Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Osborne’s “halving” of the EU budget payment and n

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited November 2014 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Osborne’s “halving” of the EU budget payment and news about the next PB gathering

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.

    And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    "... The Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.

    "As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a 'categorical pledge' were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April...

    "But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head.

    "For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-and-forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than one-hundred-and-forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all.

    "Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain."
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Laurel and Hardy comes to mind with regard to Cameron and Osborne's performances in Europe.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.

    And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'

    George is doing a Tesco 's
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    You can see who the most tribal of Tories are today, that's for sure.

    Has a #rebateshambles started up on the twittersphere yet ?
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited November 2014
    .
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited November 2014

    Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.

    And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'

    Its spin. The money is still being paid. Do you and Gideon think we are all stupid?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/07/uk-pays-full-eu-rebate-despite-osborne-claim-he-halved-it

    "The government has accepted a £1.7bn top-up bill to the EU budget despite repeatedly denouncing its size as unacceptable.

    George Osborne, the chancellor, has won a respite, however – avoiding a 1 December deadline and deferring the payment interest-free until next September, well after the general election.

    Britain’s automatic rebate on its contributions to the EU budget was expected to knock €1bn off the demand for €2.1bn, leading the chancellor to brag that he had halved the payment......

    While insisting that the invoice had been reduced, Treasury aides conceded that Britain will pay the £850m while also returning the rebate cheque to Brussels, meaning that the full £1.7bn will still be paid."


    Fargle and Reckless must think Christmas has come early.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821

    Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.

    And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'

    Thank goodness you're here as PB's light relief then -your desperate attempts to defend Cameron and Osborne are enough to bring a chuckle to anyone's countenance.
  • If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.

    Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014

    Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.

    And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'

    Thank goodness you're here as PB's light relief then -your desperate attempts to defend Cameron and Osborne are enough to bring a chuckle to anyone's countenance.
    I'd like an encore of the 'facts' that made the Tories such a great 3/1 shot in Rochester
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited November 2014
    .
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821

    If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.

    Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?

    We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    HYUFD said:

    It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy

    I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will see
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821
    edited November 2014
    HYUFD said:

    It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy

    It is? Surely even tomorrow's papers and this evening's bulletins will have vaguely seen through the smoke and mirrors (such as they are), by the time of broadcast/print deadline? If anything surely people will be annoyed by it?

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited November 2014
    Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q
  • If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.

    Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?

    We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.
    I agree that we aren't paying less, but I'm just trying to find a way to prove this fact to the Tory loyalists who refuse to admit that Osborne is lying to them.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson 24m24 minutes ago
    EU budget row summed up - UK will pay half of £1.7 bn. That's due to rebate. Was always likely to apply tho exact figure unclear 'til today
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Pulpstar said:

    You can see who the most tribal of Tories are today, that's for sure.

    Has a #rebateshambles started up on the twittersphere yet ?

    Including some from whom you'd expect circumspection. I'd be very cautious about this.



  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Moses_ said:

    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?

    I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will see
  • Moses_ said:

    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?

    No meanwhile Dan Hannan CONSERVATIVE MEP states Cameron and Osborne are treating us like fools!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    You can see who the most tribal of Tories are today, that's for sure.

    Has a #rebateshambles started up on the twittersphere yet ?

    Including some from whom you'd expect circumspection. I'd be very cautious about this.



    Cautious? in what way ? What do you mean :) ?
  • Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q

    Well if he is that bad why did they see fit to select him as Tory candidate in the same constituency in all but name in three consecative parliamentary elections. Between 2001 and 2010 they had nine years to judge his character before he was elected in 2010.

    In 2010 Reckless was candidate for Rochester and Strood, and wasTory candidate for Medway in 2005 and 2001

    Smacks of utter desperation.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Moses_ said:

    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?

    It sounds like the rebate is money that was already due to us. The BBC says £785m was:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29956289

    There's still a ~£100m to bridge the gap between £1.7bn - £785m and the £850m, so it's not quite clear where that's coming from.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Theresa May backs creation of new grammar school in her seat, a satellite of an existing grammar, as new Education Secretary Nicky Morgan reverses Gove's position against grammar expansion http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824689/First-grammar-school-generation-Theresa-sends-strong-message-backing-plans-create-satellite-selective-school-constituency.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Moses_ said:

    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?

    I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will see


    Perhaps? Personally I would have preferred to pay nothing further. Odd though that at least one EU finance Minister while stamping his little feet into the cameras stated that if Cameron does not pay on the 1st December he will pay on the 2nd?

    Not going to happen though is it? As you say we will see ?


  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821

    Moses_ said:

    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?

    No meanwhile Dan Hannan CONSERVATIVE MEP states Cameron and Osborne are treating us like fools!
    Defection please Dan -cheers in advance.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704

    Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q

    This has gone round and round. I'm not sure local voters will be fooled by Reckless's reckless opportunistic 180 deg swing in position.
    IMHO he'd have a lot better to keep his gob shut on the matter during the by-election campaign.
    Who was it who could believe two contrary things at the same time?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    HYUFD said:

    It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy

    It is? Surely even tomorrow's papers and this evening's bulletins will have vaguely seen through the smoke and mirrors (such as they are), by the time of broadcast/print deadline? If anything surely people will be annoyed by it?

    Personally, I think it's better for it to be reported as a cut one night, and then the "cut was a lie" narrative can be the second night. It would increase the sense of being deceived. The fact Osborne announced this on a Friday night shows they wanted to bury the story.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q

    Are you the 2.5k laying 1.05 mike??
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    HYUFD said:

    It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy

    I think it's got to the point where any talk of giving the EU even a single cent feeds into the UKIP narrative.
  • Excellent work by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.

    And as ever, it makes pb you-kippers look like a miserable old bunch. Moan bloody moan day-in day-out. I'm reminded of that wonderful moment Reagan turned to the equally miserable and sour-faced Walter Mondale and said 'there you go again.'

    You reposted this from the previous thread, seriously?

    Shakes head.
  • Socrates said:

    HYUFD said:

    It was a win for Osborne with the average voter, but diehard eurosceptics, UKIP and Dan Hannan are still not happy

    It is? Surely even tomorrow's papers and this evening's bulletins will have vaguely seen through the smoke and mirrors (such as they are), by the time of broadcast/print deadline? If anything surely people will be annoyed by it?

    Personally, I think it's better for it to be reported as a cut one night, and then the "cut was a lie" narrative can be the second night. It would increase the sense of being deceived. The fact Osborne announced this on a Friday night shows they wanted to bury the story.

    From the news reports I've seen its generally being reported as a win for George.

  • Mr. Isam, if, as many think, Reckless stands a very good chance of winning, the Conservatives may be seeing this as a no-lose test run for the approach. If it works, they may win, and if not, they wouldn't've anyway.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    isam said:

    Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q

    Are you the 2.5k laying 1.05 mike??
    Ugh Crosby's back

    I can see the election campaign now - it is going to be vile.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Moses_ said:

    Moses_ said:

    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?

    I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will see


    Perhaps? Personally I would have preferred to pay nothing further. Odd though that at least one EU finance Minister while stamping his little feet into the cameras stated that if Cameron does not pay on the 1st December he will pay on the 2nd?

    Not going to happen though is it? As you say we will see ?


    As i said earlier have managed to defer payment but have tried to oversell the achievement by the lie about halving the bill when it hasn't been reduced at all Will pay £850m and not receive £850m of our rebate. ie we pay £1.7bn
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2014
  • Socrates said:

    Moses_ said:

    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?

    It sounds like the rebate is money that was already due to us. The BBC says £785m was:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29956289

    There's still a ~£100m to bridge the gap between £1.7bn - £785m and the £850m, so it's not quite clear where that's coming from.
    All of the bills and rebates are worked out and paid in €, so it might be that the £785m is the same amount of Euros as the £850m but worked out with a different exchange rate by someone at some point in the analysis.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    BBC including a clip of the Dutch Finance Minister saying there's been no discount. That's game over for George and Dave.
  • isam said:

    Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q

    Are you the 2.5k laying 1.05 mike??
    Well knock me down with a feather. Politician accused of saying anything to get elected

    'I'll Give You a Cast iron Guarantee'
    'No Plans to raise VAT'
    'Paying Down The Debt'
    'No I didn't ride Rebekah's Horse'
    'We've reduced the bill by half'

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    Totally O/t. Two men, (neither of them Asian), have been been found guilty of sexually exploiting "vulnerable" girls in Essex, making them engage in sexual acts in return for drugs and alcohol.

    Quote from current BBC Essex page.

    They're being sentenced "later".

    Just saying.
  • The attack ad on Mark Reckless is no doubt a foretaste of what we're going to see in the general election from the Conservatives. It's probably more important there than in this by-election campaign.

    Slightly surprising to see the Conservatives unveil it here, given how this by-election seems to be going.
  • Mr. Socrates, perhaps, perhaps not.

    If someone's a sceptic they may view a foreign finance minister's words with suspicion.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    The PM has done a massive U turn in record time and he tries to cover it by a most stupid way.
  • Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhmtKFIq0Q

    This has gone round and round. I'm not sure local voters will be fooled by Reckless's reckless opportunistic 180 deg swing in position.
    IMHO he'd have a lot better to keep his gob shut on the matter during the by-election campaign.
    Who was it who could believe two contrary things at the same time?
    The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

    F. Scott Fitzgerald
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Totally O/t. Two men, (neither of them Asian), have been been found guilty of sexually exploiting "vulnerable" girls in Essex, making them engage in sexual acts in return for drugs and alcohol.

    Quote from current BBC Essex page.

    They're being sentenced "later".

    Just saying.

    The point never was that this behaviour is unique to Asian men, certainly I never said that. It was that the councils covered it up because it was Asian men
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    No credible voice left that is saying we have halved the bill.

    According to Sky
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    antifrank said:

    The attack ad on Mark Reckless is no doubt a foretaste of what we're going to see in the general election from the Conservatives. It's probably more important there than in this by-election campaign.

    Slightly surprising to see the Conservatives unveil it here, given how this by-election seems to be going.

    Maybe another misjudgment from the Tories.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Sky quotes George ought to work for Tesco tweets
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Totally O/t. Two men, (neither of them Asian), have been been found guilty of sexually exploiting "vulnerable" girls in Essex, making them engage in sexual acts in return for drugs and alcohol.

    Quote from current BBC Essex page.

    They're being sentenced "later".

    Just saying.

    Disgusting, hope they are put away for a long time.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2014
    Socrates said:

    BBC including a clip of the Dutch Finance Minister saying there's been no discount. That's game over for George and Dave.

    Another torpedo to Richard Nabavi.
    3 EU finance ministers have now challenged Cameron's and Osborne's silly smoke and mirrors U turn:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2824783/Cameron-defiant-1-7bn-Euro-bill.html

    "Irish finance minister Michael Noonan said he did not know the basis on which Mr Osborne made his calcuation, adding: "The instalments will be paid over a period of time. My understanding is that the UK will pay the whole amount, but there will be no penalties attached."
    Dutch finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem said: "The UK has ... a rebate, which they have had for a very long time and of course this mechanism of rebate will also apply on the new contribution.
    "So it's not as if the British have been given a discount today. The old mechanism of the rebate will also apply on the UK contribution, which will increase."
    And Austria's Hans Joerg Schelling said: "Whether the money is to be paid in instalments or as a lump sum is a discussion we can have. But the amount cannot be put in question." "




  • AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    The attack ad on Mark Reckless is no doubt a foretaste of what we're going to see in the general election from the Conservatives. It's probably more important there than in this by-election campaign.

    Slightly surprising to see the Conservatives unveil it here, given how this by-election seems to be going.

    Maybe another misjudgment from the Tories.
    Probably not. They're the only ones who can afford to do this. Given the known timetable of the general election, I expect that a lot of these will be released just before the dissolution of Parliament. That's how I'd do it anyway, if I were using these types of ads.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Peter Bone claiming the Chancellor's got £850m "back for the British people". That's just an outright lie.
  • When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.

    Didn't you post this exact comment about 17 days ago?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Sky quotes George ought to work for Tesco tweets

    Douglas Carswell MP ‏@DouglasCarswell 2h2 hours ago
    @Number10gov: PM on £1.7bn EU bill: It’s been halved, it’s been delayed" <- Tesco accounting
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    KentRising Indeed, yougov had it 41-40% for In before this row, 43-37% for Out after
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928

    When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.

    Didn't you post this exact comment about 17 days ago?
    About 3 or 4 days ago actually. It wasn't exactly the same, but I just read Ganesh's column in the FT and Dan Hodges too, so I was minded to repeat the point.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.

    Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?

    We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.
    @ToryTreasury tweeted (someone posted it on the last thread) that it was totally separate from the normal rebate.

    My best guess is that the EU with the £1.7bn number either (a) quoted the gross number or (b) applied the current rebate rather than the historical rebate.

    IMV, this is a modest, but real, victory for Osborne, but he's overspun it as an Austerlitz-like triumph

    The reality, however, is that the rabid Kippers won't believe anything that he or Cameron say. Most people will read the headlines and think that he's done a decent job in getting the bill halved.

    And nothing will change in the end.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    edited November 2014
    Luckyguy1983/bigjohnowls Cameron and Osborne did the best they could, if some in the EU want to continue to put British voters' backs up that is their affair, the fastest growing nations in the EU are the UK and Sweden, both outside the euro, the EU needs the UK
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Harry Webb selected as Green candidate for Great Yarmouth:

    https://twitter.com/haroldleeewebb
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited November 2014
    MikeSmithson said:
    Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless

    Is it an 'attack' when it is pointed out that Mark Reckless was previously supporting building on the site and apparently is now against building on the site? He has the opportunity to say that when the facts change he changes his mind. But have the facts changed - are the nightingales no longer on the site?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Socrates said:

    The fact Osborne announced this on a Friday night shows they wanted to bury the story.

    Or that he did the deal in today's ECOFIN meeting and announced it afterwards?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited November 2014
    The BBC make it quite clear what smoke and mirrors it is in the content of their story, but they're being extraordinarily generous to the government in the headline and conclusion, saying "it depends on your point of view" whether paying exactly the same amount at a different time is a reduction or not. They're showing their Europhilia I think: trying to calm the growing euroscepticism of the country.

    Sky, the FT, Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Times are not being so generous.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Socrates said:

    Peter Bone claiming the Chancellor's got £850m "back for the British people". That's just an outright lie.

    Peter Bone NOT the next defector then... perhaps
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Moses_ said:

    Moses_ said:

    ITV News

    If the rebate was always going to be paid (according to some EU finance ministers) then why was this not mentioned when there was a stonking great argument ongoing a few weeks ago about the size of the bill and why was the rebate not mentioned in the original document.

    Indeed....

    Fact was it wasn't and it isn't and Dave and George have secured not only a good outcome but have managed to get the rules changed as well. Meanwhile Balls mutters darkly in a corner about a failure to get it all back in full knowledge Labour would have paid it in full on demand. Playing us for fools huh?

    I dont think the voters will be fooled myself we will see


    Perhaps? Personally I would have preferred to pay nothing further. Odd though that at least one EU finance Minister while stamping his little feet into the cameras stated that if Cameron does not pay on the 1st December he will pay on the 2nd?

    Not going to happen though is it? As you say we will see ?


    As i said earlier have managed to defer payment but have tried to oversell the achievement by the lie about halving the bill when it hasn't been reduced at all Will pay £850m and not receive £850m of our rebate. ie we pay £1.7bn
    Not true, according to the Treasury. Unlikely they would lie about an easily verifiable fact.

    @ToryTreasury: The rebate we have secured on the £1.7bn, reducing it to £850m, is totally separate from the normal rebate and will not reduce it in future
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited November 2014
    I think I've understood how the various conflicting accounts reconcile.

    1. The original demand was, as everyone agrees, £1.7bn payable by December 1st.

    2. There was no mention until today of any rebate on this. £1.7bn was the figure bandied about, and was the figure which Cameron said was excessive.

    3. Osborne has done three things. (a) He has negotiated a delay in payment, so that it is payable not by 1st December but in two tranches next year. (b) In addition - and this is the important bit - he has pointed out that the rebate should apply to this payment, cutting the net demand, as he said, to £850m. (c) Normally this rebate would be payable the following year, but he's also negotiated an effective advance on this by a year, so it can be offset immediately next year.

    So, IF you argue that the rebate 'was always going to be paid by the EU' , then what the other finance ministers are saying is correct. It's also compatible with what Kristalina Georgieva said, in rather garbled English.

    However, this idea that the rebate was always going to be paid is a new development. There has been no suggestion before this meeting, at least in public or in the UK media, that the payment was subject to a rebate. So, relative to the public position of absolutely everyone before this meeting, Osborne is right: the bill has been halved.

    Maybe it was always going to be halved, but, if so, the EU, the press, politicians and the other finance ministers were remarkably coy on the matter.

    It looks as though it's quite simple: the EU and the other governments had forgotten about the rebate, until Osborne pointed it out.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Socrates said:

    The BBC make it quite clear what smoke and mirrors it is in the content of their story, but they're being extraordinarily generous to the government in the headline and conclusion, saying "it depends on your point of view" whether paying exactly the same amount at a different time is a reduction or not. They're showing their Europhilia I think: trying to calm the growing euroscepticism of the country.

    Sky, the FT, Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Times are not being so generous.

    Disgraceful of the BBC. What a bunch of cowards they are. It's about time people on the left started calling them out on it.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Charles said:

    If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.

    Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?

    We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.
    @ToryTreasury tweeted (someone posted it on the last thread) that it was totally separate from the normal rebate.

    My best guess is that the EU with the £1.7bn number either (a) quoted the gross number or (b) applied the current rebate rather than the historical rebate.

    IMV, this is a modest, but real, victory for Osborne, but he's overspun it as an Austerlitz-like triumph

    The reality, however, is that the rabid Kippers won't believe anything that he or Cameron say. Most people will read the headlines and think that he's done a decent job in getting the bill halved.

    And nothing will change in the end.
    Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    The attack ad on Mark Reckless is no doubt a foretaste of what we're going to see in the general election from the Conservatives. It's probably more important there than in this by-election campaign.

    Slightly surprising to see the Conservatives unveil it here, given how this by-election seems to be going.

    Maybe another misjudgment from the Tories.
    More likely they are doing "before" and "after" private polling around it so use it as a test case for the campaign
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.

    No - it's the 29% they got last time plus the Red Liberals, allowing for some backwash. Or seepage if you prefer.

    Every policy seems to have been positioned to appeal to the Red Liberals rather than to reach out to a broader group, hence the issue he now has with UKIP
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited November 2014
    Socrates said:

    Peter Bone claiming the Chancellor's got £850m "back for the British people". That's just an outright lie.

    But significant that a leading Conservative eurosceptic is happy with the arrangement even though little has changed apart from the delay in payment.
  • When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.

    It looks more like Ed is pursuing a 28% strategy and doing well at getting there. The 35% strategy was communicated by Dan Hodges very early in Ed's Leadership and Dan has been very consistent about the future of Labour under Ed.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    I think I've understood how the various conflicting accounts reconcile.

    1. The original demand was, as everyone agrees, £1.7bn payable by December 1st.

    2. There was no mention until today of any rebate on this. £1.7bn was the figure bandied about, and was the figure which Cameron said was excessive.

    3. Osborne has done three things. (a) He has negotiated a delay in payment, so that it is payable not by 1st December but in two tranches next year. (b) In addition - and this is the important bit - he has pointed out that the rebate should apply to this payment, cutting the net demand, as he said, to £850m. (c) Normally this rebate would be payable the following year, but he's also negotiated an effective advance on this by a year, so it can be offset immediately next year.

    So, IF you argue that the rebate 'was always going to be paid by the EU' , then what the other finance ministers are saying is correct. It's also compatible with what Kristalina Georgieva said, in rather garbled English.

    However, this idea that the rebate was always going to be paid is a new development. There has been no suggestion before this meeting, at least in public or in the UK media, that the payment was subject to a rebate. So, relative to the public position of absolutely everyone before this meeting, Osborne is right: the bill has been halved.

    Maybe it was always going to be halved, but, if so, the EU, the press, politicians and the other finance ministers were remarkably coy on the matter.

    It looks as though it's quite simple: the EU and the other governments had forgotten about the rebate, until Osborne pointed it out.

    This is the first time tonight that you have accepted that Cameron will pay the full amount and he's trying to mask it behind the rebate, which was Thatcher's victory not Osborne's.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Socrates said:

    Peter Bone claiming the Chancellor's got £850m "back for the British people". That's just an outright lie.

    An additional rebate of £850m is due in relation to the backdated bill.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    No credible voice left that is saying we have halved the bill.

    According to Sky

    Is that Ed train tickets Conway ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited November 2014
    @Richard_Nabavi

    The rebate being deducted off isn't the rebate off just this payment: it's obviously too high for that because the rebate is a lot less than half of our gross contribution. The rebate is €4 billion off a gross contribution of €17 billion. The rebate payment being deducted off it is part of the UK's general rebate payment off our overall contribution.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Speedy said:

    Charles said:

    If Britain is paying less it follows that countries such as France who were to receive a refund from the EU as a result of our payment will be paid less.

    Can anyone give me the details of how much France has had its refund reduced by?

    We're not paying less are we? Are we not paying half and having the other half removed from our rebate? If anything, this deal loses Britain money surely, as the EU keeping that money on their books will allow them to claim interest on the sum, as opposed to Britain paying it from our own money. Perhaps someone else can confirm.
    @ToryTreasury tweeted (someone posted it on the last thread) that it was totally separate from the normal rebate.

    My best guess is that the EU with the £1.7bn number either (a) quoted the gross number or (b) applied the current rebate rather than the historical rebate.

    IMV, this is a modest, but real, victory for Osborne, but he's overspun it as an Austerlitz-like triumph

    The reality, however, is that the rabid Kippers won't believe anything that he or Cameron say. Most people will read the headlines and think that he's done a decent job in getting the bill halved.

    And nothing will change in the end.
    Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.
    Try engaging with the facts, rather than your prejudices.

    I think they are paying £850m too much.

    But they are paying £850m less than everyone thought they were going to have to.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928

    When will we be rid of the 35% strategy myth? No-one has ever provided any evidence that this is Miliband's strategy but time and again it is repeated as fact. On what basis? That Labour trundles along at 35% or below in the polls. So is David Cameron pursuing a 32% strategy? Is Nick Clegg pursuing a 7% strategy. This hokum seems to be based on 2 things. That firstly, Ed Miliband has struggled to poll above 35%. And secondly that he might be able to get into govenment on that basis. And? That's it. All the evidence the Tory media needs, including supposedly sophisticated types like Janan Ganesh at the FT.

    It looks more like Ed is pursuing a 28% strategy and doing well at getting there. The 35% strategy was communicated by Dan Hodges very early in Ed's Leadership and Dan has been very consistent about the future of Labour under Ed.
    Consistently negative that is. Hodges is no Miliband insider, so who cares whether he has been coming up with some 35% theory. He's just another blogger in the right wing press.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    Sky quotes George ought to work for Tesco tweets

    Are you working for Sainsbury's.

    Osborne isn't fit to stack shelves.
  • MikeSmithson said:
    Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless
    Is it an 'attack' when it is pointed out that Mark Reckless was previously supporting building on the site and apparently is now against building on the site? He has the opportunity to say that when the facts change he changes his mind. But have the facts changed - are the nightingales no longer on the site?

    Reckless does have a history of doing the opposite what he promised the day before. Now most people can be a bit economical with the truth, but Reckless is more brazen than most. Or maybe he just forgets what he said a few days earlier? It could be a new disability?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Speedy said:

    Cameron will pay the full amount

    All £850m.

    As opposed to the £1.7bn that the public have been hearing about for weeks.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704

    I think I've understood how the various conflicting accounts reconcile.

    1. The original demand was, as everyone agrees, £1.7bn payable by December 1st.

    2. There was no mention until today of any rebate on this. £1.7bn was the figure bandied about, and was the figure which Cameron said was excessive.

    3. Osborne has done three things. (a) He has negotiated a delay in payment, so that it is payable not by 1st December but in two tranches next year. (b) In addition - and this is the important bit - he has pointed out that the rebate should apply to this payment, cutting the net demand, as he said, to £850m. (c) Normally this rebate would be payable the following year, but he's also negotiated an effective advance on this by a year, so it can be offset immediately next year.

    So, IF you argue that the rebate 'was always going to be paid by the EU' , then what the other finance ministers are saying is correct. It's also compatible with what Kristalina Georgieva said, in rather garbled English.

    However, this idea that the rebate was always going to be paid is a new development. There has been no suggestion before this meeting, at least in public or in the UK media, that the payment was subject to a rebate. So, relative to the public position of absolutely everyone before this meeting, Osborne is right: the bill has been halved.

    Maybe it was always going to be halved, but, if so, the EU, the press, politicians and the other finance ministers were remarkably coy on the matter.

    It looks as though it's quite simple: the EU and the other governments had forgotten about the rebate, until Osborne pointed it out.

    So in short, not a great victory for George after all.
  • Speedy said:

    This is the first time tonight that you have accepted that Cameron will pay the full amount and he's trying to mask it behind the rebate, which was Thatcher's victory not Osborne's.

    He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Socrates said:

    @Richard_Nabavi

    The rebate being deducted off isn't the rebate off this payment: it's obviously too high for that because the rebate is a lot less than half of our gross contribution. The rebate is €4 billion off a gross contribution of €17 billion. The rebate payment being deducted off it is part of the UK's general rebate payment off our overall contribution.

    I can quote @ToryTreasury again if you want. Are you saying that they are bare faced liars?

    @ToryTreasury: The rebate we have secured on the £1.7bn, reducing it to £850m, is totally separate from the normal rebate and will not reduce it in future
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,466
    edited November 2014
    Socrates said:

    The BBC make it quite clear what smoke and mirrors it is in the content of their story, but they're being extraordinarily generous to the government in the headline and conclusion, saying "it depends on your point of view" whether paying exactly the same amount at a different time is a reduction or not. They're showing their Europhilia I think: trying to calm the growing euroscepticism of the country.

    Sky, the FT, Bloomberg, the Guardian, the Times are not being so generous.

    Ch4 seemed fairly even-handed but it's hard to see the rebate as anything other than an offset against the bill.

    That's how other EU Leaders evidently see it. No other Country is being asked for more, which would of course be the case if there was a genuine reduction in the UK bill. The rebate has always been there, available for us to use as we see fit. 'There's no question of the UK getting a discount', one said.

    Well done George for getting the delay. That's worth having. Not sure though that there is any reduction other than in the most abstract sense.

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Carswell on AQs tonight.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Interesting spin


    @hendopolis: MORNING STAR: Burnham foils Blairites coup #tomorrowspapersyoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/GkZE5JOxtQ
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Unusual change in allegiance — from SNP to LD:

    "A FORMER SNP defence spokesman is to stand for the Liberal Democrats in a key city seat at next year’s Westminster elections.

    Stuart Crawford, who spent nearly 20 years in the army, has been chosen as the candidate for Edinburgh South, one of the Lib Dems’ top target seats in the UK.

    The 59-year-old former lieutenant colonel said he had quit the SNP after becoming less convinced of the case for independence."


    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/ex-snp-man-stuart-crawford-to-stand-for-lib-dems-1-3469668
  • Jonathan said:

    So in short, not a great victory for George after all.

    Dunno about a 'great victory', but a distinct improvement on the £1.7bn previously said to be due in three weeks time, with punitive interest penalties if we didn't cough up.

  • You're embarrassing yourself.
    Charles said:


    So are you.

  • I think I've understood how the various conflicting accounts reconcile.

    1. The original demand was, as everyone agrees, £1.7bn payable by December 1st.

    2. There was no mention until today of any rebate on this. £1.7bn was the figure bandied about, and was the figure which Cameron said was excessive.

    3. Osborne has done three things. (a) He has negotiated a delay in payment, so that it is payable not by 1st December but in two tranches next year. (b) In addition - and this is the important bit - he has pointed out that the rebate should apply to this payment, cutting the net demand, as he said, to £850m. (c) Normally this rebate would be payable the following year, but he's also negotiated an effective advance on this by a year, so it can be offset immediately next year.

    So, IF you argue that the rebate 'was always going to be paid by the EU' , then what the other finance ministers are saying is correct. It's also compatible with what Kristalina Georgieva said, in rather garbled English.

    However, this idea that the rebate was always going to be paid is a new development. There has been no suggestion before this meeting, at least in public or in the UK media, that the payment was subject to a rebate. So, relative to the public position of absolutely everyone before this meeting, Osborne is right: the bill has been halved.

    Maybe it was always going to be halved, but, if so, the EU, the press, politicians and the other finance ministers were remarkably coy on the matter.

    It looks as though it's quite simple: the EU and the other governments had forgotten about the rebate, until Osborne pointed it out.

    But isn't the rebate on the total net payments we make after all other subsidies we receive back have been deducted? Therefore the idea that any individual bill receives a specific rebate is false.

    The rebate is calculated as approximately two-thirds of the amount by which UK payments into the EU exceed EU expenditure returning to the UK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

    Furthermore, I realise it has only once happened in our 41 years but what would happen if we didn't actually pay in more than we received out and there was no rebate? Where would the saving be then?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Speedy said:

    This is the first time tonight that you have accepted that Cameron will pay the full amount and he's trying to mask it behind the rebate, which was Thatcher's victory not Osborne's.

    He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.
    He will pay the full amount 1.7 billion, he's trying to mask it with the rebate but doesn't fool anyone.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Carola said:

    Carswell on AQs tonight.

    Anyone from Ukip ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @Charles

    The deal is due to be finalised later this month or next. On the phone from Brussels, a commission aide told me that Osborne will

    ‘pay first and then get the rebate.’

    This implies that Osborne will, despite his protestations, pay the full £1.7 billion – albeit with a refund to follow shortly, which Britain was always likely to receive.


    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/about-that-eu-bill-heres-what-george-osborne-didnt-mention/
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    HYUFD said:

    Luckyguy1983/bigjohnowls Cameron and Osborne did the best they could, if some in the EU want to continue to put British voters' backs up that is their affair, the fastest growing nations in the EU are the UK and Sweden, both outside the euro, the EU needs the UK

    I dont disagree that Cameron and Osborne did the best they could with deferring payment but the lie about halving the bill has unravelled, completely.

    The electorate will not be fooled IMO
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Charles said:

    Socrates said:

    @Richard_Nabavi

    The rebate being deducted off isn't the rebate off this payment: it's obviously too high for that because the rebate is a lot less than half of our gross contribution. The rebate is €4 billion off a gross contribution of €17 billion. The rebate payment being deducted off it is part of the UK's general rebate payment off our overall contribution.

    I can quote @ToryTreasury again if you want. Are you saying that they are bare faced liars?

    @ToryTreasury: The rebate we have secured on the £1.7bn, reducing it to £850m, is totally separate from the normal rebate and will not reduce it in future
    I forgot to put a "just" in that post, which I now corrected.
  • There are cheerleaders of all parties on this site who claim victory for their side whatever happens.

    There are also people here of no fixed political view who call things as they see them.

    The second group of people have called this as a defeat for Osborne.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    There are cheerleaders of all parties on this site who claim victory for their side whatever happens.

    There are also people here of no fixed political view who call things as they see them.

    The second group of people have called this as a defeat for Osborne.

    The ONLY posters who are siding with Osborne on this are the arch-Tory loyalists.
This discussion has been closed.