Thanks to Moniker for the "wanton destruction" phrase.
I'm sure your fans will take every word to heart:
Such as a leaner, meaner Tory party under a Eurosceptic like Philip Hammond, united in a Coalition with Nigel Farage’s Ukip, sweeping into power, taking us out of Europe, and forcing through a ferocious divorce with the helpless, grass-eating Scots where they get a broken souvenir from Benidorm, and not much else.
I do have some fans on there, now. Comment below the line:
"twowolves • 6 minutes ago Sean, you are the best and most gifted writer on the Telegraph payroll, I immensely enjoy your every publication. They should make you editor.
Write more, please."
That's not my mum, honest. Hah. Also he's slightly over-egging the pudding. Bojo on form is still the best columnist, by a distance.
I fear that a large number of those 'fans', are not the kind of individuals that one would like to find unexpectedly waiting for you at home, on a dark and lonely night.
Thanks to Moniker for the "wanton destruction" phrase.
I'm sure your fans will take every word to heart:
Such as a leaner, meaner Tory party under a Eurosceptic like Philip Hammond, united in a Coalition with Nigel Farage’s Ukip, sweeping into power, taking us out of Europe, and forcing through a ferocious divorce with the helpless, grass-eating Scots where they get a broken souvenir from Benidorm, and not much else.
I do have some fans on there, now. Comment below the line:
"twowolves • 6 minutes ago Sean, you are the best and most gifted writer on the Telegraph payroll, I immensely enjoy your every publication. They should make you editor.
Write more, please."
That's not my mum, honest. Hah. Also he's slightly over-egging the pudding. Bojo on form is still the best columnist, by a distance.
I fear that a large number of those 'fans', are not the kind of individuals that one would like to find unexpectedly waiting for you at home, on a dark and lonely night.
Christ, you'll set him off again..
A glimpse of a tin of shortbread will likely set him off.
Checking in briefly from a Greek Island with glacial broadband... Skimming through the comments on the impact of a Yes vote on HMRC it seems the headless chicken tendency remains out in force, ..
Regarding the last minute Devolution proposal... If the Scots really want DevoMax then vote Yes and negotiate from that position of strength.... Can foresee the circumstances in which a Yes vote leads to a Federal structure with a very thin Federal layer, outside of the EU with Ireland seeking to join in the next five years...
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
So,he's Romanian,so what ?
Well, does it need to be spelt out? If UKIP got their way, he would find it a lot harder to work in this country.
Minus immigrants, Clacton's GP queue would fall to 7,900, and the number of GPs would fall to 0. Vote UKIP!
It's from the comments under the blog. Ole Dougie was apparently on Channel 4 and mentioned a Romanian GP in his constitchency. One presumes that this mention was to enthusiastically endorse some Romanians.
The trouble with this argument / protestation, if that's what he said, is that the NHS relies on EU and non-EU nationals for its manpower. This is not just in skilled roles, but also in those others for which no skill is required, a la Starbucks. At some point, UKIP is going to have to explain who will do these jobs when the drawbridge comes up, given that Britons could do them now but won't and UKIP's points wheeze will exclude low skill immigrants who will do them.
Thanks to Moniker for the "wanton destruction" phrase.
I'm sure your fans will take every word to heart:
Such as a leaner, meaner Tory party under a Eurosceptic like Philip Hammond, united in a Coalition with Nigel Farage’s Ukip, sweeping into power, taking us out of Europe, and forcing through a ferocious divorce with the helpless, grass-eating Scots where they get a broken souvenir from Benidorm, and not much else.
I do have some fans on there, now. Comment below the line:
"twowolves • 6 minutes ago Sean, you are the best and most gifted writer on the Telegraph payroll, I immensely enjoy your every publication. They should make you editor.
Write more, please."
That's not my mum, honest. Hah. Also he's slightly over-egging the pudding. Bojo on form is still the best columnist, by a distance.
Disappointed you didn't work a reference to Cassandra into that column!
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Carswell said as much in his Ch4 interview with Cathy Newman
So what? No one at UKIP is saying skilled immigrants that we need aren't welcome wherever they are from.
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
So,he's Romanian,so what ?
Well, does it need to be spelt out? If UKIP got their way, he would find it a lot harder to work in this country.
Minus immigrants, Clacton's GP queue would fall to 7,900, and the number of GPs would fall to 0. Vote UKIP!
It's from the comments under the blog. Ole Dougie was apparently on Channel 4 and mentioned a Romanian GP in his constitchency. One presumes that this mention was to enthusiastically endorse some Romanians.
The trouble with this argument / protestation, if that's what he said, is that the NHS relies on EU and non-EU nationals for its manpower. This is not just in skilled roles, but also in those others for which no skill is required, a la Starbucks. At some point, UKIP is going to have to explain who will do these jobs when the drawbridge comes up, given that Britons could do them now but won't and UKIP's points wheeze will exclude low skill immigrants who will do them.
I think it's fairly notable that the group most in favour of independence, in all polls across all companies is the 35-44 year old group.
Thatcher's Children.
or families with children.
Why has share ownership gone down then?
No significant new privatisations, people selling shares to cover bills and building societies going tits up so wiping out the shares.
My understanding is that share ownership by the general public is lower now than in 1979. And many of the “public” untilities are now wholly owned by primarily non-British companies.
wouldn't surprise me. When people need money they sell shares, I'll be selling a whack of mine to pay Uni fees. What's your point ?
I think it's fairly notable that the group most in favour of independence, in all polls across all companies is the 35-44 year old group.
Thatcher's Children.
or families with children.
Why has share ownership gone down then?
No significant new privatisations, people selling shares to cover bills and building societies going tits up so wiping out the shares.
My understanding is that share ownership by the general public is lower now than in 1979. And many of the “public” untilities are now wholly owned by primarily non-British companies.
Why does it matter who the ultimate owner of Thames Water or Heathrow Airport is, so long as they provide an efficient service?
Re share ownership: actually, we're all massively more bought into shares than we were in 1979. In 1979, people genuinely thought that SERPS was going to pay their pensions, now they know better. The difference is that share ownership today is more likely to be through funds (particularly index ones) or through pensions.
Sean, you've gone into the Home Of UKIP and predicted the end of Cameron and a Con/UKIP government! You will hence-force be elevated to GOD-LIKE status at the Telegraph Blogs!
Riddle me this, oh PB brains trust: Why is Dave not (yet) pushing for a Federal UK?
I can see absolutely why Labour abhor the idea. I can see absolutely why Farage pushes for a FUK. But why - really why - is there radio silence from the Tories? I don't get it.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Loathed Westminster politicians pitching up to tell them how to vote, is only going to push it one way.
It's certainly and obviously a risk, but they presumably think doing nothing is now even riskier, and they are possibly right.
Because, much as you may wish it away, a YES vote would be very very grim, economically. Every single economist and banker knows this. I am mystified by people like you who so blithely dismiss this threat - even if you want Scotland to push off, is it worth a new and nasty recession? Or do you think all the economists are wrong and after a YES vote it will be fine.
Serious question. I am puzzled.
'Yes' will not be grim (well maybe north of the border). There will be pitfalls, and additional costs, but grim? Really? You need to calm down, take off the hysteria goggles, and stop the frankly irresponsible, shrieking,
I think it's fairly notable that the group most in favour of independence, in all polls across all companies is the 35-44 year old group.
Thatcher's Children.
or families with children.
Why has share ownership gone down then?
No significant new privatisations, people selling shares to cover bills and building societies going tits up so wiping out the shares.
My understanding is that share ownership by the general public is lower now than in 1979. And many of the “public” untilities are now wholly owned by primarily non-British companies.
wouldn't surprise me. When people need money they sell shares, I'll be selling a whack of mine to pay Uni fees. What's your point ?
I think it's fairly notable that the group most in favour of independence, in all polls across all companies is the 35-44 year old group.
Thatcher's Children.
or families with children.
Why has share ownership gone down then?
No significant new privatisations, people selling shares to cover bills and building societies going tits up so wiping out the shares.
My understanding is that share ownership by the general public is lower now than in 1979. And many of the “public” untilities are now wholly owned by primarily non-British companies.
Why does it matter who the ultimate owner of Thames Water or Heathrow Airport is, so long as they provide an efficient service?
Re share ownership: actually, we're all massively more bought into shares than we were in 1979. In 1979, people genuinely thought that SERPS was going to pay their pensions, now they know better. The difference is that share ownership today is more likely to be through funds (particularly index ones) or through pensions.
Well let's see if the company is UK domiciled and primarily owned by Uk shareholders chances are it will pay taxes. If its foreign owned with foreign shareholders chances are it will pay taxes elsewhere, do its R&D elsewhere and not give a second thought to closing operations since it has no allegiance to the place it's based in.
Riddle me this, oh PB brains trust: Why is Dave not (yet) pushing for a Federal UK?
I can see absolutely why Labour abhor the idea. I can see absolutely why Farage pushes for a FUK. But why - really why - is there radio silence from the Tories? I don't get it.
Because the Conservatives "raison d'etre" is to conserve. I.E. maintain the status quo.
Only time they went against that was when they allowed Heath to sign us up to the EU, but they have faught a terrible battle about that ever since.
Riddle me this, oh PB brains trust: Why is Dave not (yet) pushing for a Federal UK?
I can see absolutely why Labour abhor the idea. I can see absolutely why Farage pushes for a FUK. But why - really why - is there radio silence from the Tories? I don't get it.
I can't help thinking that we might not have got to this stage if a proper federal constitution for the UK had been adopted, rather than the excessive tinkering and constitutional creep we have in fact had to endure.
Maybe Cameron and Miliband should head up to Edinburgh to review the OO parade as part of their efforts to save the union? Or maybe they should do the colouring in on the back of the fag packet that Brown drew up his major constitutional reforms on yesterday. No wonder these people are being given the runaround by Farage and Salmond, they're useless!
Again, for those airily dismissing the economic fall-out from YES.
"Japan’s biggest bank, Nomura, has advised clients to slash financial exposure to the UK and brace for a possible collapse of the pound after polls showed the independence campaign running neck and neck, warning that the separation of England and Scotland after more than 300 years would be a “cataclysmic shock
"“We could see a lot of money being pulled out of UK investments. Sterling could fall at least 15pc in a worst case scenario. These are scary times,” Mr Rochester added."
Riddle me this, oh PB brains trust: Why is Dave not (yet) pushing for a Federal UK?
I can see absolutely why Labour abhor the idea. I can see absolutely why Farage pushes for a FUK. But why - really why - is there radio silence from the Tories? I don't get it.
Because the Conservatives "raison d'etre" is to conserve. I.E. maintain the status quo.
Only time they went against that was when they allowed Heath to sign us up to the EU, but they have faught a terrible battle about that ever since.
But a FUK would conserve the UK. Maintaining the WLQ will kill the UK in vairly short order. The national sentiment has moved but the politics has not caught up - and that's always dangerous for politicians playing catch-up.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Riddle me this, oh PB brains trust: Why is Dave not (yet) pushing for a Federal UK?
I can see absolutely why Labour abhor the idea. I can see absolutely why Farage pushes for a FUK. But why - really why - is there radio silence from the Tories? I don't get it.
Because the Conservatives "raison d'etre" is to conserve. I.E. maintain the status quo.
Only time they went against that was when they allowed Heath to sign us up to the EU, but they have faught a terrible battle about that ever since.
But the status quo is a pig's ear of assymetric devolution. The reason Con and Lab don't want it changed is that it would devastate their Westminster power base and the gravy train that goes with it.
Riddle me this, oh PB brains trust: Why is Dave not (yet) pushing for a Federal UK?
I can see absolutely why Labour abhor the idea. I can see absolutely why Farage pushes for a FUK. But why - really why - is there radio silence from the Tories? I don't get it.
I can't help thinking that we might not have got to this stage if a proper federal constitution for the UK had been adopted, rather than the excessive tinkering and constitutional creep we have in fact had to endure.
Sums up Cameron nicely..."the excessive tinkering and constitutional creep."
Since Sporting Index opened their Turnout market on the referendum the price has drifted slowly up from (buy) 79 to 80.2.
I still think this is a bit of a snip. It's hard to imagine turnout being much below 80% and 85% or more seems rather more likely.
I was abae to get money on >75.01% at Betfair when it was evens. I've hedged it out by taking 70-75 as well but it was basically a money purchase - the coverage of those two options is still, just, below 100%
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
It increases your respect for them that they only realised today that it might be a good idea for them to be campaigning to save the country they govern or aspire to govern instead of shouting at each other to no end over the despatch boxes?
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Carswell said as much in his Ch4 interview with Cathy Newman
So what? No one at UKIP is saying skilled immigrants that we need aren't welcome wherever they are from.
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
Again, for those airily dismissing the economic fall-out from YES.
"Japan’s biggest bank, Nomura, has advised clients to slash financial exposure to the UK and brace for a possible collapse of the pound after polls showed the independence campaign running neck and neck, warning that the separation of England and Scotland after more than 300 years would be a “cataclysmic shock
"“We could see a lot of money being pulled out of UK investments. Sterling could fall at least 15pc in a worst case scenario. These are scary times,” Mr Rochester added."
Imports cost more, exports become cheaper. Balance of payments improves. All at a time when the UK economy is growing faster than virtually all it's competitors. If only the Greeks could be so lucky.
"Why does it matter who the ultimate owner of Thames Water or Heathrow Airport is, so long as they provide an efficient service?"
Yes, I think it does. The owners of Thames Water is, I think, and Australian company that has been taking dividends out of the Company and back home. AT the same time Thames Water wants to, has to, invest in new infrastructure. The solution? Surcharge the tethered customers, who can't go anywhere else, and carry on exporting dividends (i.e. wealth) to Australia.
Now whatever system that is, it ain't capitalism. The shareholders of the Australian company are not taking a risk with their money, they have simply brought the ability to tax English citizens. In days of yore we had that system, where by a rich person could buy a "Staple" or a monopoly but we got rid of it for good reasons. It should never have been allowed back and should now be abolished.
If Thames Water need to invest N million quid to meet their obligations let them raise the money and make the investment. If they cannot do that and still make a profit then the shareholders loose their shirts and the business comes back into public ownership.
Again, for those airily dismissing the economic fall-out from YES.
"Japan’s biggest bank, Nomura, has advised clients to slash financial exposure to the UK and brace for a possible collapse of the pound after polls showed the independence campaign running neck and neck, warning that the separation of England and Scotland after more than 300 years would be a “cataclysmic shock
"“We could see a lot of money being pulled out of UK investments. Sterling could fall at least 15pc in a worst case scenario. These are scary times,” Mr Rochester added."
Imports cost more, exports become cheaper. Balance of payments improves. All at a time when the UK economy is growing faster than virtually all it's competitors. If only the Greeks could be so lucky.
Since Sporting Index opened their Turnout market on the referendum the price has drifted slowly up from (buy) 79 to 80.2.
I still think this is a bit of a snip. It's hard to imagine turnout being much below 80% and 85% or more seems rather more likely.
I was abae to get money on >75.01% at Betfair when it was evens. I've hedged it out by taking 70-75 as well but it was basically a money purchase - the coverage of those two options is still, just, below 100%
Yes, the Betfair market is a safer if less profitable option.
If you have a cash float you can safely invest it in >75% at a 30% return over the next 9 days. You can even add a little cheap insurance by buying 70/75% at 4.9, to soften the blow in case it pees down with rain on voting day.
Anything less than 70% is inconceivable short of a Tsunami washing 30% of eligible voters into the North Sea.
Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
It increases your respect for them that they only realised today that it might be a good idea for them to be campaigning to save the country they govern or aspire to govern instead of shouting at each other to no end over the despatch boxes?
Yes. All of the previous advice was for them to stay out of it. And here we are. Maybe it is too late and the game is over. But it must be right that they stand up for the Union in this way if only to test the resolve of the Scots to secede. I personally am fairly ambivalent about the result [although I foresee economic problems in both countries at a time when they are not needed to put it mildly]. But I do admire their willingness to tackle the issue head on however late in the day. The cynical of course will always sneer from the sidelines - if that's what floats your boat good on you.
Again, for those airily dismissing the economic fall-out from YES.
"Japan’s biggest bank, Nomura, has advised clients to slash financial exposure to the UK and brace for a possible collapse of the pound after polls showed the independence campaign running neck and neck, warning that the separation of England and Scotland after more than 300 years would be a “cataclysmic shock
"“We could see a lot of money being pulled out of UK investments. Sterling could fall at least 15pc in a worst case scenario. These are scary times,” Mr Rochester added."
Imports cost more, exports become cheaper. Balance of payments improves. All at a time when the UK economy is growing faster than virtually all it's competitors. If only the Greeks could be so lucky.
hmmm
maybe not quite.
short term prices soar as it takes time to switch. We only export more if we have the capacity which currently isn't the case.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Who's saying they 'daren't' set foot in Scotland? It's what they do when they're there. Miliband was in Scotland last week in Labour 'heartlands' pretending to be old Labour and Cameron the week before blathering to the CBI (though even they gave him a hard time on a possible EU referendum).
Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
It increases your respect for them that they only realised today that it might be a good idea for them to be campaigning to save the country they govern or aspire to govern instead of shouting at each other to no end over the despatch boxes?
Yes. All of the previous advice was for them to stay out of it. And here we are. Maybe it is too late and the game is over. But it must be right that they stand up for the Union in this way if only to test the resolve of the Scots to secede. I personally am fairly ambivalent about the result [although I foresee economic problems in both countries at a time when they are not needed to put it mildly]. But I do admire their willingness to tackle the issue head on however late in the day. The cynical of course will always sneer from the sidelines - if that's what floats your boat good on you.
the fun now is can Salmond track Cameron down and debate him in the street with a crowd of vociferous nats on tow.
First mistake Cameron has made on this unless he can keep his distance. Really business as usual was the better option.
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Carswell said as much in his Ch4 interview with Cathy Newman
So what? No one at UKIP is saying skilled immigrants that we need aren't welcome wherever they are from.
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
Probably because you were asking people who agreed with the thrust of the ukip policy without actually being the people in charge of writing it
You should get in touch with @timaker on twitter maybe instead of using this useless argument
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Carswell said as much in his Ch4 interview with Cathy Newman
So what? No one at UKIP is saying skilled immigrants that we need aren't welcome wherever they are from.
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
Actually, Mr. J., I don't remember. Will you, please, remind us?
P.S. Was it last week you and your lady had your big day out in London? Of so can you tell us how it went and what you did?
@HurstLlama It's where the "free market" fails to deliver because it's interests are not the customers, but the shareholders. Where the "market" works, needs to be separated from where it doesn't. Heresy to many on PB, but perfectly rational to almost everyone else.
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Carswell said as much in his Ch4 interview with Cathy Newman
So what? No one at UKIP is saying skilled immigrants that we need aren't welcome wherever they are from.
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
Probably because you were asking people who agreed with the thrust of the ukip policy without actually being the people in charge of writing it
You should get in touch with @timaker on twitter maybe instead of using this useless argument
Well, you support the policy and shout about it endlessly. If people come up with reasoned questions about it, I suggest you either try to come up with reasoned answers, or admit they may have a point.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Who's saying they 'daren't' set foot in Scotland? It's what they do when they're there. Miliband was in Scotland last week in Labour 'heartlands' pretending to be old Labour and Cameron the week before blathering to the CBI (though even they gave him a hard time on a possible EU referndum).
I can't quote anyone specific but I think that the general SNP line was that English politicians should largely stay away. I suspect that Malc G may have been more explicit. However, either way, I respect their decision to act. It demonstrates a respect, however belated, for both no supporters and those they are trying to convince. It may well not pay off and if so fair enough - the Scots will get what they want and maybe for the RoUK the removal of 5 million or so who say it's 'undemocratic' that they have had to put up with governments they didn't vote for, will prove a good thing.
@HurstLlama It's where the "free market" fails to deliver because it's interests are not the customers, but the shareholders. Where the "market" works, needs to be separated from where it doesn't. Heresy to many on PB, but perfectly rational to almost everyone else.
With Thames Water there isn't actually a market, let alone a free market.
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Carswell said as much in his Ch4 interview with Cathy Newman
So what? No one at UKIP is saying skilled immigrants that we need aren't welcome wherever they are from.
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
Probably because you were asking people who agreed with the thrust of the ukip policy without actually being the people in charge of writing it
You should get in touch with @timaker on twitter maybe instead of using this useless argument
Well, you support the policy and shout about it endlessly. If people come up with reasoned questions about it, I suggest you either try to come up with reasoned answers, or admit they may have a point.
It seems you have absolutely no clue.
Yes I support there being a control on immigration based on what people can offer the country
I am not a politician or involved in politics at all, so why should I have to answer, or be expected to be able to answer, forensic questions specific to the business of someone I don't know from Adam?
I am guessing that you wanted me to come up with a few ideas so that you could shoot them down with your idea of how they couldn't work based on details about your business that I couldn't possibly know.. but I am not getting drawn into that
I forwarded you the name of UKIPs head of Policy, is it so unreasonable to think he may have a better idea than me?
Anyway, why do you care? Why not just vote for someone else?
Some serious money has just been dumped on the Betfair market again. It's gone from hundreds to thousands being available. Would love to know where the liquidity is coming from.
Not sure how to add a jpeg to my comment so I've temporarily changed my avatar. This is the Swedish Social Democrat, (Mikael Damberg), who will probably take over as education minister after this Sunday's election.
Since Sporting Index opened their Turnout market on the referendum the price has drifted slowly up from (buy) 79 to 80.2.
I still think this is a bit of a snip. It's hard to imagine turnout being much below 80% and 85% or more seems rather more likely.
I was abae to get money on >75.01% at Betfair when it was evens. I've hedged it out by taking 70-75 as well but it was basically a money purchase - the coverage of those two options is still, just, below 100%
Yes, the Betfair market is a safer if less profitable option.
If you have a cash float you can safely invest it in >75% at a 30% return over the next 9 days. You can even add a little cheap insurance by buying 70/75% at 4.9, to soften the blow in case it pees down with rain on voting day.
Anything less than 70% is inconceivable short of a Tsunami washing 30% of eligible voters into the North Sea.
Well, the concern has to be as to what "full turnout" actually would be, given the state of the register. NP has suggested 90-95%, if I recall correctly. I'm not sure whether 1/3 is great value any longer but obviously I'd expect it to win.
I actually got on this at an average of 4.1 but laid it off in pieces all the way down to 1.75 (plenty to other pb'ers, or so I gather). In my defence the polling wasn't nearly as close then!
Most importantly, I believe you & I both have an antepost voucher from 2007 on "Scotland to be independent by 2017". Would anyone care to price this eventuality in the event of a Yes? And has anyone ever won an antepost bet at 50/1 on this site before? ;-)
Again, for those airily dismissing the economic fall-out from YES.
"Japan’s biggest bank, Nomura, has advised clients to slash financial exposure to the UK and brace for a possible collapse of the pound after polls showed the independence campaign running neck and neck, warning that the separation of England and Scotland after more than 300 years would be a “cataclysmic shock
"“We could see a lot of money being pulled out of UK investments. Sterling could fall at least 15pc in a worst case scenario. These are scary times,” Mr Rochester added."
Imports cost more, exports become cheaper. Balance of payments improves. All at a time when the UK economy is growing faster than virtually all it's competitors. If only the Greeks could be so lucky.
hmmm
maybe not quite.
short term prices soar as it takes time to switch. We only export more if we have the capacity which currently isn't the case.
The latter point's untrue but don't worry about it. I have a different, glass half full, view of the Midlands' economy.
@HurstLlama I kind of thought that at the time they were getting sold off, but that was heresy in the brave new world of Mrs. Thatcher and Hayek. She was smart enough to see where things needed sorted, unfortunately she applied the wrong "fix" in a few places.
There is “nothing to fear” from leaving the European Union if David Cameron is unable to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with Brussels, leading economists and academics say today.
In a letter to The Telegraph, they warn that the debate over the UK’s membership of the EU “has been characterised by half-truths and outright fabrications”.
In the letter, organised by the Business for Britain campaign group, the experts write that they want a new relationship between Britain and the European Union and support an in-out referendum........
Signatories include Dr Ruth Lea, the chairman of Economists for Britain, and John Mills, chairman of JML and a key Labour Party donor.
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Carswell said as much in his Ch4 interview with Cathy Newman
So what? No one at UKIP is saying skilled immigrants that we need aren't welcome wherever they are from.
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
Actually, Mr. J., I don't remember. Will, please, remind us?
P.S. Was it last week you and your lady had your big day out in London? Of so can you tell us how it went and what you did?
Basically, some of it went over how our industry has a large skilled staff shortage, and find it hard to recruit. The visa process we have at the moment is time-consuming, expensive, and often we cannot get the staff we require, even when they are excellently qualified.
That is under the current system. UKIPpers generally are all piss and wind when it comes to questions of how the "quantity and quality" of migration will be addressed without adversely affecting industries such as ours.
The answers I got were the same as iSam's below: basically, "I really believe this policy will help, but have absolutely no clue on how it will work or the effects it will have."
If they spent a tenth of the time they spend worrying about Filipino cleaners thinking about it, they might have better answers.
As for your p.s.: we're going next week, it should be fun! Thanks again for everyone's advice.
Since Sporting Index opened their Turnout market on the referendum the price has drifted slowly up from (buy) 79 to 80.2.
I still think this is a bit of a snip. It's hard to imagine turnout being much below 80% and 85% or more seems rather more likely.
I was abae to get money on >75.01% at Betfair when it was evens. I've hedged it out by taking 70-75 as well but it was basically a money purchase - the coverage of those two options is still, just, below 100%
I did the same. The price was very generous for a long time.
Most importantly, I believe you & I both have an antepost voucher from 2007 on "Scotland to be independent by 2017". Would anyone care to price this eventuality in the event of a Yes? And has anyone ever won an antepost bet at 50/1 on this site before? ;-)
I'm starting ot feel that 2016 is looking optimistic to have "full" (which I think was the provisio) independence by then. Is it the start or end of 2017 the bet is for?
Not sure how to add a jpeg to my comment so I've temporarily changed my avatar. This is the Swedish Social Democrat, (Mikael Damberg), who will probably take over as education minister after this Sunday's election.
Remind you of anyone?
He must have joined the Witness Protection Programme to escape over there. Sleeper agent on the Left as well, to avoid suspicion.
Most importantly, I believe you & I both have an antepost voucher from 2007 on "Scotland to be independent by 2017". Would anyone care to price this eventuality in the event of a Yes? And has anyone ever won an antepost bet at 50/1 on this site before? ;-)
I'm starting ot feel that 2016 is looking optimistic to have "full" (which I think was the provisio) independence by then. Is it the start or end of 2017 the bet is for?
This is a very good question. The said voucher is in my filing cabinet at home, so I will have to check (unless PtP can advise).
I'd have thought "best done quickly" applies here; I appreciate there is a lot to negotiate and sort but neither side would be well served by delay.
Yes I support there being a control on immigration based on what people can offer the country
I am not a politician or involved in politics at all, so why should I have to answer, or be expected to be able to answer, forensic questions specific to the business of someone I don't know from Adam?
I am guessing that you wanted me to come up with a few ideas so that you could shoot them down with your idea of how they couldn't work based on details about your business that I couldn't possibly know.. but I am not getting drawn into that
I forwarded you the name of UKIPs head of Policy, is it so unreasonable to think he may have a better idea than me?
Anyway, why do you care? Why not just vote for someone else?
So you loudly support a policy you are absolutely clueless about? And they are hardly 'forensic' questions.
An example of the questions such policies throw up : if a company hires a brilliant engineer from (say) India, should (s)he be able to bring in his family of eight with him, even if some of them may become cleaners? Can they come over immediately, or should there be a waiting period? Should they be able to apply for residency after a certain period in the UK?
That is hardly a complex set of questions for you to answer from your own viewpoint, if you do not even know UKIP's position.
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
P.S. Was it last week you and your lady had your big day out in London? Of so can you tell us how it went and what you did?
Basically, some of it went over how our industry has a large skilled staff shortage, and find it hard to recruit. The visa process we have at the moment is time-consuming, expensive, and often we cannot get the staff we require, even when they are excellently qualified.
That is under the current system. UKIPpers generally are all piss and wind when it comes to questions of how the "quantity and quality" of migration will be addressed without adversely affecting industries such as ours.
The answers I got were the same as iSam's below: basically, "I really believe this policy will help, but have absolutely no clue on how it will work or the effects it will have."
If they spent a tenth of the time they spend worrying about Filipino cleaners thinking about it, they might have better answers.
As for your p.s.: we're going next week, it should be fun! Thanks again for everyone's advice.
Good God you are an tiresome bore
The policy will stop areas of the country being flooded with people from poor countries undercutting English people, and stop entire towns changing in a a matter of years to the detriment of the people who lived there previously.
But as I say I don't get why you expect people that are broadly interested in politics to be able to forensically dissect policy specific to the business of strangers.. and that you claim victory and speak of people in derogatory terms for not guessing is just plain weird
Why not find out for yourself and vote accordingly?
Again, for those airily dismissing the economic fall-out from YES.
"Japan’s biggest bank, Nomura, has advised clients to slash financial exposure to the UK and brace for a possible collapse of the pound after polls showed the independence campaign running neck and neck, warning that the separation of England and Scotland after more than 300 years would be a “cataclysmic shock
"“We could see a lot of money being pulled out of UK investments. Sterling could fall at least 15pc in a worst case scenario. These are scary times,” Mr Rochester added."
Imports cost more, exports become cheaper. Balance of payments improves. All at a time when the UK economy is growing faster than virtually all it's competitors. If only the Greeks could be so lucky.
hmmm
maybe not quite.
short term prices soar as it takes time to switch. We only export more if we have the capacity which currently isn't the case.
The latter point's untrue but don't worry about it. I have a different, glass half full, view of the Midlands' economy.
up to you of course, but where do we manufacture consumer electronics, iphones or kitchen hardware. Then add in say oil or bananas. Big chunks of the UK deficit are structural so either we put the structure back in or hope that the other bits we haven't lost can make up the difference.
"Why does it matter who the ultimate owner of Thames Water or Heathrow Airport is, so long as they provide an efficient service?"
Yes, I think it does. The owners of Thames Water is, I think, and Australian company that has been taking dividends out of the Company and back home. AT the same time Thames Water wants to, has to, invest in new infrastructure. The solution? Surcharge the tethered customers, who can't go anywhere else, and carry on exporting dividends (i.e. wealth) to Australia.
Now whatever system that is, it ain't capitalism. The shareholders of the Australian company are not taking a risk with their money, they have simply brought the ability to tax English citizens. In days of yore we had that system, where by a rich person could buy a "Staple" or a monopoly but we got rid of it for good reasons. It should never have been allowed back and should now be abolished.
If Thames Water need to invest N million quid to meet their obligations let them raise the money and make the investment. If they cannot do that and still make a profit then the shareholders loose their shirts and the business comes back into public ownership.
But in any event where do you think money comes from - trees? If the govt run the utilites do you think they would be free? Whoever runs them the money would have to come from somewhere. Charges and borrowing.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Who's saying they 'daren't' set foot in Scotland? It's what they do when they're there. Miliband was in Scotland last week in Labour 'heartlands' pretending to be old Labour and Cameron the week before blathering to the CBI (though even they gave him a hard time on a possible EU referndum).
I can't quote anyone specific but I think that the general SNP line was that English politicians should largely stay away. I suspect that Malc G may have been more explicit. However, either way, I respect their decision to act. It demonstrates a respect, however belated, for both no supporters and those they are trying to convince. It may well not pay off and if so fair enough - the Scots will get what they want and maybe for the RoUK the removal of 5 million or so who say it's 'undemocratic' that they have had to put up with governments they didn't vote for, will prove a good thing.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
Yes I support there being a control on immigration based on what people can offer the country
I am not a politician or involved in politics at all, so why should I have to answer, or be expected to be able to answer, forensic questions specific to the business of someone I don't know from Adam?
I am guessing that you wanted me to come up with a few ideas so that you could shoot them down with your idea of how they couldn't work based on details about your business that I couldn't possibly know.. but I am not getting drawn into that
I forwarded you the name of UKIPs head of Policy, is it so unreasonable to think he may have a better idea than me?
Anyway, why do you care? Why not just vote for someone else?
So you loudly support a policy you are absolutely clueless about? And they are hardly 'forensic' questions.
An example of the questions such policies throw up : if a company hires a brilliant engineer from (say) India, should (s)he be able to bring in his family of eight with him, even if some of them may become cleaners? Can they come over immediately, or should there be a waiting period? Should they be able to apply for residency after a certain period in the UK?
That is hardly a complex set of questions for you to answer from your own viewpoint, if you do not even know UKIP's position.
If you are going to use "(s)he" you probably shouldnt refer to the person as "him"
A wife and six kids, I say ok, (if the kids are under 16) but they cant claim any kind of state benefit
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Who's saying they 'daren't' set foot in Scotland? It's what they do when they're there. Miliband was in Scotland last week in Labour 'heartlands' pretending to be old Labour and Cameron the week before blathering to the CBI (though even they gave him a hard time on a possible EU referndum).
I can't quote anyone specific but I think that the general SNP line was that English politicians should largely stay away. I suspect that Malc G may have been more explicit. However, either way, I respect their decision to act. It demonstrates a respect, however belated, for both no supporters and those they are trying to convince. It may well not pay off and if so fair enough - the Scots will get what they want and maybe for the RoUK the removal of 5 million or so who say it's 'undemocratic' that they have had to put up with governments they didn't vote for, will prove a good thing.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
from total twat to merely twat ? Can't see him rushing for that one.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Who's saying they 'daren't' set foot in Scotland? It's what they do when they're there. Miliband was in Scotland last week in Labour 'heartlands' pretending to be old Labour and Cameron the week before blathering to the CBI (though even they gave him a hard time on a possible EU referndum).
I can't quote anyone specific but I think that the general SNP line was that English politicians should largely stay away. I suspect that Malc G may have been more explicit. However, either way, I respect their decision to act. It demonstrates a respect, however belated, for both no supporters and those they are trying to convince. It may well not pay off and if so fair enough - the Scots will get what they want and maybe for the RoUK the removal of 5 million or so who say it's 'undemocratic' that they have had to put up with governments they didn't vote for, will prove a good thing.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
Let's see - i doubt anyone would hold you to your first sentence. Of course it is so difficult to define 'ordinary' voters but I'd say they would give anyone a fair hearing - it's the zealots on both sides who we so often hear rather than the ordinary Jo's
Yes I support there being a control on immigration based on what people can offer the country
I am not a politician or involved in politics at all, so why should I have to answer, or be expected to be able to answer, forensic questions specific to the business of someone I don't know from Adam?
I am guessing that you wanted me to come up with a few ideas so that you could shoot them down with your idea of how they couldn't work based on details about your business that I couldn't possibly know.. but I am not getting drawn into that
I forwarded you the name of UKIPs head of Policy, is it so unreasonable to think he may have a better idea than me?
Anyway, why do you care? Why not just vote for someone else?
..................An example of the questions such policies throw up : if a company hires a brilliant engineer from (say) India, should (s)he be able to bring in his family of eight with him, even if some of them may become cleaners? Can they come over immediately, or should there be a waiting period? Should they be able to apply for residency after a certain period in the UK?.....
A work permit for each of them should be required. Charge top end folk £10k to £20k pa for the work permits. Charge cleaners £2k to £3k pa. Look at the Cayman Islands way of coping with circa 50% of its workers on permits.
Since Sporting Index opened their Turnout market on the referendum the price has drifted slowly up from (buy) 79 to 80.2.
I still think this is a bit of a snip. It's hard to imagine turnout being much below 80% and 85% or more seems rather more likely.
I was abae to get money on >75.01% at Betfair when it was evens. I've hedged it out by taking 70-75 as well but it was basically a money purchase - the coverage of those two options is still, just, below 100%
Yes, the Betfair market is a safer if less profitable option.
If you have a cash float you can safely invest it in >75% at a 30% return over the next 9 days. You can even add a little cheap insurance by buying 70/75% at 4.9, to soften the blow in case it pees down with rain on voting day.
Anything less than 70% is inconceivable short of a Tsunami washing 30% of eligible voters into the North Sea.
Well, the concern has to be as to what "full turnout" actually would be, given the state of the register. NP has suggested 90-95%, if I recall correctly. I'm not sure whether 1/3 is great value any longer but obviously I'd expect it to win.
I actually got on this at an average of 4.1 but laid it off in pieces all the way down to 1.75 (plenty to other pb'ers, or so I gather). In my defence the polling wasn't nearly as close then!
Most importantly, I believe you & I both have an antepost voucher from 2007 on "Scotland to be independent by 2017". Would anyone care to price this eventuality in the event of a Yes? And has anyone ever won an antepost bet at 50/1 on this site before? ;-)
Seems too high. Some will be ill, incapacitated, indisposed, or unable to find/get to the polling station in time, a few will be too lazy, unbelievably a handful may even just forget to go. Some might walk by, see the queues, and decide they can't be arsed.
Not a large number, admittedly, but I'd have thought 85% as an absolute cap.
Most importantly, I believe you & I both have an antepost voucher from 2007 on "Scotland to be independent by 2017". Would anyone care to price this eventuality in the event of a Yes? And has anyone ever won an antepost bet at 50/1 on this site before? ;-)
I'm starting ot feel that 2016 is looking optimistic to have "full" (which I think was the provisio) independence by then. Is it the start or end of 2017 the bet is for?
This is a very good question. The said voucher is in my filing cabinet at home, so I will have to check (unless PtP can advise).
I'd have thought "best done quickly" applies here; I appreciate there is a lot to negotiate and sort but neither side would be well served by delay.
My voucher says 'End of May 2017'.
A Yes vote would bring about Independence well before this date, probably by March 2016, so no sweat on that point. In fact I should think Hills may well pay out soon after the referendum if it goes that way.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Who's saying they 'daren't' set foot in Scotland? It's what they do when they're there. Miliband was in Scotland last week in Labour 'heartlands' pretending to be old Labour and Cameron the week before blathering to the CBI (though even they gave him a hard time on a possible EU referndum).
I can't quote anyone specific but I think that the general SNP line was that English politicians should largely stay away. I suspect that Malc G may have been more explicit. However, either way, I respect their decision to act. It demonstrates a respect, however belated, for both no supporters and those they are trying to convince. It may well not pay off and if so fair enough - the Scots will get what they want and maybe for the RoUK the removal of 5 million or so who say it's 'undemocratic' that they have had to put up with governments they didn't vote for, will prove a good thing.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
from total twat to merely twat ? Can't see him rushing for that one.
Anyone who feels like having a few bob on the outcome of Sunday's upcoming Swedish election.
3 opinion polls in the last couple of days have shown a massive drop in the Left block, (S+MP+V), lead over the governing right block alliance, (M+FP+KD+C). Down from 11-13.5% a week ago to 4.2/5% today.
I still don't think it's enough to keep them in government but that's a big swing in just a few days.
Stefan Löfven, the leader of the Social Democrats, is seen as a nice guy but very inexperienced. He's made some bad mistakes in televised debates. He probably would prefer to lead a government across the two blocks as opposed to being beholden to the nutjob Left commie party,(V). (Not sure his own supporters are too keen on that idea though.)
As it stands today the Swedish Democrats, (think Ukip but with a lot more unsavoury history), are polling double the difference, (over 10%), between the two blocks. Since no other party will work with them a cross block accommodation seems the likely outcome.
It was 93% at the Quebec referendum. General election turnout there tended to be a bit lower than Scotland, and I can't see any other major relevant differences apart possibly from the state of the Register.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Who's saying they 'daren't' set foot in Scotland? It's what they do when they're there. Miliband was in Scotland last week in Labour 'heartlands' pretending to be old Labour and Cameron the week before blathering to the CBI (though even they gave him a hard time on a possible EU referndum).
nments they didn't vote for, will prove a good thing.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
Let's see - i doubt anyone would hold you to your first sentence. Of course it is so difficult to define 'ordinary' voters but I'd say they would give anyone a fair hearing - it's the zealots on both sides who we so often hear rather than the ordinary Jo's
It would also have been impossible to go on with PMQs as a third of the country threatens to break away. It would look crazily parochial, and blinkered, and bad for NO - the two party leaders bickering in London as Britain is about to dissolve. Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland.
So PMQs had to be cancelled anyway (I wonder if they will also cancel next week?).
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
If nothing else, at least having the three leaders in Scotland trying to save the "Union", might save us from waiting till their conference speeches? They will have to try to sell a vision of a "future" UK rather than the present one?
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
Hilarious.
I disagree - it's the perfect response to those who say they daren't set foot in Scotland and if the eventual vote is secession then fair enough - they tried. Under those circumstances Yes would be the right result for all of us. Far from being funny it increases my respect for all three of them.
Who's saying they 'daren't' set foot in Scotland? It's what they do when they're there. Miliband was in Scotland last week in Labour 'heartlands' pretending to be old Labour and Cameron the week before blathering to the CBI (though even they gave him a hard time on a possible EU referndum).
I can't quote anyone specific but I think that the general SNP line was that English politicians should largely stay away. I suspect that Malc G may have been more explicit. However, either way, I respect their decision to act. It demonstrates a respect, however belated, for both no supporters and those they are trying to convince. It may well not pay off and if so fair enough - the Scots will get what they want and maybe for the RoUK the removal of 5 million or so who say it's 'undemocratic' that they have had to put up with governments they didn't vote for, will prove a good thing.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
from total twat to merely twat ? Can't see him rushing for that one.
108 useless tossers agreeing nothing except they are the victim.
knee cap the bastards.
Hand it all over to the South.
why do you want to sink the South ?
the Irish aren't as stupid as you think.
One of the ironies of the Troubles was that our friends across the pond got it 100% wrong-
They thought Eire wanted the north (wouldn't touch it with a barge pole), the North wanted to join them and only the British (Who'd dump the North in a heartbeat) were standing in the way.....
Comments
knee cap the bastards.
the Irish aren't as stupid as you think.
Regarding the last minute Devolution proposal... If the Scots really want DevoMax then vote Yes and negotiate from that position of strength.... Can foresee the circumstances in which a Yes vote leads to a Federal structure with a very thin Federal layer, outside of the EU with Ireland seeking to join in the next five years...
Minus immigrants, Clacton's GP queue would fall to 7,900, and the number of GPs would fall to 0. Vote UKIP!
It's from the comments under the blog. Ole Dougie was apparently on Channel 4 and mentioned a Romanian GP in his constitchency. One presumes that this mention was to enthusiastically endorse some Romanians.
The trouble with this argument / protestation, if that's what he said, is that the NHS relies on EU and non-EU nationals for its manpower. This is not just in skilled roles, but also in those others for which no skill is required, a la Starbucks. At some point, UKIP is going to have to explain who will do these jobs when the drawbridge comes up, given that Britons could do them now but won't and UKIP's points wheeze will exclude low skill immigrants who will do them.
I shudder at the prospect of a British cleaner...
David Cameron and Ed Miliband have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time clash in the Commons to travel to Scotland tomorrow.
It's over...
So what? No one at UKIP is saying skilled immigrants that we need aren't welcome wherever they are from.
No it wouldnt
Re share ownership: actually, we're all massively more bought into shares than we were in 1979. In 1979, people genuinely thought that SERPS was going to pay their pensions, now they know better. The difference is that share ownership today is more likely to be through funds (particularly index ones) or through pensions.
Well done.
I can see absolutely why Labour abhor the idea. I can see absolutely why Farage pushes for a FUK. But why - really why - is there radio silence from the Tories? I don't get it.
I still think this is a bit of a snip. It's hard to imagine turnout being much below 80% and 85% or more seems rather more likely.
"Who the hell thinks this is a good idea?"
Wee Eck?
That's why national infrastructure counts.
Only time they went against that was when they allowed Heath to sign us up to the EU, but they have faught a terrible battle about that ever since.
"That's why national infrastructure counts"
Couldn't agree more. Though we will eviscerate each other over how it should be done. :-)
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
Imports cost more, exports become cheaper. Balance of payments improves. All at a time when the UK economy is growing faster than virtually all it's competitors. If only the Greeks could be so lucky.
Yes, I think it does. The owners of Thames Water is, I think, and Australian company that has been taking dividends out of the Company and back home. AT the same time Thames Water wants to, has to, invest in new infrastructure. The solution? Surcharge the tethered customers, who can't go anywhere else, and carry on exporting dividends (i.e. wealth) to Australia.
Now whatever system that is, it ain't capitalism. The shareholders of the Australian company are not taking a risk with their money, they have simply brought the ability to tax English citizens. In days of yore we had that system, where by a rich person could buy a "Staple" or a monopoly but we got rid of it for good reasons. It should never have been allowed back and should now be abolished.
If Thames Water need to invest N million quid to meet their obligations let them raise the money and make the investment. If they cannot do that and still make a profit then the shareholders loose their shirts and the business comes back into public ownership.
Yes, the Betfair market is a safer if less profitable option.
If you have a cash float you can safely invest it in >75% at a 30% return over the next 9 days. You can even add a little cheap insurance by buying 70/75% at 4.9, to soften the blow in case it pees down with rain on voting day.
Anything less than 70% is inconceivable short of a Tsunami washing 30% of eligible voters into the North Sea.
maybe not quite.
short term prices soar as it takes time to switch. We only export more if we have the capacity which currently isn't the case.
First mistake Cameron has made on this unless he can keep his distance. Really business as usual was the better option.
You should get in touch with @timaker on twitter maybe instead of using this useless argument
P.S. Was it last week you and your lady had your big day out in London? Of so can you tell us how it went and what you did?
It's where the "free market" fails to deliver because it's interests are not the customers, but the shareholders.
Where the "market" works, needs to be separated from where it doesn't.
Heresy to many on PB, but perfectly rational to almost everyone else.
It seems you have absolutely no clue.
I am not a politician or involved in politics at all, so why should I have to answer, or be expected to be able to answer, forensic questions specific to the business of someone I don't know from Adam?
I am guessing that you wanted me to come up with a few ideas so that you could shoot them down with your idea of how they couldn't work based on details about your business that I couldn't possibly know.. but I am not getting drawn into that
I forwarded you the name of UKIPs head of Policy, is it so unreasonable to think he may have a better idea than me?
Anyway, why do you care? Why not just vote for someone else?
Remind you of anyone?
I actually got on this at an average of 4.1 but laid it off in pieces all the way down to 1.75 (plenty to other pb'ers, or so I gather). In my defence the polling wasn't nearly as close then!
Most importantly, I believe you & I both have an antepost voucher from 2007 on "Scotland to be independent by 2017". Would anyone care to price this eventuality in the event of a Yes? And has anyone ever won an antepost bet at 50/1 on this site before? ;-)
I kind of thought that at the time they were getting sold off, but that was heresy in the brave new world of Mrs. Thatcher and Hayek.
She was smart enough to see where things needed sorted, unfortunately she applied the wrong "fix" in a few places.
In a letter to The Telegraph, they warn that the debate over the UK’s membership of the EU “has been characterised by half-truths and outright fabrications”.
In the letter, organised by the Business for Britain campaign group, the experts write that they want a new relationship between Britain and the European Union and support an in-out referendum........
Signatories include Dr Ruth Lea, the chairman of Economists for Britain, and John Mills, chairman of JML and a key Labour Party donor.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11083426/No-need-for-Britain-to-fear-leaving-EU-say-economists.html
That is under the current system. UKIPpers generally are all piss and wind when it comes to questions of how the "quantity and quality" of migration will be addressed without adversely affecting industries such as ours.
The answers I got were the same as iSam's below: basically, "I really believe this policy will help, but have absolutely no clue on how it will work or the effects it will have."
If they spent a tenth of the time they spend worrying about Filipino cleaners thinking about it, they might have better answers.
As for your p.s.: we're going next week, it should be fun! Thanks again for everyone's advice.
Not sure when the embargo is lifted.
I'd have thought "best done quickly" applies here; I appreciate there is a lot to negotiate and sort but neither side would be well served by delay.
An example of the questions such policies throw up : if a company hires a brilliant engineer from (say) India, should (s)he be able to bring in his family of eight with him, even if some of them may become cleaners? Can they come over immediately, or should there be a waiting period? Should they be able to apply for residency after a certain period in the UK?
That is hardly a complex set of questions for you to answer from your own viewpoint, if you do not even know UKIP's position.
The policy will stop areas of the country being flooded with people from poor countries undercutting English people, and stop entire towns changing in a a matter of years to the detriment of the people who lived there previously.
But as I say I don't get why you expect people that are broadly interested in politics to be able to forensically dissect policy specific to the business of strangers.. and that you claim victory and speak of people in derogatory terms for not guessing is just plain weird
Why not find out for yourself and vote accordingly?
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/consumerissues/watercompanies/profits/
But in any event where do you think money comes from - trees?
If the govt run the utilites do you think they would be free? Whoever runs them the money would have to come from somewhere. Charges and borrowing.
A wife and six kids, I say ok, (if the kids are under 16) but they cant claim any kind of state benefit
Residency... yes after 5-6 years I guess
John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Not a large number, admittedly, but I'd have thought 85% as an absolute cap.
A Yes vote would bring about Independence well before this date, probably by March 2016, so no sweat on that point. In fact I should think Hills may well pay out soon after the referendum if it goes that way.
@faisalislam: Mark Carney: in context of currency union refusal "a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty"
@PickardJE: Big news from Mark Carney Q&A in Liverpool: "A currency union is incompatible with Scotland."
3 opinion polls in the last couple of days have shown a massive drop in the Left block, (S+MP+V), lead over the governing right block alliance, (M+FP+KD+C). Down from 11-13.5% a week ago to 4.2/5% today.
I still don't think it's enough to keep them in government but that's a big swing in just a few days.
Stefan Löfven, the leader of the Social Democrats, is seen as a nice guy but very inexperienced. He's made some bad mistakes in televised debates. He probably would prefer to lead a government across the two blocks as opposed to being beholden to the nutjob Left commie party,(V). (Not sure his own supporters are too keen on that idea though.)
As it stands today the Swedish Democrats, (think Ukip but with a lot more unsavoury history), are polling double the difference, (over 10%), between the two blocks. Since no other party will work with them a cross block accommodation seems the likely outcome.
http://order-order.com/2014/09/09/beyond-saltire
It was 93% at the Quebec referendum. General election turnout there tended to be a bit lower than Scotland, and I can't see any other major relevant differences apart possibly from the state of the Register.
They will have to try to sell a vision of a "future" UK rather than the present one?
They thought Eire wanted the north (wouldn't touch it with a barge pole), the North wanted to join them and only the British (Who'd dump the North in a heartbeat) were standing in the way.....