have watched it and 2) the soundbites arising from it reported the following day in the media.
The Daily Record and Scottish Sun haven't got long left before pinning their colours to the mast. As an organ of the Scottish Labour Party, the Record will say NO but the Scottish Sun will be interesting. It has supported Salmond twice. If it comes out for YES or even hints at it, the vote will be a lot closer than most on here are expecting.
As I have said many many times, the future of the UK rests in the hands of WWC traditional Labour voters in the sprawling council estates on the fringes of Glasgow and Edinburgh and the new towns in between. They went heavily for Salmond in 2011 giving him his overall majority.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Asked very cautiously as Mr Eagles seems to know and the last time I asked such a question of him I had to make sure my wife never saw his reply. Some of us old 'uns have lived very sheltered lives, you know. I dare not ask about WLTM.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Asked very cautiously as Mr Eagles seems to know and the last time I asked such a question of him I had to make sure my wife never saw his reply. Some of us old 'uns have lived very sheltered lives, you know. I dare not ask about WLTM.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Asked very cautiously as Mr Eagles seems to know and the last time I asked such a question of him I had to make sure my wife never saw his reply. Some of us old 'uns have lived very sheltered lives, you know. I dare not ask about WLTM.
Good Sense of Humour. It apparently features quite frequently in those "personal" adverts in various publications (which as a happily married man I never look at of course).
@HurstLlama We deserve what we get. The population takes more interest on who gets voted out of reality shows, than who gets elected to parliament in their seat. Shallow people breed shallow politicians?
Could be, old chap, could well be. Perhaps universal franchise democracy isn't the best system after all.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Asked very cautiously as Mr Eagles seems to know and the last time I asked such a question of him I had to make sure my wife never saw his reply. Some of us old 'uns have lived very sheltered lives, you know. I dare not ask about WLTM.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Asked very cautiously as Mr Eagles seems to know and the last time I asked such a question of him I had to make sure my wife never saw his reply. Some of us old 'uns have lived very sheltered lives, you know. I dare not ask about WLTM.
Not as bad as me publicly googling "MILF" in front of giggling teenage niece & nephew! (It stands for "Mother I'd like (to) and you can work out the F for yourself!)
Does anyone know why Cameron gobs off on any issue that makes the press, let alone why he says such stupid things. Sometimes he seems not so much a Prime Minister as a rent a mouth gob-shite pundit ready to comment on anything.
Cammo was a PR man and can't forget it. He must get his 10 minutes in the news every day: it's like a drug to him; taking a fix. In doing so Cammo will spout any rubbish even if in the end it does start a war.
He talks of not sending the Fleet to Russia. What fleet? The man is getting dangerously psychopathic.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Asked very cautiously as Mr Eagles seems to know and the last time I asked such a question of him I had to make sure my wife never saw his reply. Some of us old 'uns have lived very sheltered lives, you know. I dare not ask about WLTM.
Not as bad as me publicly googling "MILF" in front of giggling teenage niece & nephew! (It stands for "Mother I'd like (to) and you can work out the F for yourself!)
Remember that the US have continued to undertake significant quantitative easing (printing money) and are starting to taper that off. So it is not surprising that there is a higher GDP as a result.
West Indies v Australia 09/05/2003 West Indies win by 3 wickets 418 Australia v South Africa 17/12/2008 South Africa won by 6 wickets. 414 New Zealand v West Indies 27/02/1969 West Indies win by 5 wickets 348 England v West Indies 28/06/1984 West Indies win by 9 wickets 344
So need to establish a new world record, by nearly 100 runs if you discount results vs Australia.
Does anyone know why Cameron gobs off on any issue that makes the press, let alone why he says such stupid things. Sometimes he seems not so much a Prime Minister as a rent a mouth gob-shite pundit ready to comment on anything.
Cammo was a PR man and can't forget it. He must get his 10 minutes in the news every day: it's like a drug to him; taking a fix. In doing so Cammo will spout any rubbish even if in the end it does start a war.
He talks of not sending the Fleet to Russia. What fleet? The man is getting dangerously psychopathic.
Well the press is demanding war on Russia for 2 weeks now.
West Indies v Australia 09/05/2003 West Indies win by 3 wickets 418 Australia v South Africa 17/12/2008 South Africa won by 6 wickets. 414 New Zealand v West Indies 27/02/1969 West Indies win by 5 wickets 348 England v West Indies 28/06/1984 West Indies win by 9 wickets 344
So need to establish a new world record, by nearly 100 runs if you discount results vs Australia.
Should that have read 300/1?
It is still a good batting track.
Plus Chris Jordan bowled like a donkey in the first innings.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Asked very cautiously as Mr Eagles seems to know and the last time I asked such a question of him I had to make sure my wife never saw his reply. Some of us old 'uns have lived very sheltered lives, you know. I dare not ask about WLTM.
GSOH = Good Sense of Humour
WLTM = Would Like To Meet
These personal declarations remind me of the ballot paper for TOTY some years back between Peter the Punter and I.
My modest description as "Robust Scottish Vintage Noble" was somewhat overshadowed by PtP's :
"Crossdresser With Boa Fetish"
I naturally thought this meant an angry theatrical wardrobe mistress with a snake peccadillo. Little did I know what I was up against .... although virtue, truth, decency and a canny election spend of £4 5/- 9d saw me over the line ....
Thanks for answering my question. I say that with a considerable sense of relief, the the answer was so ordinary.
Mr. L, these "personal adverts" are we talking about the same sort of thing that used to get mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes stories? He was always finding clues in those if I remember rightly (mind you some of those Victorian newspapers must have been pretty odd)..
About that american GDP number, Q2 was simply a bounce in inventories and return to usual levels of investment, Q3 is too early to say but looks like typical 3% growth rate so far. The FED will face increasing pressure to increase interest rates from growing inflation and low unemployment but they will resist it for political reasons as usual.
Does anyone know why Cameron gobs off on any issue that makes the press, let alone why he says such stupid things. Sometimes he seems not so much a Prime Minister as a rent a mouth gob-shite pundit ready to comment on anything.
Cammo was a PR man and can't forget it. He must get his 10 minutes in the news every day: it's like a drug to him; taking a fix. In doing so Cammo will spout any rubbish even if in the end it does start a war.
He talks of not sending the Fleet to Russia. What fleet? The man is getting dangerously psychopathic.
LOL a kipper calling someone psychopathic! Take your pills Mike.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
Maybe I'm still hungover from the world cup - or maybe it's the commonwealth games truce - but I feel the vitriolic tone of the indyref debate seems to have calmed down a bit. Whatever happens this referendum has shown Scotland in a very bad light - I don't think this hate filled nation's tendencies can have gone totally unnoticed in other parts of the island. Long may this cooling period continue.
Does anyone know why Cameron gobs off on any issue that makes the press, let alone why he says such stupid things. Sometimes he seems not so much a Prime Minister as a rent a mouth gob-shite pundit ready to comment on anything.
Cammo was a PR man and can't forget it. He must get his 10 minutes in the news every day: it's like a drug to him; taking a fix. In doing so Cammo will spout any rubbish even if in the end it does start a war.
He talks of not sending the Fleet to Russia. What fleet? The man is getting dangerously psychopathic.
I think its Mr Llama and MikeK who are getting a bit hysterical. Cameron is PM and people ask him questions. 'The Prime Minister was asked what the British government can do to help stop Putin and support Ukraine during a question and answer session with staff at the headquarters of United Utilities in Warrington.' Shock horror Cameron is actually out meeting the people. Shame if that does not fit the preconception.
As for 'PR' - Cameron was was Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications for seven years. A report entitled A Seat at the Table: The growing influence of the corporate affairs function in FTSE 100 companies - by headhunters Spencer Stuart says.... ''81% of the 33 FTSE 100 corporate affairs heads who we interviewed report directly to the CEO ... when it comes to a company's reputation, as far as the outside world is concerned it's usually the CEO's neck on the line. The corporate affairs director's job is to act as trusted adviser and make sure that the boss's head remains attached to his or her shoulders - at least until the rest of the main board directors decide otherwise. The challenge of this role is to navigate what is right for the CEO and the company, while also serving the rest of the board who may have a completely different agenda ... today's corporate affairs directors need to be adept managers, motivators and recruiters as well as being able to punch above their weight in Whitehall.''
By all means stick to the hackneyed 'PR' meme if you want to... but its a load of faded baloney peddled by jaded people with no argument. Apologies if my rationale hurts your feelings, but I grow tired of these superficial comments.
Easterross --- 'the Scottish Sun will be interesting. It has supported Salmond twice. If it comes out for YES or even hints at it, the vote will be a lot closer than most on here are expecting. '
On the basis that Murdoch wants to see a weaker UK govt (an assumption that may be misplaced, but on recent history why shouldn't he?) then it will come out for YES. But we are told that Murdoch does not influence his editors.
"The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace it had reported last month."
"Annual revisions also released on Wednesday show the economy grew by 4% in the second half of 2013, its fastest pace of growth in a decade."
So that's non Austerity America where
- the economy is 6.6% above peak (UK: 0.2%) - Unemployment is 6.1% (UK: 6.5%) - Q2 Growth 1% (UK 0.8%)
Let's see Shapps spin that one.
The US taxes and spends significantly less, as a share of national income, than the UK does. We shouldn't be surprised if it grows faster.
BenM does not seem to want to admit that the US is cutting its spending. He does not seem to want to admit that the US economy only shrank by 4.5% compared to our 7.2% - in other words the UK recession was half as big (deep) again as the US one. He does not seem to want to admit that the same issues about standards of living are taking place in the USA as here (in fact they are probably taking place elsewhere as well but in places where the issue is unemployment, not record numbers in jobs like here). BenM does not seem to understand US statistics which actually say 'The economy grew 0.9 percent in the first half of this year and growth for 2014 as a whole could average above 2 percent.' BenM may care to consult Capital Economics who 'reacted to the news by upgrading its growth forecast from 1.7% to 2% this year.' This compares with projected UK growth of over 3%.
Comments
So we can look forward to a rolled-up mansion tax, a death tax per person, IHT at 40% and perhaps £100k of the under-exemption amount deducted.
Why they don't simply pass a law expropriating estates in the south-east I don't really know.
And then we forgot about that conclusion and have been pondering at length the whys and wherefores of YES/NO for ages.
People, eh?
Independence, the pound and no currency union puts Scotland in the same position as Ireland (until that country joined the Euro). However, since Westminster will want to bolster a sterling zone as a counter to the Eurozone, terms for Scotland will probably be made quite attractive.
We provide a free of charge thinktank pretty much... (Once you get past all the trolls and spammers)
The UK economy shrunk by more in the Labour recession than it will after the departure of Scotland. While it makes sense to offer reasonable terms, it would be electoral suicide in rUK to offer "attractive" ones - especially as all 3 parties have said no to a currency union.
For example, suppose Mr. G's idea of Devomax comes about - taxes raised in Scotland stay in Scotland (less a contribution for defence and foreign affairs). Who has the say on borrowing? Say, one year tax receipts in Scotland don't match expectations, what happens then? Will Scotland be able to go to the markets to borrow, will Westminster bung them a sub, will that sub have to be paid back? What happens if tax receipts don't meet expectations for two years running or longer? Another example some new ships have to be ordered for the Royal Navy, what proportion of the work will go to Scottish yards?
Devomax, as per Mr G.'s expectation of it will be unworkable. An unholy mess that will cause great resentment all round. If it can be done at all then it can only be done as a new equitable constitutional settlement in which all four parts of the UK are treated equally.
All major parties are turning into kleptocrats to feed the ravenous beast that is the public purse. Even the tories are entertaining plans to allow HMRC to steal our money without a court order, something that would have been instantly rejected when conservatives were actually conservatives.
A gift to a political party qualifies for exemption from inheritance tax if at the last general election preceding the transfer either two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons, or one member of the party was so elected and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.
Interesting....
SNP : "Ha ha - told you we would keep the pound after the referendum - Westminster liars"
Let them pay tax like the rest of us. It might make them rather more careful about not dreaming up new ones all the time and concerned about how effectively the money is spent.
An independent Scotland may also have to contribute to the money the UK gets back, which would cost £540million, also over seven years. That would be a major blow to Scotland's finances, with the country £12billion in the red last year - a proportionately higher deficit than the rest of the UK.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709484/Danny-Alexander-warns-economic-crisis-hit-independent-Scotland-dwarf-2008-crash.html#ixzz38xOUorjp
Nobody does scare stories quite like the Daily Mail!
Have some exemptions for genuine charities (e.g. those that look after homeless pussy cats) but otherwise nothing above a flat-rate tax free allowance and just one rate. Easy to collect hard to avoid and very transparent.
P.S. The directors of any company found to be fiddling its tax affairs to be sent down for five years in the Scrubs (no parole, no home detention curfew), and disqualified for life from holding any directorship or publicly funded post.
Show some evidence, solid evidence, to back that up.
" It [Devomax] will never happen though as Westminster will not relinquish the power. It is all or nothing."
I agree and am keeping my fingers crossed for a "yes" vote. I won't put money on it though.
Incidentally, someone up-thread said that if the polls looked like a Conservative victor next May then the chances of a Yes vote would increase. If that is true then really the Union has had its day and should be wound up by mutual agreement and never mind the referendum.
Well thank goodness, for that!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11000431/Britain-will-not-start-World-War-Three-over-Ukraine-David-Cameron-says.html
Does anyone know why Cameron gobs off on any issue that makes the press, let alone why he says such stupid things. Sometimes he seems not so much a Prime Minister as a rent a mouth gob-shite pundit ready to comment on anything.
He is a PR "image" man.
This was a definite plus for him in the last election, I would argue that it is less so for the next.
"This won't be the first time a Labour government has faced a Britain fearful of its future — and then turned things around.
In 1945, with rationing and the devastation of the war, things were tough in Britain. Yet just three years later we built the NHS"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101787838#.
"The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace it had reported last month."
Osbourne's proposal to raise iht to 1 mil was very popular.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1374893/English-head-shoulders-Scots-thanks-growing-wealth-south.html
@portraitinflesh: @JohnRentoul In that case, I hereby declare myself leader of the Labour party. Don't see how he can object.
Tracey Gough fought the Underhill ward on Weymouth and Portland Council for UKIP in May. Now she’s contesting a Town Council election. Take a look at the description she has used
http://www.markpack.org.uk/51508/an-impressively-bizarre-election-move-by-a-former-ukip-election-candidate/
The only remaining question is whether India can do so badly and England so well again. The speed with which England have accumulated runs is both encouraging and worrying at the same time.
Q1 was revised up - to 2.1% decline.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/30/us-economy-beats-forecasts-gdp-growth-second-quarter
Also:
"Annual revisions also released on Wednesday show the economy grew by 4% in the second half of 2013, its fastest pace of growth in a decade."
So that's non Austerity America where
- the economy is 6.6% above peak (UK: 0.2%)
- Unemployment is 6.1% (UK: 6.5%)
- Q2 Growth 1% (UK 0.8%)
Let's see Shapps spin that one.
I think Ed and the Labour party would have every right to object, the twitter tw*t would have to stand for election to the post?
There is no contest,UKIP are much weirder than Ed..http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/30/ukip-resigned-occult-jake-baynes-graham-livings?commentpage=1
Mind you, Miliband is no better. His speech the other day telling us that he didn't believe in worrying about image which was actually free of any content or ideas except those about his own image.
Do politicians think that people are really as stupid as they treat them? I don't know, maybe as a body we are. We keep voting for the buggers after all - though I suspect the next GE will have the lowest turnout ever.
That has so much potential.
We deserve what we get.
The population takes more interest on who gets voted out of reality shows, than who gets elected to parliament in their seat.
Shallow people breed shallow politicians?
I have always been wary of the IndyRef polls because so many pollsters will simply not be reaching many of the YES constituency simply because they don't have landline phones and don't participate in YouGov type polling panels.
Tuesday's debate will only be interesting for 2 reasons, 1) the actual number of Scots households estimated to have watched it and 2) the soundbites arising from it reported the following day in the media.
The Daily Record and Scottish Sun haven't got long left before pinning their colours to the mast. As an organ of the Scottish Labour Party, the Record will say NO but the Scottish Sun will be interesting. It has supported Salmond twice. If it comes out for YES or even hints at it, the vote will be a lot closer than most on here are expecting.
As I have said many many times, the future of the UK rests in the hands of WWC traditional Labour voters in the sprawling council estates on the fringes of Glasgow and Edinburgh and the new towns in between. They went heavily for Salmond in 2011 giving him his overall majority.
Asked very cautiously as Mr Eagles seems to know and the last time I asked such a question of him I had to make sure my wife never saw his reply. Some of us old 'uns have lived very sheltered lives, you know. I dare not ask about WLTM.
He ended up becoming a Voodoo Pole!
(I'll get me coat...)
WLTM = Would Like To Meet
30/1
PB Singles.com
(It stands for "Mother I'd like (to) and you can work out the F for yourself!)
He talks of not sending the Fleet to Russia. What fleet? The man is getting dangerously psychopathic.
http://www.oddschecker.com/cricket/england-v-india/3rd-test/winner/bet-history/india/today
West Indies v Australia 09/05/2003 West Indies win by 3 wickets 418
Australia v South Africa 17/12/2008 South Africa won by 6 wickets. 414
New Zealand v West Indies 27/02/1969 West Indies win by 5 wickets 348
England v West Indies 28/06/1984 West Indies win by 9 wickets 344
So need to establish a new world record, by nearly 100 runs if you discount results vs Australia.
Should that have read 300/1?
Plus Chris Jordan bowled like a donkey in the first innings.
It's a long short and would require a world record but... India need to score at 3.37 an over to win. Eng went at 3.47 in their 1st innings
Laid £40 @ 19.5 with Betfair.
My modest description as "Robust Scottish Vintage Noble" was somewhat overshadowed by PtP's :
"Crossdresser With Boa Fetish"
I naturally thought this meant an angry theatrical wardrobe mistress with a snake peccadillo. Little did I know what I was up against .... although virtue, truth, decency and a canny election spend of £4 5/- 9d saw me over the line ....
Thanks for answering my question. I say that with a considerable sense of relief, the the answer was so ordinary.
Mr. L, these "personal adverts" are we talking about the same sort of thing that used to get mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes stories? He was always finding clues in those if I remember rightly (mind you some of those Victorian newspapers must have been pretty odd)..
The FED will face increasing pressure to increase interest rates from growing inflation and low unemployment but they will resist it for political reasons as usual.
This is just weird. A prototype screen that corrects for vision problems:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28562432
'The Prime Minister was asked what the British government can do to help stop Putin and support Ukraine during a question and answer session with staff at the headquarters of United Utilities in Warrington.'
Shock horror Cameron is actually out meeting the people. Shame if that does not fit the preconception.
As for 'PR' - Cameron was was Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications for seven years.
A report entitled A Seat at the Table: The growing influence of the corporate affairs function in FTSE 100 companies - by headhunters Spencer Stuart says....
''81% of the 33 FTSE 100 corporate affairs heads who we interviewed report directly to the CEO ... when it comes to a company's reputation, as far as the outside world is concerned it's usually the CEO's neck on the line. The corporate affairs director's job is to act as trusted adviser and make sure that the boss's head remains attached to his or her shoulders - at least until the rest of the main board directors decide otherwise.
The challenge of this role is to navigate what is right for the CEO and the company, while also serving the rest of the board who may have a completely different agenda ... today's corporate affairs directors need to be adept managers, motivators and recruiters as well as being able to punch above their weight in Whitehall.''
By all means stick to the hackneyed 'PR' meme if you want to... but its a load of faded baloney peddled by jaded people with no argument.
Apologies if my rationale hurts your feelings, but I grow tired of these superficial comments.
'the Scottish Sun will be interesting. It has supported Salmond twice. If it comes out for YES or even hints at it, the vote will be a lot closer than most on here are expecting. '
On the basis that Murdoch wants to see a weaker UK govt (an assumption that may be misplaced, but on recent history why shouldn't he?) then it will come out for YES. But we are told that Murdoch does not influence his editors.
BenM does not seem to understand US statistics which actually say 'The economy grew 0.9 percent in the first half of this year and growth for 2014 as a whole could average above 2 percent.' BenM may care to consult Capital Economics who 'reacted to the news by upgrading its growth forecast from 1.7% to 2% this year.'
This compares with projected UK growth of over 3%.
Bring it on Mr Shapps...