I'm reminded ned the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)
Those were Tory voters whose fury you recall........
16.5% of voters went UKIP in the 2009 euros. Barely any indeed...
re now confirming that then I agree!
Anyone who votes for a party is, at that time, a supporter of that party [FACT]. "Kipper" is the commonly used term for a supporter of UKIP [FACT]. There were 2.5m kippers at the 2009 euro election [FACT]
For some reason earlier you stated that there were barely any kippers in 2009 [not fact].
You also, somewhat irrelevantly, stated that they'd voted kipper before Cameron admitted he had no ability to time travel. As though that would support your case about there being barely any kippers in 2009.
Have you got anything factual or relevant to say?
Oh dear if only the world was as black and white as your simplistic little soul wants. UKIP had little or no support in any elections except for the Euros pre 2013 and therefore it is reasonable to assume that those who did not vote for them in other elections (such as local elections and the general election) were not actually Kippers but only lent their vote to them because of their views on the EU at the Euro election. Either they were normally supporters of other parties or they were swing voters who just vote for the party that best suits them at a time. A Kipper is someone who first and foremost will support UKIP at every election.
For example on the same day as the Euros in 2009 there were local council elections where UKIP barely featured so its pretty much certain that some voters voted UKIP in the Euros and for one of the major parties in the locals. What does that make them?
Now if those voters are not the much derided Kippers you claim then their 'fury' in November 2009 after the Euros is not that of Kippers but of whatever party they normally supported.
Now I appreciate your difficulties in understanding such complex ideas but as the Lisbon cop-out was after the Euro elections and therefore had no influence over their choice to vote UKIP and given they normally supported another party your assessment that they were Kippers is utterly ridiculous. Sorry its a bit complicated for you but I hope that makes it clearer for you.
Now you can persist with your fetid flatulence in order get your Tory 'UKIP trolling' badge if you like or you can stop making yourself look like a fool its up to you!
PS And typing [FACT] after your absurd assertions does not make your sad pathetic little views anymore realistic
'Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?'
He doesn't like embarrassing facts to get in the way.
No I just like pointing out how little you morons actually understand about the way the EU works.
So just an insult and a smug bit of intellectual self confidence? Are you a special blend of Malc & Miliband?
How about detailing exactly how we're paying £1.7bn with some sources to back it up?
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 chunky refund to follow shortly, which Britain was always going to receive.
The UK will pay two interest-free sums next year totalling £850m, instead of a larger lump sum by 1 December, after a rebate from Brussels due in 2016 appeared to have been brought forward.
I'm no fan of the Speaker, but it was entirely right he drew attention to the fact that the government claiming voting on one set of measures was a proxy for another set is entirely unprecedented. It was a shameful abuse of parliamentary behaviour by the Tories today.
The cheerleaders supporting the government today would be all fury if a Labour government did likewise.
Always a good marker of whether outrage or defence is feigned or unreasonable that - how would/did I react if my opponents acted the same way?
Labour's motion seems from reports to have been or caused a shambles, but I cannot see how the Tory actions beforehand would not, if done by Labour, have drawn outrage from the Tories, and that irrespective of the intervention of the Speaker.
Presumably, the "objective" will now mutate into an "aim", and by the general election it will be an "aspiration".
Just as the 'promise' on the EAW was stutteringly downgraded to a 'comment' by May in this morning's radio interview. (and all credit to the BBC for picking that up)
The £1.7 billion stands. It is how much we are due to pay. This would always have been subject to the rebate since the rebate is calculated based on the difference between our net and gross contributions. No one knows how much of the rebate will apply in real money terms since it is based on grants we have not yet received and that we do not yet know the amounts of.
No. There is more that 1 kind of rebate (apparently). This rebate is 50% and is applied simultaneously.
I'm going to watch Sky News now: Faisal Islam @faisalislam 3m3 minutes ago Jacob Rees mogg accuses Theresa May of "sophistry" on #skynewstonight with @adamboultonSKY
JR-M has certainly surpassed expectations as an MP - the advantage of having lowered those expectations to begin with.
He makes an interesting contrast to the PPE crowd.
Presumably, the "objective" will now mutate into an "aim", and by the general election it will be an "aspiration".
Just as the 'promise' on the EAW was stutteringly downgraded to a 'comment' by May in this morning's radio interview. (and all credit to the BBC for picking that up)
Given her Orwellian approach to policy, it's only fitting she uses an Orwellian approach to language.
Presumably, the "objective" will now mutate into an "aim", and by the general election it will be an "aspiration".
Just as the 'promise' on the EAW was stutteringly downgraded to a 'comment' by May in this morning's radio interview. (and all credit to the BBC for picking that up)
Quite so and when they do that equally for the Labour politicians then we and they might just be getting a little closer to their charter requirements.
Surely there's a difference between supporting a party and voting for it. It is possible to vote on the grounds they are all crap, but one is slightly less crap than the others. Or you quite like the candidate. And plenty of people vote UKIP in Euro elections but don't at a GE - what does this make them? A "supporter" is more someone who probably supports the majority of a party's policies, thinks its leaders are the best ones to run the country, whose family going back seventeen generations voted for them, etc, so much more of a positive attitude.
If you vote for a party/candidate in an election you are supporting them, which makes you a supporter, whether you like it or not. The votes aren't differentiated into piles of "love this guy" and "voting him because I hate all the rest".
Not so, a vote is simply "better than the other guys in this election". I usually vote Tory in national elections, probably enough to call me a Tory supporter, but what am I doing when I vote LibDem or UKIP in a local election?
'Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?'
He doesn't like embarrassing facts to get in the way.
No I just like pointing out how little you morons actually understand about the way the EU works.
So just an insult and a smug bit of intellectual self confidence? Are you a special blend of Malc & Miliband?
How about detailing exactly how we're paying £1.7bn with some sources to back it up?
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 chunky refund to follow shortly, which Britain was always going to receive.
The UK will pay two interest-free sums next year totalling £850m, instead of a larger lump sum by 1 December, after a rebate from Brussels due in 2016 appeared to have been brought forward.
The BBC is going on Treasury claims, the Speccy is going on the Commission's. Given how the Treasury has a massive incentive to lie about this, and the Commission does not, I'm going to go with the latter.
I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)
Yup ! they only quote the bit that does them the most benefit and leave out the very important part to ensure the Tories sustain maximum damage. I always take the view that anyone who spouts about the cast iron guarantee is a muppet It equated to Brown increasing the highest rate of tax for the last 30 days of his government . A wicked move the political equivalent of a scorched earth policy and to hell with the good of the country as a whole. Ever since Labour have claimed tax cuts for millionaires of course despite having a lower rate for as good as the entire length of their tenure. Labour is only interested in Labour.
Here is a simple question for you. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it?
Such as? Be careful here you are likely to fall into the big elephant trap Brown left behind.
(Yes I am aware of the principle that one parliament cannot bind the next. )
Do you not remember the treachery you referred to minutes ago? Let me remind you
and forgets the act of treachery that took place when Labour sneaked in through the back door and signed Lisbon.
So I repeat. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery, that YOU refer to why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it
In less than a week the government has completely trashed the government's claim to be trustworthy over the EU. It just needs a massive backdown over EU immigration to put the final nail in the column in their EU credibility. By 2017, they'll be talking about the EU referendum being a "desire" that won't necessarily come to fruition.
There has obviously been quite a bit of trading already. UKIP are up to 11.5, Con have inched forward and Labour down a bit.
Even at the revised price, UKIP would be a buy. It's already looking unlikely they will win fewer than 5 seats so you have an effective maximum loss of 6.5. I wouldn't like to guess what the maximum win is. We'll know better after Rochester but their national poll ratings only need to move forward a few more points and we could see a domino effect.
I suspect SNP is also a buy for similar reasons, but Scotland not really my subject. LDs too could be a tentative buy.
Considering that the political landscape appears to be splintering, I can't really argue with what you say, and yet I'm tempted to sell Ukip, SNP and even LibDems at those levels. During the election period itself the media focus will still be heavily biased in favour of Lab and Con and I'm skeptical that Ukip will break through unless they can start polling in the 20%s.
But like you say, winnings are quite restricted even if Ukip, SNP and LibDems do fall short.
I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)
Yup ! they only quote the bit that does them the most benefit and leave out the very important part to ensure the Tories sustain maximum damage. I always take the view that anyone who spouts about the cast iron guarantee is a muppet It equated to Brown increasing the highest rate of tax for the last 30 days of his government . A wicked move the political equivalent of a scorched earth policy and to hell with the good of the country as a whole. Ever since Labour have claimed tax cuts for millionaires of course despite having a lower rate for as good as the entire length of their tenure. Labour is only interested in Labour.
Here is a simple question for you. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it?
Such as? Be careful here you are likely to fall into the big elephant trap Brown left behind.
(Yes I am aware of the principle that one parliament cannot bind the next. )
Do you not remember the treachery you referred to minutes ago? Let me remind you
and forgets the act of treachery that took place when Labour sneaked in through the back door and signed Lisbon.
So I repeat. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery, that YOU refer to why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it
What exactly could he do? The treaty was in place. reverting back to pre ratification was not possible that version of the EU ceased to exist. His only real choice would have been threat of withdrawal.
It is not the EUs fault that Brown behaved the way he did. The conservative party has never been an anti european union party, while in government. Why would he wish to lead us out?
In less than a week the government has completely trashed the government's claim to be trustworthy over the EU. It just needs a massive backdown over EU immigration to put the final nail in the column in their EU credibility. By 2017, they'll be talking about the EU referendum being a "desire" that won't necessarily come to fruition.
"Ukip has already sent out a press release from Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell accusing the government of treating democracy with ‘contempt’. Carswell added:
'David Cameron promised a vote on this issue in the Commons. His Whips tried to play it clever and fix procedure. It has backfired spectacularly.’
Ukip could develop a line here, which is that Cameron promised the British public a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which didn’t happen, and then promised the Commons a vote on the European Arrest Warrant, which also didn’t happen. Why, Ukip could argue, would you trust the Tories to give a referendum in 2017?"
Pigdog Reckless showing interesting judgement here prefers Britain First to win more than a Lib Dem... the Greens and Yellow Peril don't like him much either.... I presume the question was "if you weren't elected"
A member of the audience asked the candidates - "if you were elected, who would you not want to win?" Labour's Naushaba Khan and Conservative Kelly Tolhurst picked Jayda Fransen from Britain First, standing as Vote Britain!
Clive Gregory, Greens, and Geoff Juby, Lib Dems, chose Mark Reckless, who in turn said Geoff Juby.
This is a very bad night for the Tories.There must be dozens of Tory MPs,over roast swan,port and cigars,who are seething at being treated like dirt by Cameron.They can see the loss of a key bye-election just around the corner,the loss of their own seats and the likelihood of a Tory majority as close to locating somewhere over the rainbow.Cameron is in for a deserved pasting. The end product has to be further defections to Ukip.Even uber-Tory Rees-Mogg could be worth backing as next Tory MP to go.If the Tories will keep banging on about Europe,they are bound to spontaneously combust.
Presumably, the "objective" will now mutate into an "aim", and by the general election it will be an "aspiration".
Just as the 'promise' on the EAW was stutteringly downgraded to a 'comment' by May in this morning's radio interview. (and all credit to the BBC for picking that up)
Quite so and when they do that equally for the Labour politicians then we and they might just be getting a little closer to their charter requirements.
I don't doubt unfortunately that the BBC would have given a Labour minister an easier ride. That said the stutter by May when she started to say "Promise" and then changed it to "Comment" was so ovious I would have been amazed if any interviewer would have let it slide.
Pigdog Reckless showing interesting judgement here prefers Britain First to win more than a Lib Dem... the Greens and Yellow Peril don't like him much either.... I presume the question was "if you weren't elected"
A member of the audience asked the candidates - "if you were elected, who would you not want to win?" Labour's Naushaba Khan and Conservative Kelly Tolhurst picked Jayda Fransen from Britain First, standing as Vote Britain!
Clive Gregory, Greens, and Geoff Juby, Lib Dems, chose Mark Reckless, who in turn said Geoff Juby.
No Reckless wants the LibDem to lose more which is a somewhat different thing.
And given how LibDems are generally regarded now not an uncommon viewpoint.
Pigdog Reckless showing interesting judgement here prefers Britain First to win more than a Lib Dem... the Greens and Yellow Peril don't like him much either.... I presume the question was "if you weren't elected"
A member of the audience asked the candidates - "if you were elected, who would you not want to win?" Labour's Naushaba Khan and Conservative Kelly Tolhurst picked Jayda Fransen from Britain First, standing as Vote Britain!
Clive Gregory, Greens, and Geoff Juby, Lib Dems, chose Mark Reckless, who in turn said Geoff Juby.
No Reckless wants the LibDem to lose more which is a somewhat different thing.
And given how LibDems are generally regarded now not an uncommon viewpoint.
Giving a party money does not guarantee them a single vote. Canvassing for a party does not guarantee them a single vote. Voting for a party guarantees them a single vote.
The only way to be sure of supporting a party is to vote for them.
A huge round of applause is due to Sporting for having somewhat belatedly decided to introduce an out and out GE Seats spread-betting market when it had appeared earlier that they were running scared about doing so. This is the grand-daddy of them all when it come to political betting where every single seat counts. Those who believe in Stephen Fisher's current projection may consdier that Sporting have the Tories about 25 seats light. OTOH, those who reckon that UKIP will severely damage the Blues might decide that the opening quote has them about about 25 seats higher than will prove to be the case. The final outcome may well be somewhere between these two positions - you pays your money and you takes your chance, but definitely not for the faint-hearted.
I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)
Yup ! they only quote the bit that does them the most benefit and leave out the very important part to ensure the Tories sustain maximum damage. I always take the view that anyone who spouts about the cast iron guarantee is a muppet It equated to Brown increasing the highest rate of tax for the last 30 days of his government . A wicked move the political equivalent of a scorched earth policy and to hell with the good of the country as a whole. Ever since Labour have claimed tax cuts for millionaires of course despite having a lower rate for as good as the entire length of their tenure. Labour is only interested in Labour.
Here is a simple question for you. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it?
Such as? Be careful here you are likely to fall into the big elephant trap Brown left behind.
(Yes I am aware of the principle that one parliament cannot bind the next. )
Do you not remember the treachery you referred to minutes ago? Let me remind you
and forgets the act of treachery that took place when Labour sneaked in through the back door and signed Lisbon.
So I repeat. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery, that YOU refer to why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it
Its not what Cameron should have done even if he even could. Its the initial act by Brown I refer too and the signing of that little " tidying up exercise" treaty in the first place which turns out to be anything but. Brown knew this only too well and played it for political advantage while disregarding the best interests of the country which was my initial point.
So just an insult and a smug bit of intellectual self confidence? Are you a special blend of Malc & Miliband?
How about detailing exactly how we're paying £1.7bn with some sources to back it up?
The £1.7 billion stands. It is how much we are due to pay. This would always have been subject to the rebate since the rebate is calculated based on the difference between our net and gross contributions. No one knows how much of the rebate will apply in real money terms since it is based on grants we have not yet received and that we do not yet know the amounts of.
If, for example, we choose to take EU money to help with events such as a repeat of the the floods last year then the amount of rebate we get in real money terms will be reduced accordingly.
So the claim that we are getting our contribution reduced by £850 million is simply speculation.
In the first place we will pay £1.7 billion. How much of that comes back as rebate is currently unknown.
Richard, your interpretation is both correct and wrong at the same time.
You are correct in that the rebate applies to our net contribution (though the way this is worked out is complicated and is itself revised looking at the last four years, etc). This means we cannot predict what the rebate will be in cash terms ahead of time, because we do not know how much EU funding will find its way back to the UK.
However, you are wrong for the particular circumstances of the amendment to our gross contributions to the budget. Since a change in our gross contributions does not change the amount of money coming from the EU to the UK then its effect on the level of the net contribution is equal to the change in the gross contribution.
Thus one can calculate the rebate on the basis of the change in the gross contribution, reducing the size of the change in the gross contribution by half - the rate of the rebate following Blair's sacrifice on our behalf.
What George managed to get the EU commission to agree to do was to fiddle with the timings of rebate payments so that he could set the implied £850m rebate against the £1.7bn cash payment requested, so he only has to actually transfer the £850m.
In terms of our net contribution to the EU budget this makes precisely zero difference - we're still paying more precisely in line with the EU rules due to the increase in our GNI from including estimates of the drugs trade, etc - but in terms of presentational politics the initial polls suggest that enough of the British public are swallowing it to make it a decent day's work.
And that's why Cameron can keep on getting away with talking about "paying down the debt" when we're running an annual deficit of £100bn. Not enough of the public can tell when they're being lied to. I do hope he tries to use that line in one of the debates and is skewered for it, though.
The £1.7 billion stands. It is how much we are due to pay. This would always have been subject to the rebate since the rebate is calculated based on the difference between our net and gross contributions. No one knows how much of the rebate will apply in real money terms since it is based on grants we have not yet received and that we do not yet know the amounts of.
No. There is more that 1 kind of rebate (apparently). This rebate is 50% and is applied simultaneously.
We pay half.
No there is not. The rebate is a standard calculation based on the difference between our gross and net payments. It was originally roughly 2/3rds of the difference but that was reduced by 20% by Blair's incompetence which is why it is now just about 50%. That is what will be applied to the £1.7 billion along with all other monies we give to the EU. The idea that this was uniquely going to be the only payment that we make that would not be subject to this rebate is something being propagated by Tories to make it seem like Osborne achieved something more than was already going to happen.
The only thing that changed was the timing, not the amount.
A huge round of applause is due to Sporting for having somewhat belatedly decided to introduce an out and out GE Seats spread-betting market when it had appeared earlier that they were running scared about doing so. This is the grand-daddy of them all when it come to political betting where every single seat counts. Those who believe in Stephen Fisher's current projection may consdier that Sporting have the Tories about 25 seats light. OTOH, those who reckon that UKIP will severely damage the Blues might decide that the opening quote has them about about 25 seats higher than will prove to be the case. The final outcome may well be somewhere between these two positions - you pays your money and you takes your chance, but definitely not for the faint-hearted.
I agree Peter and as you stated earlier the LAB spread is equally affected by ones view on the SNP likely number of gains from Ed.
So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.
Right.
Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?
Are you still planning on voting for SLAB next year ?
Still thinking about it. The priority for me is to oppose the SNP the most effective way possible. Given the risk that they might well take Dundee West voting tory seems...self indulgent.
It is quite a thought to vote for Ed though, even indirectly.
There is more than the usual amount of 'round objects' being spouted on here tonight.
This is a classic example of a Westminster story that won't resonate anywhere other than inside the heads of a very small number of people.
A lot of people should just calm down.
Yup I agree. To the extent that most people have ever thought about the EAW it would be with the vague sense it's probably a good thing as it will assist the fight against crime, terrorism etc. I've no idea if May had a good night or not and I'm not particularly interested either much like 98% of the population. Extreme libertarians whether Tory or Ukip are rather odd people. I'd prefer to tie my mast to a rather more bread and butter issue.
Must see TV. I'm going to try and not throw my butler at the television set when the pigdog slaphead is on.
The Battle for Rochester and Strood: A BBC South East Special will be broadcast on Monday 10 November at 22:35 GMT on BBC1 and BBC Radio Kent, and at 23:30 GMT on the BBC News Channel.
So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.
Right.
Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?
Are you still planning on voting for SLAB next year ?
Still thinking about it. The priority for me is to oppose the SNP the most effective way possible. Given the risk that they might well take Dundee West voting tory seems...self indulgent.
It is quite a thought to vote for Ed though, even indirectly.
Very old habits and all that.
Did you say you were a LAB voter many years ago David?
Richard, your interpretation is both correct and wrong at the same time.
You are correct in that the rebate applies to our net contribution (though the way this is worked out is complicated and is itself revised looking at the last four years, etc). This means we cannot predict what the rebate will be in cash terms ahead of time, because we do not know how much EU funding will find its way back to the UK.
However, you are wrong for the particular circumstances of the amendment to our gross contributions to the budget. Since a change in our gross contributions does not change the amount of money coming from the EU to the UK then its effect on the level of the net contribution is equal to the change in the gross contribution.
Thus one can calculate the rebate on the basis of the change in the gross contribution, reducing the size of the change in the gross contribution by half - the rate of the rebate following Blair's sacrifice on our behalf.
What George managed to get the EU commission to agree to do was to fiddle with the timings of rebate payments so that he could set the implied £850m rebate against the £1.7bn cash payment requested, so he only has to actually transfer the £850m.
In terms of our net contribution to the EU budget this makes precisely zero difference - we're still paying more precisely in line with the EU rules due to the increase in our GNI from including estimates of the drugs trade, etc - but in terms of presentational politics the initial polls suggest that enough of the British public are swallowing it to make it a decent day's work.
And that's why Cameron can keep on getting away with talking about "paying down the debt" when we're running an annual deficit of £100bn. Not enough of the public can tell when they're being lied to. I do hope he tries to use that line in one of the debates and is skewered for it, though.
I agree with your overall point but your first paragraph is wrong I am afraid.
The rebate does not apply to the net contribution. It applies to the difference between the gross and net. It is calculated as approx. 2/3rds - 20% (2/3rds) of the difference between the net and gross. The second part of that equation being due to the Blair reduction.
Hence the reason we cannot predict what the amount of rebate will be on the £1.7 billion. It is predicated on calculations we do not have the inputs to determine as yet.
So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.
Right.
Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?
Are you still planning on voting for SLAB next year ?
Still thinking about it. The priority for me is to oppose the SNP the most effective way possible. Given the risk that they might well take Dundee West voting tory seems...self indulgent.
It is quite a thought to vote for Ed though, even indirectly.
Very old habits and all that.
Did you say you were a LAB voter many years ago David?
UKIP has defended a campaign leaflet for the Rochester and Strood by-election after claims a photo used implied NHS support for the party. The chairwoman of Medway Hospitals NHS Trust wrote to candidate Mark Reckless to complain about "misleading" information in his campaign leaflets.
Just seen that flurry of polls. What gets me is the lack of reality between the polls and how pb you-kippers would like to think they are performing. It is one of the greatest disjunctions between reality and wishful thinking I've seen in many years of politics. Actually, perhaps I have seen something a little like it before: with the SDP, and to a lesser extent we saw it with Cleggasm. So perhaps it shouldn't surprise us seasoned observers: new movements are prone to this over-hyping. Unless you think there is going to be some massive post-Rochester bounce I fear some of you are going to be terribly disappointed.
So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.
Right.
Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?
Are you still planning on voting for SLAB next year ?
Still thinking about it. The priority for me is to oppose the SNP the most effective way possible. Given the risk that they might well take Dundee West voting tory seems...self indulgent.
It is quite a thought to vote for Ed though, even indirectly.
Very old habits and all that.
Did you say you were a LAB voter many years ago David?
Pigdog Reckless showing interesting judgement here prefers Britain First to win more than a Lib Dem... the Greens and Yellow Peril don't like him much either.... I presume the question was "if you weren't elected"
A member of the audience asked the candidates - "if you were elected, who would you not want to win?" Labour's Naushaba Khan and Conservative Kelly Tolhurst picked Jayda Fransen from Britain First, standing as Vote Britain!
Clive Gregory, Greens, and Geoff Juby, Lib Dems, chose Mark Reckless, who in turn said Geoff Juby.
No Reckless wants the LibDem to lose more which is a somewhat different thing.
And given how LibDems are generally regarded now not an uncommon viewpoint.
What a nuanced view.
The accuracy ruined your attempt at smearing has it ?
Just seen that flurry of polls. What gets me is the lack of reality between the polls and how pb you-kippers would like to think they are performing. It is one of the greatest disjunctions between reality and wishful thinking I've seen in many years of politics. Actually, perhaps I have seen something a little like it before: with the SDP, and to a lesser extent we saw it with Cleggasm. So perhaps it shouldn't surprise us seasoned observers: new movements are prone to this over-hyping. Unless you think there is going to be some massive post-Rochester bounce I fear some of you are going to be terribly disappointed.
You lot would give your left arms to be eleven points up on 2010.
So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.
Right.
Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?
Are you still planning on voting for SLAB next year ?
Still thinking about it. The priority for me is to oppose the SNP the most effective way possible. Given the risk that they might well take Dundee West voting tory seems...self indulgent.
It is quite a thought to vote for Ed though, even indirectly.
Very old habits and all that.
Did you say you were a LAB voter many years ago David?
No SDP. I was a local candidate for them a couple of times in the 80s. My wife was brought up a Labour supporter and her dad was a Labour councillor for years on different local authorities.
She did admit that during her efforts on referendum day she felt back amongst her own people with the Labour supporters. And after 28 years of marriage too!
Just seen that flurry of polls. What gets me is the lack of reality between the polls and how pb you-kippers would like to think they are performing. It is one of the greatest disjunctions between reality and wishful thinking I've seen in many years of politics. Actually, perhaps I have seen something a little like it before: with the SDP, and to a lesser extent we saw it with Cleggasm. So perhaps it shouldn't surprise us seasoned observers: new movements are prone to this over-hyping. Unless you think there is going to be some massive post-Rochester bounce I fear some of you are going to be terribly disappointed.
I never get when you say things like this. Which Kippers are talking about UKIP getting 30% or winning hundreds of seats next year or something like that?
The £1.7 billion stands. It is how much we are due to pay. This would always have been subject to the rebate since the rebate is calculated based on the difference between our net and gross contributions. No one knows how much of the rebate will apply in real money terms since it is based on grants we have not yet received and that we do not yet know the amounts of.
No. There is more that 1 kind of rebate (apparently). This rebate is 50% and is applied simultaneously.
We pay half.
No there is not. The rebate is a standard calculation based on the difference between our gross and net payments. It was originally roughly 2/3rds of the difference but that was reduced by 20% by Blair's incompetence which is why it is now just about 50%. That is what will be applied to the £1.7 billion along with all other monies we give to the EU. The idea that this was uniquely going to be the only payment that we make that would not be subject to this rebate is something being propagated by Tories to make it seem like Osborne achieved something more than was already going to happen.
The only thing that changed was the timing, not the amount.
So: 1) The rebate is a fixed percentage of the net contribution 2) The UK is always a net contributor 3) The £1.7bn enlarges this net contribution Therefore: 4) The fixed percentage will apply to the net contribution, irrespective of receiving a few extra Euros for dealing with gay floods So realistically: 5) We are not, and never have, been in line to pay the full £1.7bn
[If this is true then I have no clue why this wasn't raised by, well, anyone, before George's announcement.]
Just seen that flurry of polls. What gets me is the lack of reality between the polls and how pb you-kippers would like to think they are performing. It is one of the greatest disjunctions between reality and wishful thinking I've seen in many years of politics. Actually, perhaps I have seen something a little like it before: with the SDP, and to a lesser extent we saw it with Cleggasm. So perhaps it shouldn't surprise us seasoned observers: new movements are prone to this over-hyping. Unless you think there is going to be some massive post-Rochester bounce I fear some of you are going to be terribly disappointed.
Tonight's news is about the EAW mess. Care to comment, hmmm?
The £1.7 billion stands. It is how much we are due to pay. This would always have been subject to the rebate since the rebate is calculated based on the difference between our net and gross contributions. No one knows how much of the rebate will apply in real money terms since it is based on grants we have not yet received and that we do not yet know the amounts of.
No. There is more that 1 kind of rebate (apparently). This rebate is 50% and is applied simultaneously.
We pay half.
No there is not. The rebate is a standard calculation based on the difference between our gross and net payments. It was originally roughly 2/3rds of the difference but that was reduced by 20% by Blair's incompetence which is why it is now just about 50%. That is what will be applied to the £1.7 billion along with all other monies we give to the EU. The idea that this was uniquely going to be the only payment that we make that would not be subject to this rebate is something being propagated by Tories to make it seem like Osborne achieved something more than was already going to happen.
The only thing that changed was the timing, not the amount.
So: 1) The rebate is a fixed percentage of the net contribution 2) The UK is always a net contributor 3) The £1.7bn enlarges this net contribution Therefore: 4) The fixed percentage will apply to the net contribution, irrespective of receiving a few extra Euros for dealing with gay floods So realistically: 5) We are not, and never have, been in line to pay the full £1.7bn
[If this is true then I have no clue why this wasn't raised by, well, anyone, before George's announcement.]
No it is not. The rebate is a fixed percentage of the difference between the net and gross. If the net payment stayed the same but the gross increased then the rebate would increase even though the net payment had stayed the same.
Not sure why you fail to understand this basic fact at the very start.
The £1.7 billion stands. It is how much we are due to pay. This would always have been subject to the rebate since the rebate is calculated based on the difference between our net and gross contributions. No one knows how much of the rebate will apply in real money terms since it is based on grants we have not yet received and that we do not yet know the amounts of.
No. There is more that 1 kind of rebate (apparently). This rebate is 50% and is applied simultaneously.
We pay half.
No there is not. The rebate is a standard calculation based on the difference between our gross and net payments. It was originally roughly 2/3rds of the difference but that was reduced by 20% by Blair's incompetence which is why it is now just about 50%. That is what will be applied to the £1.7 billion along with all other monies we give to the EU. The idea that this was uniquely going to be the only payment that we make that would not be subject to this rebate is something being propagated by Tories to make it seem like Osborne achieved something more than was already going to happen.
The only thing that changed was the timing, not the amount.
So: 1) The rebate is a fixed percentage of the net contribution 2) The UK is always a net contributor 3) The £1.7bn enlarges this net contribution Therefore: 4) The fixed percentage will apply to the net contribution, irrespective of receiving a few extra Euros for dealing with gay floods So realistically: 5) We are not, and never have, been in line to pay the full £1.7bn
[If this is true then I have no clue why this wasn't raised by, well, anyone, before George's announcement.]
Actually this was pointed out by the EU is a press statement on 27th October - see the discussion here last Saturday afternoon for the links.
That British politicians and journalists didn't realise this says much about their interest in financial details.
So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.
Right.
Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?
Are you still planning on voting for SLAB next year ?
Still thinking about it. The priority for me is to oppose the SNP the most effective way possible. Given the risk that they might well take Dundee West voting tory seems...self indulgent.
It is quite a thought to vote for Ed though, even indirectly.
Very old habits and all that.
Did you say you were a LAB voter many years ago David?
No SDP. I was a local candidate for them a couple of times in the 80s. My wife was brought up a Labour supporter and her dad was a Labour councillor for years on different local authorities.
She did admit that during her efforts on referendum day she felt back amongst her own people with the Labour supporters. And after 28 years of marriage too!
Interesting thanks.
When we got married I was much more left wing than Mrs BJ.
She is now worse than me on the Socialism front she would vote Respect if they had a candidate in Chesterfield.
Richard, your interpretation is both correct and wrong at the same time.
You are correct in that the rebate applies to our net contribution (though the way this is worked out is complicated and is itself revised looking at the last four years, etc). This means we cannot predict what the rebate will be in cash terms ahead of time, because we do not know how much EU funding will find its way back to the UK.
However, you are wrong for the particular circumstances of the amendment to our gross contributions to the budget. Since a change in our gross contributions does not change the amount of money coming from the EU to the UK then its effect on the level of the net contribution is equal to the change in the gross contribution.
Thus one can calculate the rebate on the basis of the change in the gross contribution, reducing the size of the change in the gross contribution by half - the rate of the rebate following Blair's sacrifice on our behalf.
What George managed to get the EU commission to agree to do was to fiddle with the timings of rebate payments so that he could set the implied £850m rebate against the £1.7bn cash payment requested, so he only has to actually transfer the £850m.
In terms of our net contribution to the EU budget this makes precisely zero difference - we're still paying more precisely in line with the EU rules due to the increase in our GNI from including estimates of the drugs trade, etc - but in terms of presentational politics the initial polls suggest that enough of the British public are swallowing it to make it a decent day's work.
And that's why Cameron can keep on getting away with talking about "paying down the debt" when we're running an annual deficit of £100bn. Not enough of the public can tell when they're being lied to. I do hope he tries to use that line in one of the debates and is skewered for it, though.
I agree with your overall point but your first paragraph is wrong I am afraid.
The rebate does not apply to the net contribution. It applies to the difference between the gross and net. It is calculated as approx. 2/3rds - 20% (2/3rds) of the difference between the net and gross. The second part of that equation being due to the Blair reduction.
Hence the reason we cannot predict what the amount of rebate will be on the £1.7 billion. It is predicated on calculations we do not have the inputs to determine as yet.
Aaarg failing to keep up.
"The rebate does not apply to the net contribution. It applies to the difference between the gross and net."
A) We pay in £10, and take out £4, that's a gross of £10 and net payment of £6. We get rebate on the £4 difference between the two. b) We pay in £10 and take out £10, that's a gross of £10 and net payment of £0. We get a rebate on the £10 difference.
Tory Whips (Gove?) blame Home Office (May?) for EAW mess: Paul Goodman @PaulGoodmanCH · 57m 57 minutes ago Tory Whips very clear that cause of today's palaver was Home Office desire not to have amendable motion - i.e: it's not our fault, Guv.
Can we please, please, please go back to talking about AV and stop talking about this £1.7bn or £850m payment to the EU? Everyone else lost interest days ago.
Just seen that flurry of polls. What gets me is the lack of reality between the polls and how pb you-kippers would like to think they are performing. It is one of the greatest disjunctions between reality and wishful thinking I've seen in many years of politics. Actually, perhaps I have seen something a little like it before: with the SDP, and to a lesser extent we saw it with Cleggasm. So perhaps it shouldn't surprise us seasoned observers: new movements are prone to this over-hyping. Unless you think there is going to be some massive post-Rochester bounce I fear some of you are going to be terribly disappointed.
Yes the parallels do appear quite similar and for simiar reasons. I remember this from the time but If anything UKIP seem to be a little behind though on the SDP showing. Mind you there is still time I guess.
Wikapedia"
With an election not due until May 1984, the Alliance proved to be an instant hit with voters who were disgruntled with the Conservatives and Labour, as many opinion polls in late 1981 and early 1982 showed the Alliance as the most popular political party in Britain, peaking with a 50% showing - up to twice the level on support shown for the Conservatives around this time.[6] Also in 1981, David Steel was so confident in an Alliance victory that during his address the Liberal Party conference, he famously used the phrase: "Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for government!"
Of course then the nasty Junta invaded the Falklands, the swing backs occurred and yet another set of conspiracy theories commenced * winks*
it makes sense in your anti-matter universe for the opposite to occur.
I am just looking at the numbers on Oddschecker... Yvette is not as popular today as she was earlier in the week.
I'm looking at Oddschecker too, so in your anti-matter universe the opposite is happening. We also watched the same TV channel and came to exact opposite conclusions, which leads to a question are you the anti-matter version of me?
Just seen that flurry of polls. What gets me is the lack of reality between the polls and how pb you-kippers would like to think they are performing. It is one of the greatest disjunctions between reality and wishful thinking I've seen in many years of politics. Actually, perhaps I have seen something a little like it before: with the SDP, and to a lesser extent we saw it with Cleggasm. So perhaps it shouldn't surprise us seasoned observers: new movements are prone to this over-hyping. Unless you think there is going to be some massive post-Rochester bounce I fear some of you are going to be terribly disappointed.
Is it funny to write "you-kippers"?
Were you on sabbatical from seasoned observerdom in 2009? I ask because many of us, but not you, observed the Totnes open primary in that year.
The £1.7 billion stands. It is how much we are due to pay. This would always have been subject to the rebate since the rebate is calculated based on the difference between our net and gross contributions. No one knows how much of the rebate will apply in real money terms since it is based on grants we have not yet received and that we do not yet know the amounts of.
No. There is more that 1 kind of rebate (apparently). This rebate is 50% and is applied simultaneously.
We pay half.
No there is not. The rebate is a standard calculation based on the difference between our gross and net payments. It was originally roughly 2/3rds of the difference but that was reduced by 20% by Blair's incompetence which is why it is now just about 50%. That is what will be applied to the £1.7 billion along with all other monies we give to the EU. The idea that this was uniquely going to be the only payment that we make that would not be subject to this rebate is something being propagated by Tories to make it seem like Osborne achieved something more than was already going to happen.
The only thing that changed was the timing, not the amount.
So: 1) The rebate is a fixed percentage of the net contribution 2) The UK is always a net contributor 3) The £1.7bn enlarges this net contribution Therefore: 4) The fixed percentage will apply to the net contribution, irrespective of receiving a few extra Euros for dealing with gay floods So realistically: 5) We are not, and never have, been in line to pay the full £1.7bn
[If this is true then I have no clue why this wasn't raised by, well, anyone, before George's announcement.]
Actually this was pointed out by the EU is a press statement on 27th October - see the discussion here last Saturday afternoon for the links.
That British politicians and journalists didn't realise this says much about their interest in financial details.
I'm sure, as Mr Tydall has pointed out, that the EU didn't say that. They would know better than that. After all, they OWN the whole arcane rulebook.
Can we please, please, please go back to talking about AV and stop talking about this £1.7bn or £850m payment to the EU? Everyone else lost interest days ago.
I thought Ossie was supposed to be resigning over this some time today.
I know this was posted earlier, but what to make of the main 'sponsor' on the Tory defence saying this.... it's either complete [reckless] or perhaps something more positive for my silly bets... its political betting after all
Tracey Crouch@tracey_crouch·3h3 hours ago Told Chief I'd bet on a Tory hold in Rochester. He whipped out some dosh & asked me to put bet on for him too. Back to bookies tomorrow..
Rev Oswald has spoken after costing me a k on the last pigdog fight.
Giles Watling@GilesWatling·3h3 hours ago @tracey_crouch Did Rochester on Saturday. Really believe it's coming home - make the bet!
Robert Hutton@RobDotHutton·3 hrs3 hours ago .@tracey_crouch has just shown me FIFTY ENGLISH POUNDS that Michael Gove has given her to wager on Tories holding Rochester. #fightingtalk
Can we please, please, please go back to talking about AV and stop talking about this £1.7bn or £850m payment to the EU? Everyone else lost interest days ago.
I thought Ossie was supposed to be resigning over this some time today.
Well apparently not. And as I understand it Balls made a complete mess of things, as usual. So it is time to move on.
So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.
Right.
Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?
Are you still planning on voting for SLAB next year ?
Still thinking about it. The priority for me is to oppose the SNP the most effective way possible. Given the risk that they might well take Dundee West voting tory seems...self indulgent.
It is quite a thought to vote for Ed though, even indirectly.
Very old habits and all that.
Did you say you were a LAB voter many years ago David?
I was, then I grew up.
When did your drift to the right begin?
I'm not sure I ever drifted to the right.
I have never voted Tory, only Labour and various incarnations of what UKIP have morphed into. My personal stance is that I cannot stand the EU and the corrupt, anti democratic nature of it, and I care passionately about education and the reintroduction of grammar schools.
A more latter day thing that rankles with me is the third sector, and don't get me started on Common Purpose.
I suppose I am one of the WWC that nobody represents any more, UKIP are far from perfect but they stand for a couple of things I really care about, so they get my vote.
Is the figure quoted by kippers that we spend on EU membership the gross figure, or with the rebate taken away?
So none of the kippers know, or are they (rightly) embarrassed to answer truthfully?
I am not sure what "figure quoted by kippers" you are talking about. I always make the distinction between net and gross. I do so because I think quoting a net figure (rebate excepted) is disingenuous.
We do not talk about the net cost of taxes when we pay them by taking off the value of the services we get back, nor the net cost of our grocery spend by taking off the value of the produce we have bought.
All the more so in the case of the EU since most of the monies that are returned to us come with huge caveats and conditions including the need for matched funding and a lack of control over what areas and projects the funding is directed towards. As such the gross figure is a far more accurate representation of the basic cost of EU membership.
Pigdog Reckless showing interesting judgement here prefers Britain First to win more than a Lib Dem... the Greens and Yellow Peril don't like him much either.... I presume the question was "if you weren't elected"
A member of the audience asked the candidates - "if you were elected, who would you not want to win?" Labour's Naushaba Khan and Conservative Kelly Tolhurst picked Jayda Fransen from Britain First, standing as Vote Britain!
Clive Gregory, Greens, and Geoff Juby, Lib Dems, chose Mark Reckless, who in turn said Geoff Juby.
No Reckless wants the LibDem to lose more which is a somewhat different thing.
And given how LibDems are generally regarded now not an uncommon viewpoint.
What a nuanced view.
The accuracy ruined your attempt at smearing has it ?
Can we please, please, please go back to talking about AV and stop talking about this £1.7bn or £850m payment to the EU? Everyone else lost interest days ago.
I thought Ossie was supposed to be resigning over this some time today.
And the polling on it over the W/e showed the public think Cameron done well. That's what sticking in the craws of the kippers and Labour posters on here. Oh and of course Osborne rogered Balls on it earlier today by reading his guardian article in front of him:)
Is the figure quoted by kippers that we spend on EU membership the gross figure, or with the rebate taken away?
So none of the kippers know, or are they (rightly) embarrassed to answer truthfully?
I am not sure what "figure quoted by kippers" you are talking about. I always make the distinction between net and gross. I do so because I think quoting a net figure (rebate excepted) is disingenuous.
We do not talk about the net cost of taxes when we pay them by taking off the value of the services we get back, nor the net cost of our grocery spend by taking off the value of the produce we have bought.
All the more so in the case of the EU since most of the monies that are returned to us come with huge caveats and conditions including the need for matched funding and a lack of control over what areas and projects the funding is directed towards. As such the gross figure is a far more accurate representation of the basic cost of EU membership.
That sounds like an intellectually self confident way of saying that you don't count the rebate in your figure.
I know this was posted earlier, but what to make of the main 'sponsor' on the Tory defence saying this.... it's either complete [reckless] or perhaps something more positive for my silly bets... its political betting after all
Tracey Crouch@tracey_crouch·3h3 hours ago Told Chief I'd bet on a Tory hold in Rochester. He whipped out some dosh & asked me to put bet on for him too. Back to bookies tomorrow..
Rev Oswald has spoken after costing me a k on the last pigdog fight.
Giles Watling@GilesWatling·3h3 hours ago @tracey_crouch Did Rochester on Saturday. Really believe it's coming home - make the bet!
Robert Hutton@RobDotHutton·3 hrs3 hours ago .@tracey_crouch has just shown me FIFTY ENGLISH POUNDS that Michael Gove has given her to wager on Tories holding Rochester. #fightingtalk
5) We are not, and never have, been in line to pay the full £1.7bn
Exactly.
And even if some of Richard's logic is correct, this is a retrospective adjustment.
If we are due pay retrospectively, we are entitled to a 'retrospective' rebate on that amount, the figures for which are known today
Nope. All the rebate due on what we have paid to date has been paid back already. The rebate we will receive will be calculated on current spend and contribution.
We are in line to pay an additional £1.7 billion which a rebate of an unknown amount will then be calculated on dependent on other contributions and reimbursements.
Comments
Step forward Scott P
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29956289
Labour's motion seems from reports to have been or caused a shambles, but I cannot see how the Tory actions beforehand would not, if done by Labour, have drawn outrage from the Tories, and that irrespective of the intervention of the Speaker.
We pay half.
He makes an interesting contrast to the PPE crowd.
An omen for things to come?
and forgets the act of treachery that took place when Labour sneaked in through the back door and signed Lisbon.
So I repeat. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery, that YOU refer to why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29985044
lessons have been learnt = nothing will change
But like you say, winnings are quite restricted even if Ukip, SNP and LibDems do fall short.
It is not the EUs fault that Brown behaved the way he did. The conservative party has never been an anti european union party, while in government. Why would he wish to lead us out?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/government-wins-european-arrest-warrant-vote/
"Ukip has already sent out a press release from Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell accusing the government of treating democracy with ‘contempt’. Carswell added:
'David Cameron promised a vote on this issue in the Commons. His Whips tried to play it clever and fix procedure. It has backfired spectacularly.’
Ukip could develop a line here, which is that Cameron promised the British public a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which didn’t happen, and then promised the Commons a vote on the European Arrest Warrant, which also didn’t happen. Why, Ukip could argue, would you trust the Tories to give a referendum in 2017?"
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/sport/messenger-to-host-key-by-election-26314/
A member of the audience asked the candidates - "if you were elected, who would you not want to win?" Labour's Naushaba Khan and Conservative Kelly Tolhurst picked Jayda Fransen from Britain First, standing as Vote Britain!
Clive Gregory, Greens, and Geoff Juby, Lib Dems, chose Mark Reckless, who in turn said Geoff Juby.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-uk-india-lead-global-economic-growth-over-next-two-years-1473981
Plan to vote UKIP next year, although appreciate that it means bugger all in rock solid Hertsmere.
The end product has to be further defections to Ukip.Even uber-Tory Rees-Mogg could be worth backing as next Tory MP to go.If the Tories will keep banging on about Europe,they are bound to spontaneously combust.
And given how LibDems are generally regarded now not an uncommon viewpoint.
This is a classic example of a Westminster story that won't resonate anywhere other than inside the heads of a very small number of people.
A lot of people should just calm down.
The only way to be sure of supporting a party is to vote for them.
This is the grand-daddy of them all when it come to political betting where every single seat counts.
Those who believe in Stephen Fisher's current projection may consdier that Sporting have the Tories about 25 seats light. OTOH, those who reckon that UKIP will severely damage the Blues might decide that the opening quote has them about about 25 seats higher than will prove to be the case. The final outcome may well be somewhere between these two positions - you pays your money and you takes your chance, but definitely not for the faint-hearted.
Its not what Cameron should have done even if he even could. Its the initial act by Brown I refer too and the signing of that little " tidying up exercise" treaty in the first place which turns out to be anything but. Brown knew this only too well and played it for political advantage while disregarding the best interests of the country which was my initial point.
You are correct in that the rebate applies to our net contribution (though the way this is worked out is complicated and is itself revised looking at the last four years, etc). This means we cannot predict what the rebate will be in cash terms ahead of time, because we do not know how much EU funding will find its way back to the UK.
However, you are wrong for the particular circumstances of the amendment to our gross contributions to the budget. Since a change in our gross contributions does not change the amount of money coming from the EU to the UK then its effect on the level of the net contribution is equal to the change in the gross contribution.
Thus one can calculate the rebate on the basis of the change in the gross contribution, reducing the size of the change in the gross contribution by half - the rate of the rebate following Blair's sacrifice on our behalf.
What George managed to get the EU commission to agree to do was to fiddle with the timings of rebate payments so that he could set the implied £850m rebate against the £1.7bn cash payment requested, so he only has to actually transfer the £850m.
In terms of our net contribution to the EU budget this makes precisely zero difference - we're still paying more precisely in line with the EU rules due to the increase in our GNI from including estimates of the drugs trade, etc - but in terms of presentational politics the initial polls suggest that enough of the British public are swallowing it to make it a decent day's work.
And that's why Cameron can keep on getting away with talking about "paying down the debt" when we're running an annual deficit of £100bn. Not enough of the public can tell when they're being lied to. I do hope he tries to use that line in one of the debates and is skewered for it, though.
The only thing that changed was the timing, not the amount.
It is quite a thought to vote for Ed though, even indirectly.
I've no idea if May had a good night or not and I'm not particularly interested either much like 98% of the population. Extreme libertarians whether Tory or Ukip are rather odd people. I'd prefer to tie my mast to a rather more bread and butter issue.
The Battle for Rochester and Strood: A BBC South East Special will be broadcast on Monday 10 November at 22:35 GMT on BBC1 and BBC Radio Kent, and at 23:30 GMT on the BBC News Channel.
Did you say you were a LAB voter many years ago David?
The rebate does not apply to the net contribution. It applies to the difference between the gross and net. It is calculated as approx. 2/3rds - 20% (2/3rds) of the difference between the net and gross. The second part of that equation being due to the Blair reduction.
Hence the reason we cannot predict what the amount of rebate will be on the £1.7 billion. It is predicated on calculations we do not have the inputs to determine as yet.
UKIP has defended a campaign leaflet for the Rochester and Strood by-election after claims a photo used implied NHS support for the party.
The chairwoman of Medway Hospitals NHS Trust wrote to candidate Mark Reckless to complain about "misleading" information in his campaign leaflets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-29994011
She did admit that during her efforts on referendum day she felt back amongst her own people with the Labour supporters. And after 28 years of marriage too!
1) The rebate is a fixed percentage of the net contribution
2) The UK is always a net contributor
3) The £1.7bn enlarges this net contribution
Therefore:
4) The fixed percentage will apply to the net contribution, irrespective of receiving a few extra Euros for dealing with gay floods
So realistically:
5) We are not, and never have, been in line to pay the full £1.7bn
[If this is true then I have no clue why this wasn't raised by, well, anyone, before George's announcement.]
Care to comment, hmmm?
And even if some of Richard's logic is correct, this is a retrospective adjustment.
If we are due pay retrospectively, we are entitled to a 'retrospective' rebate on that amount, the figures for which are known today
Not sure why you fail to understand this basic fact at the very start.
That British politicians and journalists didn't realise this says much about their interest in financial details.
When we got married I was much more left wing than Mrs BJ.
She is now worse than me on the Socialism front she would vote Respect if they had a candidate in Chesterfield.
"The rebate does not apply to the net contribution. It applies to the difference between the gross and net."
A) We pay in £10, and take out £4, that's a gross of £10 and net payment of £6. We get rebate on the £4 difference between the two.
b) We pay in £10 and take out £10, that's a gross of £10 and net payment of £0. We get a rebate on the £10 difference.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
Paul Goodman @PaulGoodmanCH · 57m 57 minutes ago
Tory Whips very clear that cause of today's palaver was Home Office desire not to have amendable motion - i.e: it's not our fault, Guv.
Yes the parallels do appear quite similar and for simiar reasons. I remember this from the time but If anything UKIP seem to be a little behind though on the SDP showing. Mind you there is still time I guess.
Wikapedia"
With an election not due until May 1984, the Alliance proved to be an instant hit with voters who were disgruntled with the Conservatives and Labour, as many opinion polls in late 1981 and early 1982 showed the Alliance as the most popular political party in Britain, peaking with a 50% showing - up to twice the level on support shown for the Conservatives around this time.[6] Also in 1981, David Steel was so confident in an Alliance victory that during his address the Liberal Party conference, he famously used the phrase: "Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for government!"
Of course then the nasty Junta invaded the Falklands, the swing backs occurred and yet another set of conspiracy theories commenced * winks*
We also watched the same TV channel and came to exact opposite conclusions, which leads to a question are you the anti-matter version of me?
Were you on sabbatical from seasoned observerdom in 2009? I ask because many of us, but not you, observed the Totnes open primary in that year.
Do put a stop to this patronising drivel.
Tracey Crouch@tracey_crouch·3h3 hours ago
Told Chief I'd bet on a Tory hold in Rochester. He whipped out some dosh & asked me to put bet on for him too. Back to bookies tomorrow..
Rev Oswald has spoken after costing me a k on the last pigdog fight.
Giles Watling@GilesWatling·3h3 hours ago
@tracey_crouch Did Rochester on Saturday. Really believe it's coming home - make the bet!
Robert Hutton@RobDotHutton·3 hrs3 hours ago
.@tracey_crouch has just shown me FIFTY ENGLISH POUNDS that Michael Gove has given her to wager on Tories holding Rochester. #fightingtalk
I have never voted Tory, only Labour and various incarnations of what UKIP have morphed into. My personal stance is that I cannot stand the EU and the corrupt, anti democratic nature of it, and I care passionately about education and the reintroduction of grammar schools.
A more latter day thing that rankles with me is the third sector, and don't get me started on Common Purpose.
I suppose I am one of the WWC that nobody represents any more, UKIP are far from perfect but they stand for a couple of things I really care about, so they get my vote.
We do not talk about the net cost of taxes when we pay them by taking off the value of the services we get back, nor the net cost of our grocery spend by taking off the value of the produce we have bought.
All the more so in the case of the EU since most of the monies that are returned to us come with huge caveats and conditions including the need for matched funding and a lack of control over what areas and projects the funding is directed towards. As such the gross figure is a far more accurate representation of the basic cost of EU membership.
No.
Thanks Malcolm Miliband
Never believe anything you read on twitter.
When May decides its a comment
As for Bercow, May and Cameron, didn't follow the story, but sounds if there has been a farce, is there a repeat performance?
When May says its Just a comment
We are in line to pay an additional £1.7 billion which a rebate of an unknown amount will then be calculated on dependent on other contributions and reimbursements.