Maybe it's my relative distance from politics recently, but I really cannot understand the fuss about this on here. If one had a specific bet on TO, fair enough - but otherwise, nope.
As you say, at least the Tories are trying to get the public engaged [cynically or otherwise] in choosing a candidate to represent them.
"The UK has been doing better since 1997 than we thought and that's resulted in this extra payment. The Netherlands will pay more, while France and Germany get a rebate." Sarah Hewin of Standard Chartered on 5 live says the payment has to be made in the next few months. That could mean more borrowing, she says.
Perhaps it is a time for Cameron to just say No. If he doesn't then he might as well disband the Tories now, let UKIP walk over them in R & S. With friends like this in the EU telling the UK to hand over move money cos the economy has done so well since 1997, who needs enemies. It looks like a scam, smells like a scam, and if a single extra £1 or €1 is handed over it just confirms that Cameron is like the jellyfish, spineless and floating on the tide.
On the one hand, it's not unreasonable that the richest, best-performing countries should contribute most, nor that from time to time, payments should be re-assessed to account for performance since the last assessment. On the other, this is a singularly poor time to be doing so, unless tied to institutional reform driven by those whose pockets are being tapped.
Care to tell us what the point of austerity is then?
To eradicate the structural deficit and place the government's books on a sustainable footing.
Then give away £1.5bn because we have done better than others, through which the public have suffered only to see the money saved given away to France among others?
I don't care about the niceties of this, try selling it to the WWC, the eurosceptics and all those who were thinking of voting UKIP.
It's an absolute disaster for the Europhiles, try as they might any spinning will not work.
And it's also a disaster for Dave whether he coughs or not, the mere fact they have asked for it is enough for UKIP and their supporters.
How does bigjohn and his NHS obsessed buddies feel about this, knowing they have gone through a wage freeze only for the money saved to be given away to the feckless?
How about all those struggling families who have had child benefit frozen?
It is a disaster for europhiles regardless of how you look at it.
Isabel Hardman also said that the winner won by just 50 votes. Using that information and the percentages we can deduce the actual number of votes for each candidate.
Winning margin = 50 votes = 0.88% Therefore, total number of valid ballots cast = ( 100/0.88 ) * 50 = 5682 Number of votes for Tolhurst = .5044 * 5682 = 2866 Number of votes for Firth = .4956 * 5682 = 2816
This would imply only 6 spoilt ballots, but because the reported percentages are only to two decimal places you can distribute these remaining six ballots evenly to each candidate and the percentages remain the same.
I expect that the figure of 4,000 was either a desperate attempt at expectations management, or it was from someone who only had a quick look at the figures and just added together two lots of "two thousand and something" to get "four thousand and something" ~ "four thousand".
Good work - who wants the first slice of humble pie ?
Doesn't look good but at the end of the day it's 4000 or 5000 more people than decided the other party candidates.
Meanwhile, YouGov numbers continue to be bad for Labour.
Con & Lab tied at 34% in the voting intention.
Here are some statements that different people make about different political parties. In each case, which party do you think it applies to most - the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats?
I am beginning to think that there has to be a real chance that Ed Miliband will achieve what Michael Foot couldn't quite pull off in 1983 and bring his Party in third in the popular vote.
And remember Foot only beat Healey on the votes on MPs who had already decided to leave the Party.
I think there's a realistic chance Miliband polls worse nationally next year than Brown did in GE2010.
If this and Innocent_Abroad's comments are true then we should be betting hard and deep on a Conservative win.
Unless there has been a paradigm shift in 4 years, which I don't believe, the centre is where power is won and Miliband and Farage may be doing the perfect job of letting Cameron through the middle where roughly 40% of votes are to be found.
Sorry Audrey but that's simplistic.
The Liberals / Lib Dems have been the 'centre' party for over a hundred years but haven't won a general election since 1910. .
Sorry David but that's simplistic.
I would never describe LibDems as a centre party. With the unproven exception of the coalition government they have often, and normally, had far more radical policies than either the two main parties. If you've attended or listened to their conferences you would know what I mean, with a raft of speeches, statements and policies passed which would fair take away the breath of Labour and Conservative.
By the way, the Social Democrats prove my point. They formed in reaction to Labour's lurch leftward and the response to that was what? Labour moved to the centre under Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair. And that's where they won back power.
Centre = power. Thatcher got it. Major got it. Blair got it. Brown got it. Cameron has got it.
Gee! I never knew that Gordon Brown ever won a General Election.
More tedious europhobe frothing over something the EU has to do per the Treaties Britain freely signed up to.
Yeah - €2.8billion less to pay for public services , etc in the UK so France can be bailed out. Pure froth. You reckon that will be the Labour line on this?
A lot of this is due to Britain latterly adopting the standards which led to the upward revision of its GNI - it's effectively been underpaying for years. Admittedly the politics though are hideous.
Re comment on public services, I don't regard national finances like household finances. Both can be paid for.
Someone somewhere said do a helicopter drop of the cash on Brussels to show them what real currency looks like - seems about right!
Care to tell us what the point of austerity is then?
To eradicate the structural deficit and place the government's books on a sustainable footing.
and protect the value of pensions & the NHS. You know that full well, David.
(snip) Personally, I'm a Keynesian, and think all this austerity was an economic mistake, given the UK has its own currency and could borrow money at record low rates from rich people desperate to keep away from the EU states. We should have built up more debt pump priming investment in long-term infrastructure and innovation. But, I accept that politically that argument was lost and we need to move on.
As Richard Nixon once said we are all Keynsians now. If the government did not subscribe to Keynsian economics we wouldn't be running a deficit of £100bn a year. Everyone, bar a few radicals, accepts that the government needs to keep spending in a recession to maintain demand and employment and should not reduce its spending simply because its tax revenues have temporarily fallen.
What you are talking about is something extra. And if we had been running a surplus of, say, 2% of GDP in the years to 2007 there would indeed be an opportunity to borrow more on the cheap and build infrastructure in the downturn creating demand and employment. Unfortunately, we did not enter the downturn with a 2% surplus, we entered it with a 3.2% deficit because the man in charge of our finances for the previous decade was a dangerous idiot.
This limits our room for manoeuvre. There is compelling evidence that debt levels in excess of 100% of GDP are detrimental to growth. We are going to get dangerously close to this. The urgent need to redress the structural deficit caused by the idiot meant there was not the flexibility there should have been to take temporary steps to boost demand. The government went into the recession with its hands tied and its money spent. Osborne has, quite bravely, slowed the rate at which the structural deficit is addressed to give some support to demand. This prevented a double dip and has allowed the economy to recover but the price is a persistent deficit that now must be addressed.
Surely the political statement of the week or even the year was yesterday by Len McCluskey who said that Ed Miliband could be "run over by a bus" and it would not make any difference to the future of his party.
Have not seen this picked up by the cartoonists, but it is akin to the banana moment that his brother had and could never shake off.
Sorry if this has been covered but the Electoral Reform Society ran the previous 2 Tory primaries but did not run this one, anyone know who did? I think Mike's explanation is most likely the correct one and almost a couple of thousand papers were returned spoilt (i.e. with things like "Vote UKIP" on). Explains why figures aren't being produced
Surely the political statement of the week or even the year was yesterday by Len McCluskey who said that Ed Miliband could be "run over by a bus" and it would not make any difference to the future of his party.
Have not seen this picked up by the cartoonists, but it is akin to the banana moment that his brother had and could never shake off.
Even more damningly he said "I don't really know him well enough to say that I like him.", this from the man that said in June "Unite stands behind Labour and Ed Miliband" and was instrumental in him getting his current job.
"The UK has been doing better since 1997 than we thought and that's resulted in this extra payment. The Netherlands will pay more, while France and Germany get a rebate." Sarah Hewin of Standard Chartered on 5 live says the payment has to be made in the next few months. That could mean more borrowing, she says.
Perhaps it is a time for Cameron to just say No. If he doesn't then he might as well disband the Tories now, let UKIP walk over them in R & S. With friends like this in the EU telling the UK to hand over move money cos the economy has done so well since 1997, who needs enemies. It looks like a scam, smells like a scam, and if a single extra £1 or €1 is handed over it just confirms that Cameron is like the jellyfish, spineless and floating on the tide.
On the one hand, it's not unreasonable that the richest, best-performing countries should contribute most, nor that from time to time, payments should be re-assessed to account for performance since the last assessment. On the other, this is a singularly poor time to be doing so, unless tied to institutional reform driven by those whose pockets are being tapped.
Care to tell us what the point of austerity is then?
To eradicate the structural deficit and place the government's books on a sustainable footing.
Then give away £1.5bn because we have done better than others, through which the public have suffered only to see the money saved given away to France among others?
I don't care about the niceties of this, try selling it to the WWC, the eurosceptics and all those who were thinking of voting UKIP.
It's an absolute disaster for the Europhiles, try as they might any spinning will not work.
And it's also a disaster for Dave whether he coughs or not, the mere fact they have asked for it is enough for UKIP and their supporters.
How does bigjohn and his NHS obsessed buddies feel about this, knowing they have gone through a wage freeze only for the money saved to be given away to the feckless?
How about all those struggling families who have had child benefit frozen?
It is a disaster for europhiles regardless of how you look at it.
More tedious europhobe frothing over something the EU has to do per the Treaties Britain freely signed up to.
Well, it's the first that this Briton heard about it. I want to know which British politician agreed to apply new budget contribution rules retrospectively for two decades - because whoever it was is a complete moron.
Is this another Lisbon Treaty change?
Was it agreed by EU finance ministers - Osborne, Darling or Brown as the British representative?
More tedious europhobe frothing over something the EU has to do per the Treaties Britain freely signed up to.
Yeah - €2.8billion less to pay for public services , etc in the UK so France can be bailed out. Pure froth. You reckon that will be the Labour line on this?
A lot of this is due to Britain latterly adopting the standards which led to the upward revision of its GNI - it's effectively been underpaying for years. Admittedly the politics though are hideous.
Underpaying because there was extra activity that we can't tax? Genius.
I wonder to what degree Labour worry about being a little sidelined in these developments? If Europe dominates the GE campaign (and although it doesn't seem to be the public's main interest that could change) then I don't see quite how Labour are going to get themselves into the thick of it. Quite an interesting puzzle for them.
From the BBC article on that EU cash demand it seems France and Germany are getting rebates while the UK, Netherlands and, er, Greece and Italy are being asked to pay more!
Thank you AF and agree with your conclusions, especially as the polls show that most of the Green support comes for the 18-24s and the LDs. Perhaps the LDs and the Greens should amalgamate.
•Change in gross domestic product (GDP) is the main indicator of economic growth. GDP increased by 0.7% in Q3 2014 compared with growth of 0.9% in Q2 2014. •Output increased in all four main industrial groupings within the economy in Q3 2014. In order of their contribution, output increased by 0.7% in services, 0.5% in production, 0.8% in construction and 0.3% in agriculture. •GDP was 3.0% higher in Q3 2014 compared with the same quarter a year ago. •In Q3 2014 GDP was estimated to have been 3.4% higher than the pre-economic downturn peak of Q1 2008. From the peak in Q1 2008 to the trough in Q2 2009, the economy shrank by 6.0%.
1) I expect the original leaked figures are about right. Not good for the Conservatives at all.
2) The idea that there's a vast conspiracy of the parties left of UKIP to conceal and accommodate industrial scale child abuse by members of a particular ethnic minority is... curious
3) The EU cash demand is a) a signal that the EU Commission doesn't care if Britain leaves b) a signal that the EU Commission reckons it can do better in 2015 without David Cameron or c) something that the British government is either conniving with or confecting in order to give David Cameron a chance to channel a nation's outrage against the EU. Since a) would be a bizarre misjudgement and b) is a high risk strategy indeed, I'm going with c).
I can't see it being c): other countries (e.g. Netherlands, Italy and even poor Greece) have to pay. It's too big an event.
And the timing's right out as well. If the payment had to come before the by-election, you might have a point. But Cameron saying he'd veto the payment before the by-election won't be believed by the people the Conservatives need to convince.
The timing's all wrong for the government, and it involves too many other countries.
There is an option d): the EU is following its due process and timescales, and are not allowing political considerations to intrude. If (and it is a big if) this is right, then they're doing the right thing. I'd be the first to criticise them if they were trying to alter process to hide, delay of obfuscate these recalculations for political reasons.
More tedious europhobe frothing over something the EU has to do per the Treaties Britain freely signed up to.
Erm...that would be ' treaties that Labour politicians signed us up to without a referendum'. The British people haven't had any say on anything European since 1973.
The referendum was 1975.
Never forget that it was Tory governments that signed the UK into the most wide ranging and integrationist Treaties (Treaty of Rome, Single European Act and Maastricht).
And then people read the high handed tone from the EUarchy on the subject:
A senior EU source told the Telegraph that the scope for a legal challenge was non-existent. “This at the commission’s discretion. It is automatic, there is nothing Britain can do about it,” said the official
Basically, "get stuffed, you have to to pay, and there's nothing you can do about it"
There are definitely grounds for some small amounts of postal voting.
Far more important elements of electoral reform are proxy voting and foreigners' voting. It's outrageous thousands of Pakistanis and Nigerians get to vote in our elections.
There are definitely grounds for some small amounts of postal voting.
Far more important elements of electoral reform are proxy voting and foreigners' voting. It's outrageous thousands of Pakistanis and Nigerians get to vote in our elections.
1) I expect the original leaked figures are about right. Not good for the Conservatives at all.
2) The idea that there's a vast conspiracy of the parties left of UKIP to conceal and accommodate industrial scale child abuse by members of a particular ethnic minority is... curious
3) The EU cash demand is a) a signal that the EU Commission doesn't care if Britain leaves b) a signal that the EU Commission reckons it can do better in 2015 without David Cameron or c) something that the British government is either conniving with or confecting in order to give David Cameron a chance to channel a nation's outrage against the EU. Since a) would be a bizarre misjudgement and b) is a high risk strategy indeed, I'm going with c).
I can't see it being c): other countries (e.g. Netherlands, Italy and even poor Greece) have to pay. It's too big an event.
And the timing's right out as well. If the payment had to come before the by-election, you might have a point. But Cameron saying he'd veto the payment before the by-election won't be believed by the people the Conservatives need to convince.
The timing's all wrong for the government, and it involves too many other countries.
There is an option d): the EU is following its due process and timescales, and are not allowing political considerations to intrude. If (and it is a big if) this is right, then they're doing the right thing. I'd be the first to criticise them if they were trying to alter process to hide, delay of obfuscate these recalculations for political reasons.
Well, yes. I was specifically asking for information. In particular, two questions:
1) Has this revaluation occurred in the past; if so, how often, and what are the details. 2) Have we had a cut in payments in the past, based on our economy underperforming?
These seem particularly pertinent, to me at least. It'd be good to get the answers.
I do not know for certain of course but I would suspect that the answer to both your questions is no because it is based on a change in the way Eurostat calculate GNI which has then been backdated 20 years.
The more I think about it, the more the EU is like a protection racket.
- They constantly change the terms on your business arrangement - They tell you how you can and can't operate your own business - Money frequently goes missing on their side of the contract - They threaten "consequences" if you dare to leave the arrangement - They shake you down for more money if it looks like you're doing a bit better
•Change in gross domestic product (GDP) is the main indicator of economic growth. GDP increased by 0.7% in Q3 2014 compared with growth of 0.9% in Q2 2014. •Output increased in all four main industrial groupings within the economy in Q3 2014. In order of their contribution, output increased by 0.7% in services, 0.5% in production, 0.8% in construction and 0.3% in agriculture. •GDP was 3.0% higher in Q3 2014 compared with the same quarter a year ago. •In Q3 2014 GDP was estimated to have been 3.4% higher than the pre-economic downturn peak of Q1 2008. From the peak in Q1 2008 to the trough in Q2 2009, the economy shrank by 6.0%.
I miss Avery and his yellow boxes.
I also promise not to tell the EU if you don't.
Off-topic:
Perhaps this is an over-simplification and will show a heinous lack of knowledge of GDP figures, but surely agricultural output should be measured year-on-year rather than quarter-on-quarter? I'd expect agricultural output to be much higher in Q3 (summer/autumn) than in Q1 (winter/spring).
Or does the agricultural figures count for more than just base agriculture?
Well, yes. I was specifically asking for information. In particular, two questions:
1) Has this revaluation occurred in the past; if so, how often, and what are the details. 2) Have we had a cut in payments in the past, based on our economy underperforming?
These seem particularly pertinent, to me at least. It'd be good to get the answers.
I do not know for certain of course but I would suspect that the answer to both your questions is no because it is based on a change in the way Eurostat calculate GNI which has then been backdated 20 years.
LBC @LBC 7m7 minutes ago Farage: I want the entire postal voting system scrapped. http://l-bc.co/farage #PhoneFarage
So members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving this country overseas cannot vote?
Farage is such a jerk. The beauty is that it will be his undoing when the media flick the spotlight switches.
Another load of tory bullsh*t from the dip @audreyanne. Farage made no mention of the Army which comes under separate and special regulation. Don't make yourself more of a fool than you are.
The idea that the EU has chosen now to demand £500m from Holland and money from bankrupt Greece because we have a by election in Rochester and Strood is...bizarre.
As Ben has correctly pointed out we are one of the late adopters (as usual) of the agreed EU standards which other countries have been using for some time. The consequence is that we have indeed been underpaying for a number of years on a like for like basis and, in accordance with the rules of the club, we are due further subscriptions.
There is a perfectly legitimate point to be made as to whether or not the increase in subscriptions makes continued membership worthwhile but the idea that this is some sort of virility test for Cameron is absurd. If we want to blame anyone we could blame Blair for giving away some of the UK rebate for nothing much but blaming him for changed statistics a decade later would seem a bit far, even for me.
More tedious europhobe frothing over something the EU has to do per the Treaties Britain freely signed up to.
[snip] Is this another Lisbon Treaty change?
Was it agreed by EU finance ministers - Osborne, Darling or Brown as the British representative?
Indeed – Does the EU now have arbitrary powers to increase contributions at will, another bit of small print tucked away in a long forgotten treaty, or a recent deal done behind locked doors?
Yet again, as with all things EU, there are so many unanswered questions from the BBC report.
David Cameron has been accused of zig-zagging, writes YouGov's Stephan Shakespeare. But has it helped him or hurt him? Exclusively for Red Box, we asked whether his position has moved towards their own views, or away. 15 per cent say "towards", while 28 per cent say "away", so that sounds like a net loss.
But when you look at the breaks, you see that only 1 per cent of the sample who already supported the Conservatives say "away", while 4 per cent of those who supported opponents say "towards" (mainly Ukip, but also from Labour). So of the opinions that matter to him, he's a net gainer.
We also asked whether his political position had moved towards the left or right. Here the picture is simpler: by 33 per cent to 3 per cent, he's seen as moving to the right (43 per cent say he's stayed much the same).
YouGov polled 2,052 adults and the results were weighted. YouGov
The more I think about it, the more the EU is like a protection racket.
- They constantly change the terms on your business arrangement - They tell you how you can and can't operate your own business - Money frequently goes missing on their side of the contract - They threaten "consequences" if you dare to leave the arrangement - They shake you down for more money if it looks like you're doing a bit better
There is an option d): the EU is following its due process and timescales, and are not allowing political considerations to intrude. If (and it is a big if) this is right, then they're doing the right thing. I'd be the first to criticise them if they were trying to alter process to hide, delay of obfuscate these recalculations for political reasons.
So the question that needs answering is which idiot signed us up to applying these new rules to twenty year old budget payments?
It's a disaster for the EU's image, trying to "correct" budget payments made in 1995. I'm so angry that people have been so stupid. It's almost like they want the EU to fail.
•Change in gross domestic product (GDP) is the main indicator of economic growth. GDP increased by 0.7% in Q3 2014 compared with growth of 0.9% in Q2 2014. •Output increased in all four main industrial groupings within the economy in Q3 2014. In order of their contribution, output increased by 0.7% in services, 0.5% in production, 0.8% in construction and 0.3% in agriculture. •GDP was 3.0% higher in Q3 2014 compared with the same quarter a year ago. •In Q3 2014 GDP was estimated to have been 3.4% higher than the pre-economic downturn peak of Q1 2008. From the peak in Q1 2008 to the trough in Q2 2009, the economy shrank by 6.0%.
I miss Avery and his yellow boxes.
I also promise not to tell the EU if you don't.
Off-topic:
Perhaps this is an over-simplification and will show a heinous lack of knowledge of GDP figures, but surely agricultural output should be measured year-on-year rather than quarter-on-quarter? I'd expect agricultural output to be much higher in Q3 (summer/autumn) than in Q1 (winter/spring).
Or does the agricultural figures count for more than just base agriculture?
To be honest I have no idea but presumably the figures are seasonally adjusted. It is a tiny proportion of our GDP these days.
Off topic, but can I take this opportunity to thank Nick Palmer for leaving some detailed comments on my latest blog piece on tribalism in British politics. I really appreciate it and have replied in the comments myself. I don't get around to writing as often as I would like, but if anyone else wants to read please just visit: http://thesceptredisle.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/reflections-on-tribalism-in-british-politics/
So thanks to George Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the economy our contributions to the EU have increased.
I can live with that.
Given that the recalculated contributions cover the period from 1995, and involve the inclusion of figures on illegal activity, then I don't think Osborne can, or would want to, claim the "credit" for this.
We've already paid past contributions on the basis of our growth as recorded by the figures excluding illegal activity - so Osborne could only claim the credit if it was because prostitution and drug-dealing had boomed since 2010.
There is an option d): the EU is following its due process and timescales, and are not allowing political considerations to intrude. If (and it is a big if) this is right, then they're doing the right thing. I'd be the first to criticise them if they were trying to alter process to hide, delay of obfuscate these recalculations for political reasons.
So the question that needs answering is which idiot signed us up to applying these new rules to twenty year old budget payments?
It's a disaster for the EU's image, trying to "correct" budget payments made in 1995. I'm so angry that people have been so stupid. It's almost like they want the EU to fail.
Remember the EU budget was cut - perhaps they see this as a way to get their hands on they cash.
The more I think about it, the more the EU is like a protection racket.
- They constantly change the terms on your business arrangement - They tell you how you can and can't operate your own business - Money frequently goes missing on their side of the contract - They threaten "consequences" if you dare to leave the arrangement - They shake you down for more money if it looks like you're doing a bit better
More witless frothing.
- The terms haven't changed. The numbers we've reported have changed. - The UK signs up freely to the rules of the club and agrees to most of the new rules issued thereafter. - EU accounts are audited and signed off. Comments on EU expenditure are not about lost money but more about incorrect paperwork and process. - Let everyone get away with breaking the rules of the club (you signed up to freely) and you get anarchy. - See point 2.
In its own way, it's quite impressive to make annualised growth of roughly 3% sound alarmingly weak. By way of contrast, this was the FT's Chris Giles's take:
With just 195 days to go before the General Election, Stephen Fisher's latest weekly projection shows the Tories edging back into a tiny lead over Labour. Based on average polling figures of Con 32%, Lab 34%, LD 8%, Others 26%, his figures for GE seats (compared with last week's) are as follows:
On topic, yes, the full figures should be released. However, as Richard N has already said, we don't have any good yardstick to judge what's a good / poor / outstanding turnout, and there were sound reasons to expect a lower response rate on this occasion.
I am interested because I am interested in trying to predict the Tory percentage from the primary returns... The difference in figures is annoying
As for the Tory spinning on here, this by election has been billed as make or break and the Tories have spent a lot of money bombarding people with literature. We have heard how angry people are at reckless and how this has fired them up to vote against him... So there should be a decent return
Unless they aren't fired up and Ukip will walk it...
I have adjusted for turnout in my calculations and 4000 is horrific beyond belief, while 5688 is just plain awful shadsy has the turnout line at 50% if you think these primary returns are anything better than I am saying, under 50% at 5/6 is one of the all time great bets ... Get on!!!
There are definitely grounds for some small amounts of postal voting.
Far more important elements of electoral reform are proxy voting and foreigners' voting. It's outrageous thousands of Pakistanis and Nigerians get to vote in our elections.
It is simply bizarre foreigners can vote in our elections. The Empire was consigned to history a long time ago, as should this be.
"Far more important elements of electoral reform are proxy voting and foreigners' voting. It's outrageous thousands of Pakistanis and Nigerians get to vote in our elections."
I hear the flapping of white coats again.
Nurse........
Flapping of white hoods I think you meant..
Opposing an nonreciprocal arrangement where voters from those nations get to vote in our elections and we don't get to vote in there's is now akin to being in the KKK?
You were clearly starved of oxygen at birth. The resort to ridiculous allegations of racism is a tactic only done by the truly thick.
Mr. Eagles, you sound like a Roman senator praising the emperor for the city's wealth attracting so many barbarians, who are sure to secure our northern borders against more serious enemies.
LBC @LBC 7m7 minutes ago Farage: I want the entire postal voting system scrapped. http://l-bc.co/farage #PhoneFarage
So members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving this country overseas cannot vote?
Farage is such a jerk. The beauty is that it will be his undoing when the media flick the spotlight switches.
Another load of tory bullsh*t from the dip @audreyanne. Farage made no mention of the Army which comes under separate and special regulation. Don't make yourself more of a fool than you are.
I usually find those ready to dish out words like 'fool' are those for whom the term most applies, and in this case I'm pleased to say I am not disappointed.
Farage, according to the tweet, said the whole postal voting should be scrapped. It's an example of spouting without thought. The Armed Forces would, you rightly say, be an exception. But that begs the question of where the exceptions start and stop. So he would permit the Armed Forces to continue to vote by post? And those medics working in Ebola hit areas … would they not be allowed to vote? Perhaps they would be included as an exception. But not those on holiday? Or airline pilots and cabin crew? Those who are on a long shift that day? Long distance lorry, train and coach drivers?
Farage and you by proxy (ha) are therefore the fools. Or perhaps he should just say what he clearly means: nig-nogs shouldn't be allowed to vote (by post, although he probably thinks at all).
p.s. Incidentally, I know that defence cuts may be on the agenda but i didn't think Her Majesty's Armed Forces would be reduced solely to 'the Army.'
The more I think about it, the more the EU is like a protection racket.
- They constantly change the terms on your business arrangement - They tell you how you can and can't operate your own business - Money frequently goes missing on their side of the contract - They threaten "consequences" if you dare to leave the arrangement - They shake you down for more money if it looks like you're doing a bit better
More witless frothing.
- The terms haven't changed. The numbers we've reported have changed. - The UK signs up freely to the rules of the club and agrees to most of the new rules issued thereafter. - EU accounts are audited and signed off. Comments on EU expenditure are not about lost money but more about incorrect paperwork and process. - Let everyone get away with breaking the rules of the club (you signed up to freely) and you get anarchy. - See point 2.
More witless euro fanatic misinformation from BenM.
The terms have changed. It is Eurostat who have decided to change what should be included in GNI calculations and the EU has then backdated these changes for 20 years.
Morning all and boy starting with OGH many of you seem to have been getting your knickers in a twist about the Rochester Tory selection. Frankly whether it is 4000 or 5600 votes which counted, it is a whole lot more than the roughly 100 or so who would have selected Mark Reckless as Tory candidate in 2005 or 2010.
EU 1.3 billion euros, Cameron should tell them to fcuk themselves.
2015 GE, it really looks more like 1983 all over again. So how about Ed to poll in the range 25-28% just ahead of UKIP with Tories in 33-35 range and Labour to lose seats to Tories south of Birmingham and win no seats back from Tories. SNP and Tories to take a dozen+ seats between them from Labour and LibDems in Scotland and UKIP to win fewer than 10 seats.
Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23. SNP to poll more votes than LibDems do throughout Britain. As I have been saying here for some time.
Very hard to translate into seats, other than a clear Tory majority - anything from 20 to 120.
Presumably you will be betting heavily on such an outcome. And Easterross. And Patrick. If anyone wants to frame a bet PM me. Anyone would think this is just pathetic trolling.
"The UK has been doing better since 1997 than we thought and that's resulted in this extra payment. The Netherlands will pay more, while France and Germany get a rebate." Sarah Hewin of Standard Chartered on 5 live says the payment has to be made in the next few months. That could mean more borrowing, she says.
Perhaps it is a time for Cameron to just say No. If he doesn't then he might as well disband the Tories now, let UKIP walk over them in R & S. With friends like this in the EU telling the UK to hand over move money cos the economy has done so well since 1997, who needs enemies. It looks like a scam, smells like a scam, and if a single extra £1 or €1 is handed over it just confirms that Cameron is like the jellyfish, spineless and floating on the tide.
On the one hand, it's not unreasonable that the richest, best-performing countries should contribute most, nor that from time to time, payments should be re-assessed to account for performance since the last assessment. On the other, this is a singularly poor time to be doing so, unless tied to institutional reform driven by those whose pockets are being tapped.
Care to tell us what the point of austerity is then?
The extra contributions are due because of the rise in GNI from 1995.
The prime period of outperformance of course being 1997-2007.
During the period of austerity GNI growth was significantly slower.
As regards would the money be better spent on the NHS of course but so would the tax cuts to millionaires and the £3bn just recently committed to bomb iraq again.
The more I think about it, the more the EU is like a protection racket.
- They constantly change the terms on your business arrangement - They tell you how you can and can't operate your own business - Money frequently goes missing on their side of the contract - They threaten "consequences" if you dare to leave the arrangement - They shake you down for more money if it looks like you're doing a bit better
More witless frothing.
- The terms haven't changed. The numbers we've reported have changed. - The UK signs up freely to the rules of the club and agrees to most of the new rules issued thereafter. - EU accounts are audited and signed off. Comments on EU expenditure are not about lost money but more about incorrect paperwork and process. - Let everyone get away with breaking the rules of the club (you signed up to freely) and you get anarchy. - See point 2.
More witless euro fanatic misinformation from BenM.
The terms have changed. It is Eurostat who have decided to change what should be included in GNI calculations and the EU has then backdated these changes for 20 years.
Indeed. I look forward to the mindless Europhiles that claim it's in the treaties pointing to the line about charging extra for backdated GDP calculations.
•Change in gross domestic product (GDP) is the main indicator of economic growth. GDP increased by 0.7% in Q3 2014 compared with growth of 0.9% in Q2 2014. •Output increased in all four main industrial groupings within the economy in Q3 2014. In order of their contribution, output increased by 0.7% in services, 0.5% in production, 0.8% in construction and 0.3% in agriculture. •GDP was 3.0% higher in Q3 2014 compared with the same quarter a year ago. •In Q3 2014 GDP was estimated to have been 3.4% higher than the pre-economic downturn peak of Q1 2008. From the peak in Q1 2008 to the trough in Q2 2009, the economy shrank by 6.0%.
I miss Avery and his yellow boxes.
I also promise not to tell the EU if you don't.
Off-topic:
Perhaps this is an over-simplification and will show a heinous lack of knowledge of GDP figures, but surely agricultural output should be measured year-on-year rather than quarter-on-quarter? I'd expect agricultural output to be much higher in Q3 (summer/autumn) than in Q1 (winter/spring).
Or does the agricultural figures count for more than just base agriculture?
They sell that Corn and Beet months after (or before) harvest. It includes Horticulture which has different income peaks, Forestry which will also effect activity levels in different quarters.
In its own way, it's quite impressive to make annualised growth of roughly 3% sound alarmingly weak. By way of contrast, this was the FT's Chris Giles's take:
"Healthy and steady UK economic growth for now".
Just...
UK economic growth slowed in the three months to September, with the economy expanding by just 0.7%
Just caught up on the thread and I think the most remarkable thing about the EU demand more cash story is that two regular posters here, who are not normally regarded as being in the tin-foil hat category, think that the story is made up! They think that it has been "confected" by HMG for political purposes. Truly awesome.
LBC @LBC 7m7 minutes ago Farage: I want the entire postal voting system scrapped. http://l-bc.co/farage #PhoneFarage
So members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving this country overseas cannot vote?
Farage is such a jerk. The beauty is that it will be his undoing when the media flick the spotlight switches.
Another load of tory bullsh*t from the dip @audreyanne. Farage made no mention of the Army which comes under separate and special regulation. Don't make yourself more of a fool than you are.
I usually find those ready to dish out words like 'fool' are those for whom the term most applies, and in this case I'm pleased to say I am not disappointed.
Farage, according to the tweet, said the whole postal voting should be scrapped. It's an example of spouting without thought. The Armed Forces would, you rightly say, be an exception. But that begs the question of where the exceptions start and stop. So he would permit the Armed Forces to continue to vote by post? And those medics working in Ebola hit areas … would they not be allowed to vote? Perhaps they would be included as an exception. But not those on holiday? Or airline pilots and cabin crew? Those who are on a long shift that day? Long distance lorry, train and coach drivers?
Farage and you by proxy (ha) are therefore the fools. Or perhaps he should just say what he clearly means: nig-nogs shouldn't be allowed to vote (by post, although he probably thinks at all).
As a Conservative I don't think people who harbour deep seated resentment towards this country should be allowed to interfere in our decisions.
"The UK has been doing better since 1997 than we thought and that's resulted in this extra payment. The Netherlands will pay more, while France and Germany get a rebate." Sarah Hewin of Standard Chartered on 5 live says the payment has to be made in the next few months. That could mean more borrowing, she says.
Perhaps it is a time for Cameron to just say No. If he doesn't then he might as well disband the Tories now, let UKIP walk over them in R & S. With friends like this in the EU telling the UK to hand over move money cos the economy has done so well since 1997, who needs enemies. It looks like a scam, smells like a scam, and if a single extra £1 or €1 is handed over it just confirms that Cameron is like the jellyfish, spineless and floating on the tide.
On the one hand, it's not unreasonable that the richest, best-performing countries should contribute most, nor that from time to time, payments should be re-assessed to account for performance since the last assessment. On the other, this is a singularly poor time to be doing so, unless tied to institutional reform driven by those whose pockets are being tapped.
Care to tell us what the point of austerity is then?
The extra contributions are due because of the rise in GNI from 1995.
The prime period of outperformance of course being 1997-2007.
During the period of austerity GNI growth was significantly slower.
As regards would the money be better spent on the NHS of course but so would the tax cuts to millionaires and the £3bn just recently committed to bomb iraq again.
£3bn to bomb one of the most evil organisations of all time in order to stop them ethnically cleansing the Yazidis, smashing the Kurdish government, and raping and behading their way across Iraq is clearly a better spend of money then using it to bail out France's poor performance.
Thats an allegation and a smear by the Tories, and as far as I can see unproven. On the other hand I can bring you dozens of cases against labour that are true, however I have better things to do.
Just caught up on the thread and I think the most remarkable thing about the EU demand more cash story is that two regular posters here, who are not normally regarded as being in the tin-foil hat category, think that the story is made up! They think that it has been "confected" by HMG for political purposes. Truly awesome.
Well, to be fair, it is “Conspiracy Friday” after all…. ; )
"The UK has been doing better since 1997 than we thought and that's resulted in this extra payment. The Netherlands will pay more, while France and Germany get a rebate." Sarah Hewin of Standard Chartered on 5 live says the payment has to be made in the next few months. That could mean more borrowing, she says.
Perhaps it is a time for Cameron to just say No. If he doesn't then he might as well disband the Tories now, let UKIP walk over them in R & S. With friends like this in the EU telling the UK to hand over move money cos the economy has done so well since 1997, who needs enemies. It looks like a scam, smells like a scam, and if a single extra £1 or €1 is handed over it just confirms that Cameron is like the jellyfish, spineless and floating on the tide.
On the one hand, it's not unreasonable that the richest, best-performing countries should contribute most, nor that from time to time, payments should be re-assessed to account for performance since the last assessment. On the other, this is a singularly poor time to be doing so, unless tied to institutional reform driven by those whose pockets are being tapped.
Care to tell us what the point of austerity is then?
The extra contributions are due because of the rise in GNI from 1995.
The prime period of outperformance of course being 1997-2007.
During the period of austerity GNI growth was significantly slower.
As regards would the money be better spent on the NHS of course but so would the tax cuts to millionaires and the £3bn just recently committed to bomb iraq again.
"The prime period of outperformance of course being 1997-2007."
But that was (mostly) just a credit bubble. So you're saying that because the UK borrowed and spent what it could not afford, that we now have to borrow to pay more money to the EU.
Farage and you by proxy (ha) are therefore the fools. Or perhaps he should just say what he clearly means: nig-nogs shouldn't be allowed to vote (by post, although he probably thinks at all).
Can't sustain a decent argument so reverting to entirely unfounded claims of racism. My God it's pathetic. Is it because you're angry about the Jews? (See how this works?)
Thats an allegation and a smear by the Tories, and as far as I can see unproven. On the other hand I can bring you dozens of cases against labour that are true, however I have better things to do.
Isn't that article from April last year ?
Edit... Oh I see, it was an example if Ukip being involved in postal fraud.
Just caught up on the thread and I think the most remarkable thing about the EU demand more cash story is that two regular posters here, who are not normally regarded as being in the tin-foil hat category, think that the story is made up! They think that it has been "confected" by HMG for political purposes. Truly awesome.
Well, to be fair, it is “Conspiracy Friday” after all…. ; )
The terms have changed. It is Eurostat who have decided to change what should be included in GNI calculations and the EU has then backdated these changes for 20 years.
I find it hard to believe that Eurostat would have the discretion to make a change like this, but I know you wouldn't say so unless you had a reason to. Is there anything you can link to so that I can see for myself?
Strikes me primaries so close to a by-election could be counter-productive.
i) inducing general voter fatigue ii) anti-Tories engaging in the tactical device of "pushover" (voting for the weakest Tory candidate) iii) some dimbo voters thinking they've already voted in the main event iv) those who preferred the losing candidate not voting for the Tories, or not voting at all.
I am glad someone brought that up. My memory isn't what it once was but didn't Cameron make a big thing about getting the EU to reduce its budget over then next few years? Well, also in the paper this morning was a little snippet that the EU Parliament has voted to increase the budget for the next financial year by £5.4bn, this raising our contributions by £680m a year.
Just caught up on the thread and I think the most remarkable thing about the EU demand more cash story is that two regular posters here, who are not normally regarded as being in the tin-foil hat category, think that the story is made up! They think that it has been "confected" by HMG for political purposes. Truly awesome.
Since you borrowed my word, I take it that you're referring to me. I don't think that the story is imaginary. I do think that the story has been given far greater prominence and been released at a time in the run-up to the general election (NB not the Rochester & Strood by-election) so as to give David Cameron the opportunity to stand up to "Brussels" on an essentially small point. This may be with or without the connivance of the Commission (my expectation is that they are the fall guys here, actually).
Put another way, if there were a market on whether this sum of money will be paid to the EU by the British government before 7 May 2015, I would regard that as a heavily odds-against proposition.
"Shadow Europe minister Pat McFadden said: "It's unacceptable that the outgoing EU Commission should spring a backdated bill on member states in this way."
So are the Labour supporters supporting the budget change going to criticise Labour's "frothing"?
Mr. Eagles, you sound like a Roman senator praising the emperor for the city's wealth attracting so many barbarians, who are sure to secure our northern borders against more serious enemies.
Are you really comparing the EU to the second greatest Empire in Human history?
There are definitely grounds for some small amounts of postal voting.
Far more important elements of electoral reform are proxy voting and foreigners' voting. It's outrageous thousands of Pakistanis and Nigerians get to vote in our elections.
It is simply bizarre foreigners can vote in our elections. The Empire was consigned to history a long time ago, as should this be.
And the Tories have done nothing about it. They deserve to lose as they don´t want to win.
Incidentally all you nice people in Englandshire will not have heard today's PC decision from the SNP. The drink driving limit in Scotland is going to be reduced from 80 to 50 ml before Christmas. So if any of you are thinking of coming to Scotland over the holiday period, maybe nipping up to Edinburgh for the odd firework on Hogmanay, take the train, bus or fly.
Clearly the SNP feels our already overstretched-to-breaking point courts system needs a few thousand extra cases in January and February just to prove the point and lots of decent Scots workers could face being locked up because they enjoyed the staff Christmas party to the extent of more than 1 medium glass of wine or pint of weak pish like Tenants lager.
Comments
As you say, at least the Tories are trying to get the public engaged [cynically or otherwise] in choosing a candidate to represent them.
I don't care about the niceties of this, try selling it to the WWC, the eurosceptics and all those who were thinking of voting UKIP.
It's an absolute disaster for the Europhiles, try as they might any spinning will not work.
And it's also a disaster for Dave whether he coughs or not, the mere fact they have asked for it is enough for UKIP and their supporters.
How does bigjohn and his NHS obsessed buddies feel about this, knowing they have gone through a wage freeze only for the money saved to be given away to the feckless?
How about all those struggling families who have had child benefit frozen?
It is a disaster for europhiles regardless of how you look at it.
The £21 at 9.2 is mine btw - I'd be very very grateful if someone was to smash into it.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 20s20 seconds ago
UK economy grew by 0.7% from July to September, @ONS estimates http://bbc.in/1sWIM4D
Re comment on public services, I don't regard national finances like household finances. Both can be paid for.
Someone somewhere said do a helicopter drop of the cash on Brussels to show them what real currency looks like - seems about right!
What you are talking about is something extra. And if we had been running a surplus of, say, 2% of GDP in the years to 2007 there would indeed be an opportunity to borrow more on the cheap and build infrastructure in the downturn creating demand and employment. Unfortunately, we did not enter the downturn with a 2% surplus, we entered it with a 3.2% deficit because the man in charge of our finances for the previous decade was a dangerous idiot.
This limits our room for manoeuvre. There is compelling evidence that debt levels in excess of 100% of GDP are detrimental to growth. We are going to get dangerously close to this. The urgent need to redress the structural deficit caused by the idiot meant there was not the flexibility there should have been to take temporary steps to boost demand. The government went into the recession with its hands tied and its money spent. Osborne has, quite bravely, slowed the rate at which the structural deficit is addressed to give some support to demand. This prevented a double dip and has allowed the economy to recover but the price is a persistent deficit that now must be addressed.
Farage: I want the entire postal voting system scrapped. http://l-bc.co/farage #PhoneFarage
Construction 0.8
Production 0.5
Agri 0.3
of the services
hotels etc 0.5
transport and comms 1.0
Business services 1.1
Govt 0.3
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/gva/gross-domestic-product--preliminary-estimate/q3-2014/info-gdp-preliminary-estimate-q3-2014.html
'No way should we cough up extra to an undemocratic organisation that hasn't been able to have its account signed off in how many years........'
Spot on.
It's even worse than *I'm sure he's really nice when you get to know him* as feint praise damning.
Is this another Lisbon Treaty change?
Was it agreed by EU finance ministers - Osborne, Darling or Brown as the British representative?
'Farage: I want the entire postal voting system scrapped. http://l-bc.co/farage #PhoneFarage'
That will go down a treat with elderly voters.
All in all it's top trolling from the EU.
•Change in gross domestic product (GDP) is the main indicator of economic growth. GDP increased by 0.7% in Q3 2014 compared with growth of 0.9% in Q2 2014.
•Output increased in all four main industrial groupings within the economy in Q3 2014. In order of their contribution, output increased by 0.7% in services, 0.5% in production, 0.8% in construction and 0.3% in agriculture.
•GDP was 3.0% higher in Q3 2014 compared with the same quarter a year ago.
•In Q3 2014 GDP was estimated to have been 3.4% higher than the pre-economic downturn peak of Q1 2008. From the peak in Q1 2008 to the trough in Q2 2009, the economy shrank by 6.0%.
I miss Avery and his yellow boxes.
I also promise not to tell the EU if you don't.
PS How's Lynx?
I see a pattern..
Farage is such a jerk. The beauty is that it will be his undoing when the media flick the spotlight switches.
And the timing's right out as well. If the payment had to come before the by-election, you might have a point. But Cameron saying he'd veto the payment before the by-election won't be believed by the people the Conservatives need to convince.
The timing's all wrong for the government, and it involves too many other countries.
There is an option d): the EU is following its due process and timescales, and are not allowing political considerations to intrude. If (and it is a big if) this is right, then they're doing the right thing. I'd be the first to criticise them if they were trying to alter process to hide, delay of obfuscate these recalculations for political reasons.
Never forget that it was Tory governments that signed the UK into the most wide ranging and integrationist Treaties (Treaty of Rome, Single European Act and Maastricht).
Far more important elements of electoral reform are proxy voting and foreigners' voting. It's outrageous thousands of Pakistanis and Nigerians get to vote in our elections.
That's one of the highest rated comments on the BBC article of UK told to pay £1.7bn extra to EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
The rest follow a similar theme.
I would phrase my own opinion slightly more politely. Slightly.
- They constantly change the terms on your business arrangement
- They tell you how you can and can't operate your own business
- Money frequently goes missing on their side of the contract
- They threaten "consequences" if you dare to leave the arrangement
- They shake you down for more money if it looks like you're doing a bit better
Perhaps this is an over-simplification and will show a heinous lack of knowledge of GDP figures, but surely agricultural output should be measured year-on-year rather than quarter-on-quarter? I'd expect agricultural output to be much higher in Q3 (summer/autumn) than in Q1 (winter/spring).
Or does the agricultural figures count for more than just base agriculture?
Edit: oh, and thanks.
This is yet more rightwing attempts to shutdown access to the democratic system. A wheeze the Republicans try in the US all the time.
As Ben has correctly pointed out we are one of the late adopters (as usual) of the agreed EU standards which other countries have been using for some time. The consequence is that we have indeed been underpaying for a number of years on a like for like basis and, in accordance with the rules of the club, we are due further subscriptions.
There is a perfectly legitimate point to be made as to whether or not the increase in subscriptions makes continued membership worthwhile but the idea that this is some sort of virility test for Cameron is absurd. If we want to blame anyone we could blame Blair for giving away some of the UK rebate for nothing much but blaming him for changed statistics a decade later would seem a bit far, even for me.
Yet again, as with all things EU, there are so many unanswered questions from the BBC report.
It's a disaster for the EU's image, trying to "correct" budget payments made in 1995. I'm so angry that people have been so stupid. It's almost like they want the EU to fail.
I can live with that.
We've already paid past contributions on the basis of our growth as recorded by the figures excluding illegal activity - so Osborne could only claim the credit if it was because prostitution and drug-dealing had boomed since 2010.
People who canvass and have access to electoral records know this.
- The terms haven't changed. The numbers we've reported have changed.
- The UK signs up freely to the rules of the club and agrees to most of the new rules issued thereafter.
- EU accounts are audited and signed off. Comments on EU expenditure are not about lost money but more about incorrect paperwork and process.
- Let everyone get away with breaking the rules of the club (you signed up to freely) and you get anarchy.
- See point 2.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29752338
In its own way, it's quite impressive to make annualised growth of roughly 3% sound alarmingly weak. By way of contrast, this was the FT's Chris Giles's take:
"Healthy and steady UK economic growth for now".
Based on average polling figures of Con 32%, Lab 34%, LD 8%, Others 26%, his figures for GE seats (compared with last week's) are as follows:
Con .......... 298 (+7 seats)
Lab ........... 295 (-3 seats)
LibDem ...... 28 (-3 seats)
Others ........29 (-1 seat)
Total .........650 seats
As for the Tory spinning on here, this by election has been billed as make or break and the Tories have spent a lot of money bombarding people with literature. We have heard how angry people are at reckless and how this has fired them up to vote against him... So there should be a decent return
Unless they aren't fired up and Ukip will walk it...
I have adjusted for turnout in my calculations and 4000 is horrific beyond belief, while 5688 is just plain awful shadsy has the turnout line at 50% if you think these primary returns are anything better than I am saying, under 50% at 5/6 is one of the all time great bets ... Get on!!!
You were clearly starved of oxygen at birth. The resort to ridiculous allegations of racism is a tactic only done by the truly thick.
Mr. Eagles, you sound like a Roman senator praising the emperor for the city's wealth attracting so many barbarians, who are sure to secure our northern borders against more serious enemies.
Farage, according to the tweet, said the whole postal voting should be scrapped. It's an example of spouting without thought. The Armed Forces would, you rightly say, be an exception. But that begs the question of where the exceptions start and stop. So he would permit the Armed Forces to continue to vote by post? And those medics working in Ebola hit areas … would they not be allowed to vote? Perhaps they would be included as an exception. But not those on holiday? Or airline pilots and cabin crew? Those who are on a long shift that day? Long distance lorry, train and coach drivers?
Farage and you by proxy (ha) are therefore the fools. Or perhaps he should just say what he clearly means: nig-nogs shouldn't be allowed to vote (by post, although he probably thinks at all).
p.s. Incidentally, I know that defence cuts may be on the agenda but i didn't think Her Majesty's Armed Forces would be reduced solely to 'the Army.'
6 months of Populus shows mostly settled ranges. No real trends to discern.
Chart: Populus 6 months
The terms have changed. It is Eurostat who have decided to change what should be included in GNI calculations and the EU has then backdated these changes for 20 years.
If anyone wants to frame a bet PM me.
Anyone would think this is just pathetic trolling.
The prime period of outperformance of course being 1997-2007.
During the period of austerity GNI growth was significantly slower.
As regards would the money be better spent on the NHS of course but so would the tax cuts to millionaires and the £3bn just recently committed to bomb iraq again.
Edit And I guess still has fishing included.
UK economic growth slowed in the three months to September, with the economy expanding by just 0.7%
Just caught up on the thread and I think the most remarkable thing about the EU demand more cash story is that two regular posters here, who are not normally regarded as being in the tin-foil hat category, think that the story is made up! They think that it has been "confected" by HMG for political purposes. Truly awesome.
(Kippers are allowed to use this phrase without being called racist!!)
Union baron backs Ed = bad for Ed.
Union baron shuns Ed = bad for Ed.
Back on Sunday night
"The prime period of outperformance of course being 1997-2007."
But that was (mostly) just a credit bubble. So you're saying that because the UK borrowed and spent what it could not afford, that we now have to borrow to pay more money to the EU.
You really couldn't make it up...
Edit... Oh I see, it was an example if Ukip being involved in postal fraud.
Just brilliant. The nearest I've come was writing Only Good when asked about my sexual preference.
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/police-called-investigate-northumberland-electoral-6729748
i) inducing general voter fatigue
ii) anti-Tories engaging in the tactical device of "pushover" (voting for the weakest Tory candidate)
iii) some dimbo voters thinking they've already voted in the main event
iv) those who preferred the losing candidate not voting for the Tories, or not voting at all.
"Remember the EU budget was cut ..."
I am glad someone brought that up. My memory isn't what it once was but didn't Cameron make a big thing about getting the EU to reduce its budget over then next few years? Well, also in the paper this morning was a little snippet that the EU Parliament has voted to increase the budget for the next financial year by £5.4bn, this raising our contributions by £680m a year.
He is fantastically fantastically fantastically moronic.
Put another way, if there were a market on whether this sum of money will be paid to the EU by the British government before 7 May 2015, I would regard that as a heavily odds-against proposition.
So are the Labour supporters supporting the budget change going to criticise Labour's "frothing"?
And the Tories have done nothing about it. They deserve to lose as they don´t want to win.
Clearly the SNP feels our already overstretched-to-breaking point courts system needs a few thousand extra cases in January and February just to prove the point and lots of decent Scots workers could face being locked up because they enjoyed the staff Christmas party to the extent of more than 1 medium glass of wine or pint of weak pish like Tenants lager.