Mr Mercer told The Times that he did not plan to join UKIP or any other party and would stand down at the next election, but declined to discuss why he had made the decision.
"Rachel gets paid at the end of each month. By the beginning of the following month, all her salary has already gone on rent and bills. She survives to the next payday on £140 of tax credits and £134 child benefit."
The idea that planning has anything to do with the dearth of housebuilding right now is completely absurd. It may do in the future but we have many years of record breaking housebuilding to go before the consents already in place are exhausted. Years.
Subprime George, screwing up everything he touches.
George Osborne's botch job has left housing in crisis The Help to Buy scheme is pointless without a coherent approach to planning
So the Downing Street consensus is that planning reform is dead this side of 2015. “At which point we can go back to the party and ask them for more, as they’ll see the need by then,” says one senior figure.
So what can be done? Well, the Treasury lists a number of people who support Help to Buy who aren’t called George Osborne; they are developers such as Berkeley and their representatives at the Home Builders Federation. But there’s no point in making it easier to buy if there’s nothing to buy. And though the Government could have responded to the wise words of the OECD and the IMF about a lack of supply, it isn’t going to. It seems its strategy for mortgage finance is too ambitious, while its strategy for planning reform isn’t ambitious enough.
Yeah the OECD and IMF are notoriously in thrall to the Shepton Mallett residents group.
I've been asking the PB Tories who were touting these planning changes what they stack up to, care to have a go? At the moment it looks like Subprime George is just pumping up a bubble while the supply side is largely unchanged.
tim's amazing lending bubble where the country is paying billions off housing debt year after year.
"It's a credit bubble " - as we enter the 4th year of HEW being negative.
It was +£16Bn one quarter under Brown - and people wonder why there was "growth".
The BoE figures are very clear - Britain is paying off mortgage debt.
Of course it is true that Labour, the LibDems, UKIP and the media have all be stirring up opposition to further changes which ministers would like to make.
Good to see Boris going after Dave's idiot pledge again
@MayorofLondon on immigration: "You cannot regard it as an unalloyed blessing that you have reduced the number of foreign students" @LBC973
I don't think the PM or anyone else thinks that the reduction is an "unalloyed" blessing. The need to stem net migration really comes from public services (mostly about having them in the right place) and integration. It's always a case abotu whether the positives outwigh the negatives.
Again you are conflating students with migrants. Some will stay because employers want them, good. Some will stay illegally, deal with that don't kill the economic benefit.
You may as well argue that tourism numbers should be cut because that avenue gets abused. But you aren't are you, you'd argue that overstayers get treated in a different category to tourists.
And which group in society do you think are least likely to use hospitals and schools? Young foreign students obviously.
You and I both know why students are targeted, an easy way for Dave to get closer to his idiot pledge.
tim, as people have said again and again, you need to differentiate between university students (that add value) and english language college attendees (that rarely add substantial value).
Moreover, in addition to the limited direct economic contribution, they put significant strain on limited infrastructure and other services - freeing up capacity has its own value (e.g. reduced congestion) which I doubt you are considering fully.
The UK needs to be a high-value added, premium focused economy. We can't compete on the volume game: we're a small country with a relatively high fixed cost base.
At least that's honest. We will shut down colleges Charles sees as unworthy and those people will then go to other countries and spend their money elsewhere.
Any tourist attractions you don't like while you're at it?
As for being a small country well New Zealand has four times as many overseas students as wee do in relative terms. Australia has many more too, and both these are countries with high cost bases.
In addition our university sector is not growing as fast as the market anyway, your arguments about "freeing up capacity" are obviously specious.
Don't be silly. It's not a question of "unworthy" or not. It's a question of focusing on those colleges with appropriate proceedures in place to prevent abuse of the application process by individuals/organisations that plan to use them to facilitate illegal immigration (the "bogus colleges").
Additionally, it is entirely reasonable for the UK government to establish a policy saying (a) we only want to accept a limited number of immigrants, either permanent or temporary, and want to ensure those places are allocated to the individuals who add the greatest value to the country. This would tend to focus attention towards universities (both under and post graduate) at the cost of language colleges. Fundamentally there is fixed capacity in much of our infrastructure and we need to decide how best to use it.
Can you tell me how you fact capacity implications (say for public transport) into your calculations? Over-crowding on the tube, for example, is significantly unpleasant and delays can have an economic cost.
As for New Zealand and the number of overseas students, it depends on the population, spare infrastructure capacity, the focus of the country's economic strategy and the probability of temporary migrants looking for a long-term residency. Just to point to the headline number is entirely specious.
Then you want limits on the number of tourists as well don't you.
No, I don't. There is a difference between someone going for a few weeks and someone coming for 3 years.
Looks like a premptive strike to avoid losing the whip
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv Understand decision by Patrick Mercer to resign Tory whip not to do with party direction/Cameron(altho he is no fan) Instead newspaper sting
Seems the most likely reason. If he was going to resign the whip then he would presumably have had somewhere else to go if it were for real political reasons. Wonder if his statement that he will stand down at the next election is perhaps wishful thinking.
Mind you if he hated Cameron that much wouldn't he stay around to try and cause him maximum damage?
Unemployment in the eurozone has reached another record high, according to official figures.
The seasonal-adjusted rate for April was 12.2%, up from 12.1% the month before.
An extra 95,000 people were out of work in the 17 countries that use the euro, bringing the total to 19.38 million.
One in four people in Greece and Spain are now unemployed. The lowest unemployment rate is in Austria at 4.9%.
The European Commission's statistics office, Eurostat, said Germany had an unemployment rate of 5.4% while Luxembourg's was 5.6%.
The highest rates are in Greece (27.0% in February 2013), Spain (26.8%) and Portugal (17.8%).
Youth unemployment remains a particular concern. In April, 3.6 million people under the age of 25 were out of work in the eurozone, which translated to an unemployment rate of 24.4%.
Figures from the Italian government showed 40.5% of young people in Italy are unemployed.
"We have to deal with the social crisis, which is expressed particularly in spreading youth unemployment, and place it at the centre of political action," said Italy's President Giorgio Napolitano.
In the 12 months to April, 1.6 million people lost their jobs in the eurozone.
The idea that planning has anything to do with the dearth of housebuilding right now is completely absurd. It may do in the future but we have many years of record breaking housebuilding to go before the consents already in place are exhausted. Years.
You're missing the point David.
Let's say that the housebuilders were to build all 400,000 properties this year and sell them without affecting the price. They have a fabulous year and everyone loves them. Then next year they can't build anything because they don't have any planning consents.
Fundamentally they need to maintain an inventory of active consents so that they can create a sustainable business. If you accelerate the rate at which the inventory increases (by planning law changes) you can increase the rate at which they will build. Additionally, it may be that if they have increased confidence in the rate of approvals in future they will be comfortable with a lower level of inventory as well (which would give a one time boost)
Financier - there was a good article at the weekend showing that a lid on public anger regarding Eurozone unemployment was being reduced by the fact many people who had lost their jobs were still in a 2-3 year period where their benefits were generous but as the crisis goes on they will fall off the end of that into a much lower level of benefit.
So even if unemployment bottoms out there may yet be rising public disquiet. Will try and find it.
I prefer tim's story to the dreary one that Plato and TSE seem to be indicating. Can he at least have been induced to take freebie trips to 19 star Fijian holiday resorts that serve pina coladas from platinum cocktail glasses?
Good to see Boris going after Dave's idiot pledge again
@MayorofLondon on immigration: "You cannot regard it as an unalloyed blessing that you have reduced the number of foreign students" @LBC973
I don't think the PM or anyone else thinks that the reduction is an "unalloyed" blessing. The need to stem net migration really comes from public services (mostly about having them in the right place) and integration. It's always a case abotu whether the positives outwigh the negatives.
Again you are conflating students with migrants. Some will stay because employers want them, good. Some will stay illegally, deal with that don't kill the economic benefit.
You may as well argue that tourism numbers should be cut because that avenue gets abused. But you aren't are you, you'd argue that overstayers get treated in a different category to tourists.
And which group in society do you think are least likely to use hospitals and schools? Young foreign students obviously.
You and I both know why students are targeted, an easy way for Dave to get closer to his idiot pledge.
tim, as people have said again and again, you need to differentiate between university students (that add value) and english language college attendees (that rarely add substantial value).
Moreover, in addition to the limited direct economic contribution, they put significant strain on limited infrastructure and other services - freeing up capacity has its own value (e.g. reduced congestion) which I doubt you are considering fully.
The UK needs to be a high-value added, premium focused economy. We can't compete on the volume game: we're a small country with a relatively high fixed cost base.
At least that's honest. We will shut down colleges Charles sees as unworthy and those people will then go to other countries and spend their money elsewhere.
Any tourist attractions you don't like while you're at it?
As for being a small country well New Zealand has four times as many overseas students as wee do in relative terms. Australia has many more too, and both these are countries with high cost bases.
In addition our university sector is not growing as fast as the market anyway, your arguments about "freeing up capacity" are obviously specious.
Don't be silly. It's not a question of "unworthy" or not. It's a question of focusing on those colleges with appropriate proceedures in place to prevent abuse of the application process by individuals/organisations that plan to use them to facilitate illegal immigration (the "bogus colleges").
Additionally, it is entirely reasonable for the UK government to establish a policy saying (a) we only want to accept a limited number of immigrants, either permanent or temporary, and want to ensure those places are allocated to the individuals who add the greatest value to the country. This would tend to focus attention towards universities (both under and post graduate) at the cost of language colleges. Fundamentally there is fixed capacity in much of our infrastructure and we need to decide how best to use it.
Can you tell me how you fact capacity implications (say for public transport) into your calculations? Over-crowding on the tube, for example, is significantly unpleasant and delays can have an economic cost.
As for New Zealand and the number of overseas students, it depends on the population, spare infrastructure capacity, the focus of the country's economic strategy and the probability of temporary migrants looking for a long-term residency. Just to point to the headline number is entirely specious.
Then you want limits on the number of tourists as well don't you.
No, I don't. There is a difference between someone going for a few weeks and someone coming for 3 years.
Obviously, but 72 tourists coming for a fortnight each put the same "strain on infrastructure" as one student disturbing you on the tube, what's the difference?
Tourists are unlikely to be taking the same route at the same time each day. It's all about capacity management.
Of course it is true that Labour, the LibDems, UKIP and the media have all be stirring up opposition to further changes which ministers would like to make.
Don't be daft, the supersized conservatories plans are in that wish list,look what they stacked up to.
The supply side has improved but it is completely irrelevant to the current situation. It may help towards the end of the next Parliament.
What is needed is more demand, hence Osborne's policy to assist with deposits and make more potential buyers active in the market. It really is common sense in the current market and a very effective use of limited government funds.
Billy Kenber @billykenber Patrick Mercer tabled 2 questions on Fiji this month - on suspension from Commonwealth and on British investment bit.ly/17D5GX6
Good to see Boris going after Dave's idiot pledge again
@MayorofLondon on immigration: "You cannot regard it as an unalloyed blessing that you have reduced the number of foreign students" @LBC973
I don't think the PM or anyone else thinks that the reduction is an "unalloyed" blessing. The need to stem net migration really comes from public services (mostly about having them in the right place) and integration. It's always a case abotu whether the positives outwigh the negatives.
Again you are conflating students with migrants. Some will stay because employers want them, good. Some will stay illegally, deal with that don't kill the economic benefit.
You may as well argue that tourism numbers should be cut because that avenue gets abused. But you aren't are you, you'd argue that overstayers get treated in a different category to tourists.
And which group in society do you think are least likely to use hospitals and schools? Young foreign students obviously.
You and I both know why students are targeted, an easy way for Dave to get closer to his idiot pledge.
tim, as people have said again and again, you need to differentiate between university students (that add value) and english language college attendees (that rarely add substantial value).
Moreover, in addition to the limited direct economic contribution, they put significant strain on limited infrastructure and other services - freeing up capacity has its own value (e.g. reduced congestion) which I doubt you are considering fully.
The UK needs to be a high-value added, premium focused economy. We can't compete on the volume game: we're a small country with a relatively high fixed cost base.
At least that's honest. We will shut down colleges Charles sees as unworthy and those people will then go to other countries and spend their money elsewhere.
Any tourist attractions you don't like while you're at it?
As for being a small country well New Zealand has four times as many overseas students as wee do in relative terms. Australia has many more too, and both these are countries with high cost bases.
In addition our university sector is not growing as fast as the market anyway, your arguments about "freeing up capacity" are obviously specious.
Don't be silly. It's not a question of "unworthy" or not. It's a question of focusing on those colleges with appropriate proceedures in place to prevent abuse of the application process by individuals/organisations that plan to use them to facilitate illegal immigration (the "bogus colleges").
Additionally, it is entirely reasonable for the UK government to establish a policy saying (a) we only want to accept a limited number of immigrants, either permanent or temporary, and want to ensure those places are allocated to the individuals who add the greatest value to the country. This would tend to focus attention towards universities (both under and post graduate) at the cost of language colleges. Fundamentally there is fixed capacity in much of our infrastructure and we need to decide how best to use it.
Can you tell me how you fact capacity implications (say for public transport) into your calculations? Over-crowding on the tube, for example, is significantly unpleasant and delays can have an economic cost.
As for New Zealand and the number of overseas students, it depends on the population, spare infrastructure capacity, the focus of the country's economic strategy and the probability of temporary migrants looking for a long-term residency. Just to point to the headline number is entirely specious.
Then you want limits on the number of tourists as well don't you.
No, I don't. There is a difference between someone going for a few weeks and someone coming for 3 years.
Obviously, but 72 tourists coming for a fortnight each put the same "strain on infrastructure" as one student disturbing you on the tube, what's the difference?
Tourists are unlikely to be taking the same route at the same time each day. It's all about capacity management.
Yes tourists are all renowned for taking more unpredictable routes than a student travelling between home and college thus making planning so much easier Jesus Charles please tell me you're not left alone with electrical equipment or sharp objects
It is unlikely that every tourist in your example will travel to the same destination at the same time each day.
Moreover, tourists put limited strain on other elements such as health provision or housing.
@TheScreamingEagles It should be a safe Conservative hold even if there's a by-election in these circumstances, especially since Labour and UKIP would be fighting it out for the protest vote. Anything else would be a shockingly poor result for the Conservatives.
@TheScreamingEagles It should be a safe Conservative hold even if there's a by-election in these circumstances, especially since Labour and UKIP would be fighting it out for the protest vote. Anything else would be a shockingly poor result for the Conservatives.
I'm trying to work how much of a personal vote Mercer had.
I haven't read all the ins and outs but from the outside looking in, and not withstanding his uncollegiate views on Cameron, it's a shame that Mercer is leaving parliament.
I always found him to be a good communicator, willing to speak his mind and interesting.
The final two traits not necessarily conducive with holding a ministerial job.
Patrick Mercer has resigned the Conservative party whip to 'save my party embarrassment' over BBC Panorama probe
Curious phrasing on the breaking news on the BBC - when has resigning ever saved a party's embarrassment over something someone has done? Their enemies and the press would always see to that. I guess it sounds better than 'resigning before I have the whip withdrawn'.
@TheScreamingEagles It should be a safe Conservative hold even if there's a by-election in these circumstances, especially since Labour and UKIP would be fighting it out for the protest vote. Anything else would be a shockingly poor result for the Conservatives.
There's a big LibDem vote there for Labour to squeeze, so if UKIP split the right just right they might be able to squeak it if they were very jammy...
Patrick Mercer seems an odd fish for an ex-senior military man - he's very outspoken but frequently not in a good way, he's been extremely personally rude about his party leader and was the architect of his own downfall when he made intemperate remarks about BME soldiers/whilst Shadow Def Minister.
That he's blaming his lack of subsequent promotion on DC seems a bit rich.
I've no time for him these days. That he's been caught out in a lobbying sting is just the icing on the cake re his personal judgement and standards really are.
Patrick Mercer has resigned the Conservative party whip to 'save my party embarrassment' over BBC Panorama probe
Curious phrasing on the breaking news on the BBC - when has resigning ever saved a party's embarrassment over something someone has done? Their enemies and the press would always see to that. I guess it sounds better than 'resigning before I have the whip withdrawn'.
Good job Nick and Dave dropped the recall powers after David Laws got found out.
I should imagine MPs on all sides are very glad about that not progressing; always going to be some bad apples in the barrel. And of course, the great thing about it not moving forward yet, is you cannot be criticised for voting it down! Genius.
@TheScreamingEagles It should be a safe Conservative hold even if there's a by-election in these circumstances, especially since Labour and UKIP would be fighting it out for the protest vote. Anything else would be a shockingly poor result for the Conservatives.
I'm trying to work how much of a personal vote Mercer had.
Large. He won against a very disliked MP in 2001, increased his majority in 2005 and had a massive increase in 2010 (more than doubled his majority). His clear dislike of Cameron and distancing himself from the government seems to have helped him a great deal locally.
That said he found himself on the wrong side of local opinion over things like the massive expansion of building around the town as part of an unwelcome Growth Point plan by the local Tory council. Still he was seen as a local representative rather than a Tory party mouthpiece.
In the current climate I would hate to try and predict what would happen if he resigned his seat.
@TheScreamingEagles It should be a safe Conservative hold even if there's a by-election in these circumstances, especially since Labour and UKIP would be fighting it out for the protest vote. Anything else would be a shockingly poor result for the Conservatives.
I'm trying to work how much of a personal vote Mercer had.
Large. He won against a very disliked MP in 2001, increased his majority in 2005 and had a massive increase in 2010 (more than doubled his majority). His clear dislike of Cameron and distancing himself from the government seems to have helped him a great deal locally.
That said he found himself on the wrong side of local opinion over things like the massive expansion of building around the town as part of an unwelcome Growth Point plan by the local Tory council. Still he was seen as a local representative rather than a Tory party mouthpiece.
In the current climate I would hate to try and predict what would happen if he resigned his seat.
@TheScreamingEagles It should be a safe Conservative hold even if there's a by-election in these circumstances, especially since Labour and UKIP would be fighting it out for the protest vote. Anything else would be a shockingly poor result for the Conservatives.
If UKIP take >40% of the Blue vote and some of the LDs bleed to Labour (likely net movement scenario in this kind of seat) you've got an interesting 3-way marginal going. In that scenario, if Labour outperform they'd win it, and it they underperform UKIP'd win it.
So is Newark the kind of seat where you'd bet on the Tories holding 60% of their 2010 vote?
[edit: more like 48% than 40% for the 3-way scenario - at 40% it needs Labour to take half the 2010 LD vote to win it and UKIP are fairly well behind]
@TheScreamingEagles It should be a safe Conservative hold even if there's a by-election in these circumstances, especially since Labour and UKIP would be fighting it out for the protest vote. Anything else would be a shockingly poor result for the Conservatives.
There's a big LibDem vote there for Labour to squeeze, so if UKIP split the right just right they might be able to squeak it if they were very jammy...
For some reason the Lib Dems have always managed to find very poor candidates to stand at GE in Newark. Surprising since they have some very good local councillors in the area.
BY the way, I should have mentioned that in fact the doubling of the majority was somewhat misleading. I had forgotten that boundary changes before the last election meant that Mercer lost some of the northern more Labour leaning parts of his constituency and gained the area around Bingham which is traditionally far more Tory - formerly part of Ken Clarke's constituency.
Surely for Mr Mercer to resign his seat - it'd need to be really bad, and so far it doesn't look it - Fiji lobbying isn't exactly Profumo.
Would I be right in thinking that if he doesn't stand at GE2015 - he gets his parachute payment and his pension conts too? If that's correct, there's a powerful incentive to stay on as an Indy - and still throw stones at DC from exile.
Surely for Mr Mercer to resign his seat - it'd need to be really bad, and so far it doesn't look it - Fiji lobbying isn't exactly Profumo.
Would I be right in thinking that if he doesn't stand at GE2015 - he gets his parachute payment and his pension conts too? If that's correct, there's a powerful incentive to stay on as an Indy - and still throw stones at DC from exile.
If it breaks Parliamentary rules on lobbying I would have thought it very difficult for him to remain.
Large. He won against a very disliked MP in 2001, increased his majority in 2005 and had a massive increase in 2010 (more than doubled his majority). His clear dislike of Cameron and distancing himself from the government seems to have helped him a great deal locally.
A classic case of seeing what you want to see!
The swing in Newark in 2005 and 2010 was nothing special. In 2005 he will have benefited from the first-time incumbent advantage, and in any case that can't have had anything to do with Cameron, who wasn't leader. In 2010 he got a respectable 4.7% swing against the national 3.7%, but that was nothing unusual for seats in that region (I think there were some boundary changes, though - I'm not sure who benefited from that).
Edit: I see you've pointed out the boundary changes.
@TheScreamingEagles It should be a safe Conservative hold even if there's a by-election in these circumstances, especially since Labour and UKIP would be fighting it out for the protest vote. Anything else would be a shockingly poor result for the Conservatives.
If UKIP take >40% of the Blue vote and some of the LDs bleed to Labour (likely net movement scenario in this kind of seat) you've got an interesting 3-way marginal going. In that scenario, if Labour outperform they'd win it, and it they underperform UKIP'd win it.
So is Newark the kind of seat where you'd bet on the Tories holding 60% of their 2010 vote?
IF
Big IF
The big 3 retained 50% of their vote each 15% of 2010 LDs and Lab go to UKIP 22% of 2010 Cons go to UKIP
We would have Con 13795 UKIP 11276 Lab 5719 LD 5123
Interesting that Joe Root is getting all the attention but he is not even top of the Yorkshire batting averages. That honour goes to Adil Rashid who has over 504 runs at an average of 252!
Interesting that Joe Root is getting all the attention but he is not even top of the Yorkshire batting averages. That honour goes to Adil Rashid who has over 504 runs at an average of 252!
He'll get even more attention now he's got himself out trying to be smart with a reverse sweep. Not clever.
"The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster."
Large. He won against a very disliked MP in 2001, increased his majority in 2005 and had a massive increase in 2010 (more than doubled his majority). His clear dislike of Cameron and distancing himself from the government seems to have helped him a great deal locally.
A classic case of seeing what you want to see!
The swing in Newark in 2005 and 2010 was nothing special. In 2005 he will have benefited from the first-time incumbent advantage, and in any case that can't have had anything to do with Cameron, who wasn't leader. In 2010 he got a respectable 4.7% swing against the national 3.7%, but that was nothing unusual for seats in that region (I think there were some boundary changes, though - I'm not sure who benefited from that).
Edit: I see you've pointed out the boundary changes.
No Richard a classic case of knowing the seat inside out since I lived there for 40 years and worked for Mercer on his original election campaign.
And I am no one to defend him since I subsequently fell out with him big time and have been supporting UKIP for many years.
Not fro any sexist or absurd 'women cannot be as bright (etc.) reasons but for one very simple one.
Women's votes are much more easily bought by power-obsessed politicians (ie all of them)
Why? Because their jobs are generally lower-paid and so they (on average pay less tax) Many of their traditional roles in society (caring for others - husband, children, the sick and elderly/frail) are deemed of little or now value (hence doctors are more highly valued than nurses, yet hospitals cannot run without both: until fairly recently, doctors were men, nurses were female: doctors married nurses)
So it is easy to 'improve women's lot' in life by providing these 'caring' services under the political umbrella of 'fairness' 'equality', enriching women's lives' (etc) - the whole 9 yards of Hattie Hatemen's agenda.
From the State's PoV that means more lovely tax revenue to squander and, because the skills required are minimal, creating such 'non-jobs' reduces unemployment for the thick and idle too - win-win fro the Govt!
The reality, of course, is that we all know some mothers who are useless and, by definition, half will be below average, so it is a far easier 'sell' politically to say 'we are offering al families/mothers XXX benefit (cash or service), rather than targeting the few and saying 'you get this help because you are useless' - the parental equivalent of 'special needs'
On Money Week's definition, the State owes (currently) around £5 trillion or >500% of GDP - a figure which is a greater proportion than any Western economy - except Eire - and one from which no State has ever recovered, throughout the whole of history.
One a more relaxed, BenM/tim/Roger definition (and that preferred by the Treasury/CotE (no mater which party is in Govt) we currently owe £1 trillion (or so) - coincidentally, roughly the same sum that's been paid out in Child Benefit since its inception.
So, PB-ers, I put it to you that the Welfare State has bankrupted the UK and will lead, in due course to some form of revolution, in which the current political class are overthrown, having proved inept, incompetent, out-of-touch and ineffective (move power to the EU/Brussels, so we can play 'pass the buck' when something goes pear-shaped.
And the cause of that monumentally unaffordable expansion in the Welfare State is the inclusion of (predominantly) women's benefits into that vast money-laundering Ponzi scheme - when women pay (on average less tax/NI/VAT (etc), use more resources and live longer on their pension.
I'm good at identifying the problem - less so at finding solutions, but a higher pension age for women might be a start as well as the abolition of most 'caring' State-funded positions, where any competent adult could do the job just as effectively: in short, women, your job in society is to care for others within your family, not to stack shelves in Tesco and empty bed-pans in hospitals.
Comments
Edit: Chief Whip to confirm it at noon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22727373
Greece: 27.0%
Spain: 26.8%
Portgual: 17.8%
If he was going to be an outrider for Hammond, the best way to do it would be from inside the PCP.
"Rachel gets paid at the end of each month. By the beginning of the following month, all her salary has already gone on rent and bills. She survives to the next payday on £140 of tax credits and £134 child benefit."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22623964
The idea that planning has anything to do with the dearth of housebuilding right now is completely absurd. It may do in the future but we have many years of record breaking housebuilding to go before the consents already in place are exhausted. Years.
'tim calls for Darling to return'
Agree,bringing back the guy that was on the bridge when the ship went down would still be preferable to Balls.
"It's a credit bubble " - as we enter the 4th year of HEW being negative.
It was +£16Bn one quarter under Brown - and people wonder why there was "growth".
The BoE figures are very clear - Britain is paying off mortgage debt.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Pages/hew/2012/dec/default.aspx
The debt bubble is being deflated.
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN06418
Of course it is true that Labour, the LibDems, UKIP and the media have all be stirring up opposition to further changes which ministers would like to make.
and then I get this tweet
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 1m
Understand decision by Patrick Mercer to resign Tory whip not to do with party direction/Cameron(altho he is no fan) Instead newspaper sting
Mind you if he hated Cameron that much wouldn't he stay around to try and cause him maximum damage?
The seasonal-adjusted rate for April was 12.2%, up from 12.1% the month before.
An extra 95,000 people were out of work in the 17 countries that use the euro, bringing the total to 19.38 million.
One in four people in Greece and Spain are now unemployed. The lowest unemployment rate is in Austria at 4.9%.
The European Commission's statistics office, Eurostat, said Germany had an unemployment rate of 5.4% while Luxembourg's was 5.6%.
The highest rates are in Greece (27.0% in February 2013), Spain (26.8%) and Portugal (17.8%).
Youth unemployment remains a particular concern. In April, 3.6 million people under the age of 25 were out of work in the eurozone, which translated to an unemployment rate of 24.4%.
Figures from the Italian government showed 40.5% of young people in Italy are unemployed.
"We have to deal with the social crisis, which is expressed particularly in spreading youth unemployment, and place it at the centre of political action," said Italy's President Giorgio Napolitano.
In the 12 months to April, 1.6 million people lost their jobs in the eurozone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22727373
*(Apart from Mike Hancock, Chris Huhne, Eric Joyce...)
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound
Mercer was stung by a fake lobbying company who paid him to lobby for regime in Fiji
It's not so grim up North: Sheffield is the happiest city in Britain (and it's all because they have more sex there)
A third of people in Sheffield feel upbeat every single day, survey shows
City outranked southern spots London, Bristol and Brighton on list
Only 16% of people in Glasgow said they feel happy every day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333778/Its-grim-North-Sheffield-happiest-city-Britain-sex-there.html#ixzz2UrmEbL5Q
Let's say that the housebuilders were to build all 400,000 properties this year and sell them without affecting the price. They have a fabulous year and everyone loves them. Then next year they can't build anything because they don't have any planning consents.
Fundamentally they need to maintain an inventory of active consents so that they can create a sustainable business. If you accelerate the rate at which the inventory increases (by planning law changes) you can increase the rate at which they will build. Additionally, it may be that if they have increased confidence in the rate of approvals in future they will be comfortable with a lower level of inventory as well (which would give a one time boost)
So even if unemployment bottoms out there may yet be rising public disquiet. Will try and find it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10091179/Tory-MP-Patrick-Mercer-resigns-over-lobbying-scandal.html
What is needed is more demand, hence Osborne's policy to assist with deposits and make more potential buyers active in the market. It really is common sense in the current market and a very effective use of limited government funds.
Shall I conduct a straw poll if UKIP can take the seat in a by-election?
It did go Labour in 1997, but that was ultimately a tragic story.
Patrick Mercer tabled 2 questions on Fiji this month - on suspension from Commonwealth and on British investment bit.ly/17D5GX6
Moreover, tourists put limited strain on other elements such as health provision or housing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Did he do it dressed in an Elizabethan costume perhaps?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22727903
That gentle tremor you can feel? That's the aftershocks from Ibiza as David Cameron laughs his head off...
"It did go Labour in 1997, but that was ultimately a tragic story"
This is Newark or the UK?
I always found him to be a good communicator, willing to speak his mind and interesting.
The final two traits not necessarily conducive with holding a ministerial job.
The Lib Dems were only just behind Labour in 2010, so there's an interesting question where the Lib Dem vote might go, I suppose.
Patrick Mercer's parting gift to David Cameron, a by-election?
Curious phrasing on the breaking news on the BBC - when has resigning ever saved a party's embarrassment over something someone has done? Their enemies and the press would always see to that. I guess it sounds better than 'resigning before I have the whip withdrawn'.
http://order-order.com/2013/05/31/mercers-fiji-lobbying-questions/
Do you know if there were any locals in Newark this year?
If so, do you have the figures.
UKIP polled 18.4% in Newark East
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/Election2013/division/newark-east
and
14.8 in Newark West
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/Election2013/division/newark-west
That he's blaming his lack of subsequent promotion on DC seems a bit rich.
I've no time for him these days. That he's been caught out in a lobbying sting is just the icing on the cake re his personal judgement and standards really are.
That said he found himself on the wrong side of local opinion over things like the massive expansion of building around the town as part of an unwelcome Growth Point plan by the local Tory council. Still he was seen as a local representative rather than a Tory party mouthpiece.
In the current climate I would hate to try and predict what would happen if he resigned his seat.
http://new.livestream.com/Munk-Debates/taxing-the-rich/videos/20152434
There's not much about Britain specifically, except Laffer talking about Cameron's double-dip recession, which he blames on the 50% tax rate.
Conservative: 27590 (53.86%)
Labour: 11438 (22.33%)
Liberal Democrat: 10246 (20%)
UKIP: 1954 (3.81%)
Majority: 16152 (31.53%)
If UKIP take >40% of the Blue vote and some of the LDs bleed to Labour (likely net movement scenario in this kind of seat) you've got an interesting 3-way marginal going. In that scenario, if Labour outperform they'd win it, and it they underperform UKIP'd win it.
So is Newark the kind of seat where you'd bet on the Tories holding 60% of their 2010 vote?
[edit: more like 48% than 40% for the 3-way scenario - at 40% it needs Labour to take half the 2010 LD vote to win it and UKIP are fairly well behind]
BY the way, I should have mentioned that in fact the doubling of the majority was somewhat misleading. I had forgotten that boundary changes before the last election meant that Mercer lost some of the northern more Labour leaning parts of his constituency and gained the area around Bingham which is traditionally far more Tory - formerly part of Ken Clarke's constituency.
Would I be right in thinking that if he doesn't stand at GE2015 - he gets his parachute payment and his pension conts too? If that's correct, there's a powerful incentive to stay on as an Indy - and still throw stones at DC from exile.
The swing in Newark in 2005 and 2010 was nothing special. In 2005 he will have benefited from the first-time incumbent advantage, and in any case that can't have had anything to do with Cameron, who wasn't leader. In 2010 he got a respectable 4.7% swing against the national 3.7%, but that was nothing unusual for seats in that region (I think there were some boundary changes, though - I'm not sure who benefited from that).
Edit: I see you've pointed out the boundary changes.
Big IF
The big 3 retained 50% of their vote each
15% of 2010 LDs and Lab go to UKIP
22% of 2010 Cons go to UKIP
We would have
Con 13795
UKIP 11276
Lab 5719
LD 5123
on a 50% turnout...
What %s have I naused??!!!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/newark/
"The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/
And I am no one to defend him since I subsequently fell out with him big time and have been supporting UKIP for many years.
Not fro any sexist or absurd 'women cannot be as bright (etc.) reasons but for one very simple one.
Women's votes are much more easily bought by power-obsessed politicians (ie all of them)
Why? Because their jobs are generally lower-paid and so they (on average pay less tax)
Many of their traditional roles in society (caring for others - husband, children, the sick and elderly/frail) are deemed of little or now value (hence doctors are more highly valued than nurses, yet hospitals cannot run without both: until fairly recently, doctors were men, nurses were female: doctors married nurses)
So it is easy to 'improve women's lot' in life by providing these 'caring' services under the political umbrella of 'fairness' 'equality', enriching women's lives' (etc) - the whole 9 yards of Hattie Hatemen's agenda.
From the State's PoV that means more lovely tax revenue to squander and, because the skills required are minimal, creating such 'non-jobs' reduces unemployment for the thick and idle too - win-win fro the Govt!
The reality, of course, is that we all know some mothers who are useless and, by definition, half will be below average, so it is a far easier 'sell' politically to say 'we are offering al families/mothers XXX benefit (cash or service), rather than targeting the few and saying 'you get this help because you are useless' - the parental equivalent of 'special needs'
On Money Week's definition, the State owes (currently) around £5 trillion or >500% of GDP - a figure which is a greater proportion than any Western economy - except Eire - and one from which no State has ever recovered, throughout the whole of history.
One a more relaxed, BenM/tim/Roger definition (and that preferred by the Treasury/CotE (no mater which party is in Govt) we currently owe £1 trillion (or so) - coincidentally, roughly the same sum that's been paid out in Child Benefit since its inception.
So, PB-ers, I put it to you that the Welfare State has bankrupted the UK and will lead, in due course to some form of revolution, in which the current political class are overthrown, having proved inept, incompetent, out-of-touch and ineffective (move power to the EU/Brussels, so we can play 'pass the buck' when something goes pear-shaped.
And the cause of that monumentally unaffordable expansion in the Welfare State is the inclusion of (predominantly) women's benefits into that vast money-laundering Ponzi scheme - when women pay (on average less tax/NI/VAT (etc), use more resources and live longer on their pension.
I'm good at identifying the problem - less so at finding solutions, but a higher pension age for women might be a start as well as the abolition of most 'caring' State-funded positions, where any competent adult could do the job just as effectively: in short, women, your job in society is to care for others within your family, not to stack shelves in Tesco and empty bed-pans in hospitals.
I would regard the excessive size of the Government deficit as the biggest issue.
Another person might regard the lack of growth and the need to increase the deficit as the biggest issue.
Despite being opposite issues, they would both be categorised as 'Economy'.