Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
Industrial production under Labour plummeted under Osborne it's been more or less flat. The BoP problem which like you I think is significant is regrettably structural imo. Caused by Brown thinking Financial services will pay consolidated by Osborne doing little to reverse the problem.
The idea that services would and indeed should replace industry surely came from Mrs Thatcher's hegemony?
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
Industrial production under Labour plummeted under Osborne it's been more or less flat. The BoP problem which like you I think is significant is regrettably structural imo. Caused by Brown thinking Financial services will pay consolidated by Osborne doing little to reverse the problem.
The idea that services would and indeed should replace industry surely came from Mrs Thatcher's hegemony?
Did Labour challenge the assumption or become more Thatcherite thatn Thatcher ?
Who killed off more of British Industry Thatcher or Blair ?
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
Industrial production under Labour plummeted under Osborne it's been more or less flat. The BoP problem which like you I think is significant is regrettably structural imo. Caused by Brown thinking Financial services will pay consolidated by Osborne doing little to reverse the problem.
The idea that services would and indeed should replace industry surely came from Mrs Thatcher's hegemony?
Did Labour challenge the assumption or become more Thatcherite thatn Thatcher ?
Who killed off more of British Industry Thatcher or Blair ?
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
I don't think Osborne, or Cameron, actually saw, or see now, anything wrong with Brown's economics.
And far from regarding it a failure to get us out of the mess they see it as a success to recreate the economy of summer 2007.
Its the Notting Hill dinner party mentality again:
House prices rising City bonuses rising Gentrification proceeding
And sod all knowledge of or interest in anything outside their privileged comfort zone.
Yes - it's odd how people preoccupied with Europe don't get how it works. The question that an early referendum begs is: what happens if any subsequent treaty turns out differently from the terms suggested by Cameron? Do we then get another referendum, or what? Who decides what is "different enough"?
The amazing thing about the referendum Cameron seems to be setting up is that both choices are going to be pretty much entirely bogus. The "in" side are going to be selling a bunch of claims about a future treaty that won't end up containing what they're saying if it even ever happens, while the "out" campaign will be premised on an alternative free-trade treaty with the EU which also wouldn't happen the way they said.
One very plausible outcome of this is that the voters vote "in" when asked about the EU as described in the treaty Cameron says will pass, but then end up having another referendum on the actual treaty that's supposed to contain these provisions when it shows up in 2025 or 2030. They're most likely to vote this treaty down, and this site will be full of righteously indignant arguments trying to work out what on earth the two results cumulatively mean.
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
I don't think Osborne, or Cameron, actually saw, or see now, anything wrong with Brown's economics.
And far from regarding it a failure to get us out of the mess they see it as a success to recreate the economy of summer 2007.
Its the Notting Hill dinner party mentality again:
House prices rising City bonuses rising Gentrification proceeding
And sod all knowledge of or interest in anything outside their privileged comfort zone.
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
Industrial production under Labour plummeted under Osborne it's been more or less flat. The BoP problem which like you I think is significant is regrettably structural imo. Caused by Brown thinking Financial services will pay consolidated by Osborne doing little to reverse the problem.
The idea that services would and indeed should replace industry surely came from Mrs Thatcher's hegemony?
Did Labour challenge the assumption or become more Thatcherite thatn Thatcher ?
Who killed off more of British Industry Thatcher or Blair ?
1. YG LAB lead of 1% is a result of rounding - correct figure is 0.15
2. The iconoclasts on here who want to tear all down and rebuild have not studied recent history. After WW2, because the UK was broke, we continued to use the same industrial processes, same industrial relations and same technology for the next 30+ years and ignored the fact that we were losing markets (not just market share) until economic reality forced us to look again - but we are out of many markets for ever.
So it is far harder to build than destroy - if a port is destroyed there is no guarantee that ships will return to it when it is rebuilt, as other (and often better) facilities will have been used/put in place in the meantime.
3. Corporation tax, many countries (including Ireland) have adjusted their taxation to encourage companies to be based there. If you want equal taxation between countries, then you are talking about a form of one-world government and just look at the useless example of the UN.
4. Currently people who work say in the Middle East for a minimum period of time do not pay any UK income tax, should these people pay UK tax irrespective of where they work? Indeed USA is trying to tax people and business on their income wherever earned. How would EdM enforce that on the Chinese and Russians?
It turns out subsidising above-inflation rates of interest on savings for people who are disproportionately likely to vote is a very good thing. Who would have thought it?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31241867
Amazing:
' However, Mr Osborne said he expected this figure to be extended to £15bn and the deadline moved until after the general election on 7 May. '
For a government which is going to miss its borrowing target by about £60bn this year there seems to be plenty of money available for buying votes.
Doesn’t mean that those who take up the bonds are going to switch their vote to Tory, though! Unless one or other Ed says they’re going to scrap the scheme. Which, at this stage, they would be insane to do!
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
Industrial production under Labour plummeted under Osborne it's been more or less flat. The BoP problem which like you I think is significant is regrettably structural imo. Caused by Brown thinking Financial services will pay consolidated by Osborne doing little to reverse the problem.
The idea that services would and indeed should replace industry surely came from Mrs Thatcher's hegemony?
Another example of the difference being Thatcher myth and Thatcher reality.
Despite the UK's 'sick man of Europe' problems in 1979 industrial production rose during Thatcher's premiership and her government made strenuous efforts to encourage industrial investment from foreign businesses - the Nissan, Toyota and Honda car factories being only the most prominent examples.
Good to see that Nun"gate" was the disaster for Labour that many of the weird Tory fantasists on here were predicting. The Scott_P Tendency is burgeoning.
A new benchmark has been set for bonkers PB Tory wishful thinking.
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
Ig little to reverse the problem.
The idea that services would and indeed should replace industry surely came from Mrs Thatcher's hegemony?
Another example of the difference being Thatcher myth and Thatcher reality.
Despite the UK's 'sick man of Europe' problems in 1979 industrial production rose during Thatcher's premiership and her government made strenuous efforts to encourage industrial investment from foreign businesses - the Nissan, Toyota and Honda car factories being only the most prominent examples.
You could also add that in the 80s one of the shifts between industry and services was recategorisartion. In-house services such as cleaning, canteens and security were outsourced. So instead of a worker being on the payroll of an industrial company he was suddenly in services.
It turns out subsidising above-inflation rates of interest on savings for people who are disproportionately likely to vote is a very good thing. Who would have thought it?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31241867
Amazing:
' However, Mr Osborne said he expected this figure to be extended to £15bn and the deadline moved until after the general election on 7 May. '
For a government which is going to miss its borrowing target by about £60bn this year there seems to be plenty of money available for buying votes.
Doesn’t mean that those who take up the bonds are going to switch their vote to Tory, though! Unless one or other Ed says they’re going to scrap the scheme. Which, at this stage, they would be insane to do!
Test post. Heard about this site from couple friends working in the city. Hoping to glean some information and make money on the election. Maybe a referendum next year too at this rate.
It is pretty much impossible to improve our BoP when our major customers are barely growing. What do those taking cheap shots at Osborne think he should have done?
He could have eliminated the defict by cutting government spending by about 20%. That would have reduced our Gdp by about the same amount and massively reduced domestic demand improving the BoP. We would also have had French or Spanish levels of unemployment of course.
He could have tried a massive competitive devaluation. We did do a bit of that. It would also have made ourselves massively poorer but once again the BoP would have improved.
What else is he supposed to do? He has provided a stable macro economic framework. He has worked hard with Cameron leading trade missions around the world, especially in Asia.
There comes a point when we have to stop blaming governments for our failings and get to work. Talking of which....
My point with Charles is that HMG does indeed have the powers you mention but is choosing to kick the issue into the long international grass. Is Liechtenstein really going to vote openness in taxation - colour me cyncial ?
Furthermore since the FD of UK plc Mr G Osborne also has an obligation to run the country in the best interests of his shareholder ( us ) then he should damn well be closing the tax holes and collecting the cash. That's his job.
Well, Osborne has done deals with Switzerland and Luxembourg, so he's making progress.
Liechtenstein is, I'd agree, the murkiest cess-pit in Europe. So to judge Osborne solely on whether he drains that particular swamp is a little unfair.
Overall he's making good progress - just google "Ingenious Media HMRC" (without the inverted commas) for an example. Slightly surprised you seem to have missed it in the news.
Yes he has but nontheless he still has much more he should be doing and as I have pointed out time is money. How long should he let it continue.
As a banker in biggish Pharma, I'd suggest that if you had a serious loss of income from a market paying under the going rate you'd stop the leak somewhat promptish.
Same should apply to UK plc.
Sometimes in international negotiations you can only move at the pace of the slowest - but he's made decent progress.
And on items such as the patent box (not sure where the German whinges stand) he's at least making sure we are competitive.
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
I don't think Osborne, or Cameron, actually saw, or see now, anything wrong with Brown's economics.
And far from regarding it a failure to get us out of the mess they see it as a success to recreate the economy of summer 2007.
Its the Notting Hill dinner party mentality again:
House prices rising City bonuses rising Gentrification proceeding
And sod all knowledge of or interest in anything outside their privileged comfort zone.
Sad but true.
The kipper tendency sounding off again? Such bitterness and impotence.
Ukraine War ~ Video of a train of Ukrainian tanks moving to the front li...: http://youtu.be/cnRx5hxk1GA These are Polish tanks supplied to the Ukrainian forces, unlike the Russians they don't have invisible tanks incapable of being videoed or caught by satellite with which to supply one faction in a civil war.
@faisalislam: Chief minister of Gibraltar tells #murnaghan has written to @Ed_Miliband about his "unfair" characterisation of territory as a "tax haven"
"It may win elections, but it's a bad idea. Unlikely to have immediate damaging effects - like the energy "freeze" - so largely irrelevant, but it does indicate a worrying lack of thoughtfulness and a tendency to reach for the nearest student union solution."
Last Saturday in Aberdeen I had dinner with a Spanish couple who worked for an ecological research institute which employs 300 people in Aberdeen and a further 300 in Dundee and is funded by the EU and some ancient Scottish foundation.
I had no idea that such places existed but clearly they do and I imagine they exist for every faculty you can think of. These are the places to do the detailed analysis. GETTING IN is about Broad Brush Strokes and Smart Sounbites.
You're missing two points:
(1) as leader of the opposition your words can influence outcomes, especially if you are favorite to become the next PM. You have a responsibility to be careful
(2) I get no indication that Miliband and his team have done the hard work needed to figure out the detail. They are more like Brown in 2007 than Blair in 1997. I fear intellectual paralysis and knee-jerk governing post the election
Chris Leslie getting into a mess on the DP over Labour's 'Hedge Funds tax cut' claim.....
@ToryTreasury: Chris Leslie just admitted that Schedule 19 affected "investment managers", not "hedge funds". Admitting Labour will raise tax on pensions
My point with Charles is that HMG does indeed have the powers you mention but is choosing to kick the issue into the long international grass. Is Liechtenstein really going to vote openness in taxation - colour me cyncial ?
Furthermore since the FD of UK plc Mr G Osborne also has an obligation to run the country in the best interests of his shareholder ( us ) then he should damn well be closing the tax holes and collecting the cash. That's his job.
Well, Osborne has done deals with Switzerland and Luxembourg, so he's making progress.
Liechtenstein is, I'd agree, the murkiest cess-pit in Europe. So to judge Osborne solely on whether he drains that particular swamp is a little unfair.
Overall he's making good progress - just google "Ingenious Media HMRC" (without the inverted commas) for an example. Slightly surprised you seem to have missed it in the news.
Yes he has but nontheless he still has much more he should be doing and as I have pointed out time is money.
Same should apply to UK plc.
Sometimes in international negotiations you can only move at the pace of the slowest - but he's made decent progress.
And on items such as the patent box (not sure where the German whinges stand) he's at least making sure we are competitive.
Of course Charles.
But plugging the hole doesn't stop negotiations continuing does it ? And sometimes the pressure is what is needed to cut the Gordian knot.
Chris Leslie getting into a mess on the DP over Labour's 'Hedge Funds tax cut' claim.....
@ToryTreasury: Chris Leslie just admitted that Schedule 19 affected "investment managers", not "hedge funds". Admitting Labour will raise tax on pensions
On saving those banks: you're right , they were dreadfully badly run. And shareholders were largely wiped out, which was absolutely right and proper.
Shareholders were wiped out.
Tens of thousands of employees were made redundant.
But the fatcat executives who had caused the problems all got protected and had their millions in payoffs and pensions.
# executive oligarchy # rewards for failure
The problem is with their previous contracts. You'd have had a very difficult time *proving* gross misconduct, thereby allowing sacking without compensation. Far more practical to enter into a severance agreement and move on. Pensions should be protected though - that was right.
But the regulatory response was supine. More executives should have been prosecuted. Fining the institutions is pretty meaningless.
And contracts, in future, should be less generous for failure.
Election is hard to call, and could yield a messy result.
Incidentally, there may also be horse-racing, F1 and tennis tips if you're into that sort of thing.
Thanks Mr Morris. Yes I am but I know less about F1, a little on the horses but a fair amount on tennis. Political betting's fun. Highly unpredictable and as you say never more than this time. There are so many imponderables. This may not be popular but I am not sure the SNP will produce the total slaughter predicted. Equally not sure the LDs will perform as atrociously as current opinion polls suggest. It's all in the mix though. Who knows? That means there has to be some serious money to make. It also means there's a potential for serious losses too
Britain will not get a say on leaving the European Union until 2017, after Downing Street rejected claims a referendum could be held next year. Number 10 made clear there are 'absolutely no plans' to hold the referendum in 2016, after a minister was quoted as saying a vote next year was the 'preferred route'. Prime Minister David Cameron told MailOnline the vote could not be brought forward because he needed time to 'renegotiate a better deal for Britain'.
@faisalislam: Chief minister of Gibraltar tells #murnaghan has written to @Ed_Miliband about his "unfair" characterisation of territory as a "tax haven"
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree .
I don't think Osborne, or Cameron, actually saw, or see now, anything wrong with Brown's economics.
And far from regarding it a failure to get us out of the mess they see it as a success to recreate the economy of summer 2007.
Its the Notting Hill dinner party mentality again:
House prices rising City bonuses rising Gentrification proceeding
And sod all knowledge of or interest in anything outside their privileged comfort zone.
Sad but true.
The kipper tendency sounding off again? Such bitterness and impotence.
LOL, I don't know how many times I have to write this but I am not a kipper and have never voted UKIP.
Maybe if you could pull your head out of your arse for a while you might understand why the Conservatives aren't regaining all those voters they have lost.
HMRC say they will issue licences for tax accountants and will only deal with licenced accountants. As part of the licence you have to submit accounts within the letter and spirit of the UK tax system. Dodgy stuff which requires lots of corporate lawyers and which the public purse then has to fork out equally on lawyers gets the submitting accountants licence suspended .
You'd quickly find agressive tax schemes would dry up and more revenue is collected.
One of the most aggressive groups of tax planners is within BP. How do you deal with them?
They'd still need a licence. No play no ball. If they are stupid impose a tax estimate on them and watch them argue for it back.
You ignore at your peril Marquee Mark's Maxim: money flees taxation. Whether it is capital or investment, there are plenty of alternative places that will welcome money. The BPs of this world just have enough clout to lobby to change laws they don't like - so they don't need to leave.
I think Osborne has been generally astute on corporate taxes. Lobbying for all large corporations to pay tax SOMEWHERE, whilst offering low corporate tax rates to make the UK a very attractive somewhere.
Election is hard to call, and could yield a messy result.
Incidentally, there may also be horse-racing, F1 and tennis tips if you're into that sort of thing.
This may not be popular but I am not sure the SNP will produce the total slaughter predicted. Equally not sure the LDs will perform as atrociously as current opinion polls suggest.
SNP 'triumphs' and Lib Dem 'obituaries' do tend to be a bit over egged......
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
Not to mention borrowing hundreds of billions more than he said he would, falling productivity, falling industrial production, rising inequality and directly subsidising house prices.
Even though the failure of Brown's economic strategy is there for all to see, Osborne is willing to repeat it in order to buy votes.
I don't disagree with your statement, however I'd say Brown got us into this mess with his screwed up economics. Osborne's failure is to do nothing to get us out of it.
I don't think Osborne, or Cameron, actually saw, or see now, anything wrong with Brown's economics.
And far from regarding it a failure to get us out of the mess they see it as a success to recreate the economy of summer 2007.
Its the Notting Hill dinner party mentality again:
House prices rising City bonuses rising Gentrification proceeding
And sod all knowledge of or interest in anything outside their privileged comfort zone.
Sad but true.
Ozzy: "We need to do more for the Nottinghams of this world, industrial places in the North."
Dave: "I'd call Notting Hill more west than north George."
HMRC say they will issue licences for tax accountants and will only deal with licenced accountants. As part of the licence you have to submit accounts within the letter and spirit of the UK tax system. Dodgy stuff which requires lots of corporate lawyers and which the public purse then has to fork out equally on lawyers gets the submitting accountants licence suspended .
You'd quickly find agressive tax schemes would dry up and more revenue is collected.
One of the most aggressive groups of tax planners is within BP. How do you deal with them?
They'd still need a licence. No play no ball. If they are stupid impose a tax estimate on them and watch them argue for it back.
You ignore at your peril Marquee Mark's Maxim: money flees taxation. Whether it is capital or investment, there are plenty of alternative places that will welcome money. The BPs of this world just have enough clout to lobby to change laws they don't like - so they don't need to leave.
I think Osborne has been generally astute on corporate taxes. Lobbying for all large corporations to pay tax SOMEWHERE, whilst offering low corporate tax rates to make the UK a very attractive somewhere.
LOL if you think BP which works in one of the most politicised industries in the world and which regularly needs HMGs support will offshore well be my guest.
As for money leaving well some will some won't. There's more to tax rates when studying where to leave your cash as 2008 showed. However if a multinat wants to trade in one of the world's largest and most stable economy's then they should be made pay their whack towards its upkeep. They benefit from trading environment why should others subsidised them as well ?
On saving those banks: you're right , they were dreadfully badly run. And shareholders were largely wiped out, which was absolutely right and proper. But if you had let them go bankrupt then the entire country would have sunk: there are well run banks, but they simply didn't have the capacity to supply the banks.
I just don't buy that. A lot of people would have lost their jobs. It happens, get over it, I was unemployed at the time like a lot of people. Property prices may have fallen. Again, get over it, it happens and would have done the country a favour in the long run.
Incidentally, I've just seen George Osborne telling the country how much he cares about savers. So long as they are aged over 65.
Well BACS and CHAPS are nominally independent, so I guess that they may have been capable of operating in the event of HBOS, RBS and NR failure. FP would have almost certainly gone down (that's my personal favorite system). People could have used SWIFT if need be, although that is more expensive.
But the real problem is that on insolvency all the contents of current accounts are frozen until the mess is resolved. The government insurance scheme, IIRC, at the time protected up to around £50K, so most people would have got their money back - after say a month.
But in the meantime, people couldn't have bought food that weekend. Firms couldn't pay salaries. Small businesses would have lost all their reserves above the £50K limit.
The money markets would have frozen up as contagion spread: banks would not have been able to borrow overnight, probably bringing down a number of other banks.
Systemically important actually means something. It's why banks should be heavily regulated, low risk, low return entities. It's the most important reason why there should be a proper separation of investment banking from retail banking.
Well at least Mr Mid-Beds helped detoxify the Tory party by leaving it.
Does he really speak for many in UKIP in wanting economic chaos?
I don't want economic chaos, but I do want some realism. I'd always been sympathetic to Ukip, but what really did it for me with the Tories is Help to Buy. I don't have a problem with high house prices, and even if I think they are overpriced all that matters is the market and what people are prepared to pay. But I think it's disgusting that the Tories have tried to prop up the market through Help to Buy.
Ultimately it won't matter who wins the election. They all want to carry on kicking the can down the road and as long as they can raise money they'll be fine. But the day will come when they run out of road.
Osborneism is Brownism on steroids.
Of course Osborne and Cameron never saw anything wrong with Brown's economic strategy - "sharing the proceeds of growth" etc.
Disagree with you AR, Osborneism is Brownismin second gear.
Much as I think GO is a useless pudding, he's still not as bad as GB.
Osborne is presiding over a bigger UK current account deficit than Brown ever managed, or indeed anyone else.
I don't disagree .
I don't think Osborne, or Cameron, actually saw, or see now, anything wrong with Brown's economics.
And far from regarding it a failure to get us out of the mess they see it as a success to recreate the economy of summer 2007.
Its the Notting Hill dinner party mentality again:
House prices rising City bonuses rising Gentrification proceeding
And sod all knowledge of or interest in anything outside their privileged comfort zone.
Sad but true.
The kipper tendency sounding off again? Such bitterness and impotence.
LOL, I don't know how many times I have to write this but I am not a kipper and have never voted UKIP.
Maybe if you could pull your head out of your arse for a while you might understand why the Conservatives aren't regaining all those voters they have lost.
We saw it earlier from one of the most Diehard Cameroons
For those that missed it yesterday, I've put up a post on how the remaining Lib Dems after the next election might approach the question of deciding who to support in government:
Really excellent piece of evidence based analysis with serious betting consequences. Very well done. Thank you antifrank.
The only thing I can add, as a LibDem defector*, is my own voting strategy. In a LibDem/Tory marginal I would vote LibDem - better a LibDem MP than a Tory MP. In a LibDem/Lab marginal, I would vote Labour to help increase the number of Labour MPs. If my fellow defectors feel the same way, it will introduce a Labour bias that perhaps is not reflected in the polling.
* Although I am a defector in the polls (I reply Labout when asked how I will vote in the next GE) I have rejoined the LibDem Party so that I have a vote in the LibDem Leadership elections after next May.
If you don't mind saying, who are you intending to vote for? I appreciate the MPs are not the be-all-and-end-all of LD leadership elections, but surely Farron should be a shade of odds-on rather than a shade of odds-against?
Election is hard to call, and could yield a messy result.
Incidentally, there may also be horse-racing, F1 and tennis tips if you're into that sort of thing.
This may not be popular but I am not sure the SNP will produce the total slaughter predicted. Equally not sure the LDs will perform as atrociously as current opinion polls suggest.
SNP 'triumphs' and Lib Dem 'obituaries' do tend to be a bit over egged......
On saving those banks: you're right , they were dreadfully badly run. And shareholders were largely wiped out, which was absolutely right and proper. But if you had let them go bankrupt then the entire country would have sunk: there are well run banks, but they simply didn't have the capacity to supply the banks.
I just don't buy that. A lot of people would have lost their jobs. It happens, get over it, I was unemployed at the time like a lot of people. Property prices may have fallen. Again, get over it, it happens and would have done the country a favour in the long run.
Incidentally, I've just seen George Osborne telling the country how much he cares about savers. So long as they are aged over 65.
Well BACS and CHAPS are nominally independent, so I guess that they may have been capable of operating in the event of HBOS, RBS and NR failure. FP would have almost certainly gone down (that's my personal favorite system). People could have used SWIFT if need be, although that is more expensive.
But the real problem is that on insolvency all the contents of current accounts are frozen until the mess is resolved. The government insurance scheme, IIRC, at the time protected up to around £50K, so most people would have got their money back - after say a month.
But in the meantime, people couldn't have bought food that weekend. Firms couldn't pay salaries. Small businesses would have lost all their reserves above the £50K limit.
The money markets would have frozen up as contagion spread: banks would not have been able to borrow overnight, probably bringing down a number of other banks.
Systemically important actually means something. It's why banks should be heavily regulated, low risk, low return entities. It's the most important reason why there should be a proper separation of investment banking from retail banking.
"Systemically important actually means something. It's why banks should be heavily regulated, low risk, low return entities. It's the most important reason why there should be a proper separation of investment banking from retail banking"
Test post. Heard about this site from couple friends working in the city. Hoping to glean some information and make money on the election. Maybe a referendum next year too at this rate.
Mr. Bear, I'm unsure of the Lib Dems, but think the SNP will do very well.
My reasons are: 1) Ed Miliband is crap. But in Scotland, he's supercrap, a distilled, purified, concentrated mass of effluence. 2) Brown was rubbish but Scottish, and this helped Labour retain their seats (making stark the contrast with Miliband). 3) Anti-unionists will flock to the SNP. As will pro-DevoMax types. The pro-Unionists have several parties to choose from, leading to a fragmented vote. 4) There's a sort of committed and sometimes angry zealotry to much of the Yes vote. I think this will translate into a lot of willing foot soldiers for the SNP, much as it's translated already into a massive membership.
My point with Charles is that HMG does indeed have the powers you mention but is choosing to kick the issue into the long international grass. Is Liechtenstein really going to vote openness in taxation - colour me cyncial ?
Furthermore since the FD of UK plc Mr G Osborne also has an obligation to run the country in the best interests of his shareholder ( us ) then he should damn well be closing the tax holes and collecting the cash. That's his job.
Well, Osborne has done deals with Switzerland and Luxembourg, so he's making progress.
Liechtenstein is, I'd agree, the murkiest cess-pit in Europe. So to judge Osborne solely on whether he drains that particular swamp is a little unfair.
Overall he's making good progress - just google "Ingenious Media HMRC" (without the inverted commas) for an example. Slightly surprised you seem to have missed it in the news.
Yes he has but nontheless he still has much more he should be doing and as I have pointed out time is money.
Same should apply to UK plc.
Sometimes in international negotiations you can only move at the pace of the slowest - but he's made decent progress.
And on items such as the patent box (not sure where the German whinges stand) he's at least making sure we are competitive.
Of course Charles.
But plugging the hole doesn't stop negotiations continuing does it ? And sometimes the pressure is what is needed to cut the Gordian knot.
Well what are you proposing that he does? He's introduced GAAR, HMRC are much more aggressive, he's pressuring the havens.
@faisalislam: Chief minister of Gibraltar tells #murnaghan has written to @Ed_Miliband about his "unfair" characterisation of territory as a "tax haven"
Disaster for Labour etc etc.
Faisal Islam: Gibraltar CM (Gibraltar Labour Party) says Germany and Spain would also end up on @Ed_Miliband 's tax haven secrecy blacklist
Charles Indeed, the chaos which engulfed the world after the collapse and bankruptcy of Lehmans would have been magnified tenfold. Of course we forget the US House of Representatives initially voted down the Bank Bailout in 2008, had they stuck to their guns the whole system could have collapsed
Britain will not get a say on leaving the European Union until 2017, after Downing Street rejected claims a referendum could be held next year. Number 10 made clear there are 'absolutely no plans' to hold the referendum in 2016, after a minister was quoted as saying a vote next year was the 'preferred route'. Prime Minister David Cameron told MailOnline the vote could not be brought forward because he needed time to 'renegotiate a better deal for Britain'.
Assuming both articles are quoting is correctly (which seems likely, even if one is the Daily Mail) who was doing the original briefing, and why? Post-election leadership maneuvers? "I'm more Eurosceptic than you, I want a referendum on a non-existent treaty sooner"
Mr. Bear, I'm unsure of the Lib Dems, but think the SNP will do very well.
My reasons are: 1) Ed Miliband is crap. But in Scotland, he's supercrap, a distilled, purified, concentrated mass of effluence. 2) Brown was rubbish but Scottish, and this helped Labour retain their seats (making stark the contrast with Miliband). 3) Anti-unionists will flock to the SNP. As will pro-DevoMax types. The pro-Unionists have several parties to choose from, leading to a fragmented vote. 4) There's a sort of committed and sometimes angry zealotry to much of the Yes vote. I think this will translate into a lot of willing foot soldiers for the SNP, much as it's translated already into a massive membership.
I think the fact everyone missed about Scotland at the time of the referendum was what an astounding achievement getting 45% of the vote was for "Yes".
My point with Charles is that HMG does indeed have the powers you mention but is choosing to kick the issue into the long international grass. Is Liechtenstein really going to vote openness in taxation - colour me cyncial ?
Furthermore since the FD of UK plc Mr G Osborne also has an obligation to run the country in the best interests of his shareholder ( us ) then he should damn well be closing the tax holes and collecting the cash. That's his job.
Well, Osborne has done deals with Switzerland and Luxembourg, so he's making progress.
Liechtenstein is, I'd agree, the murkiest cess-pit in Europe. So to judge Osborne solely on whether he drains that particular swamp is a little unfair.
Overall he's making good progress - just google "Ingenious Media HMRC" (without the inverted commas) for an example. Slightly surprised you seem to have missed it in the news.
Yes he has but nontheless he still has much more he should be doing and as I have pointed out time is money.
Same should apply to UK plc.
Sometimes in international negotiations you can only move at the pace of the slowest - but he's made decent progress.
And on items such as the patent box (not sure where the German whinges stand) he's at least making sure we are competitive.
Of course Charles.
But plugging the hole doesn't stop negotiations continuing does it ? And sometimes the pressure is what is needed to cut the Gordian knot.
Well what are you proposing that he does? He's introduced GAAR, HMRC are much more aggressive, he's pressuring the havens.
As a resident of an alleged 'haven' he's done more in 5 years than Labour did in 13. On Labour's watch the LVCR business flourished, employing hundreds (VAT free CDs/DVDs from 'Amazon Jersey') - under Osborne its been shut down.
My point with Charles is that HMG does indeed have the powers you mention but is choosing to kick the issue into the long international grass. Is Liechtenstein really going to vote openness in taxation - colour me cyncial ?
Furthermore since the FD of UK plc Mr G Osborne also has an obligation to run the country in the best interests of his shareholder ( us ) then he should damn well be closing the tax holes and collecting the cash. That's his job.
Well, Osborne has done deals with Switzerland and Luxembourg, so he's making progress.
Liechtenstein is, I'd agree, the murkiest cess-pit in Europe. So to judge Osborne solely on whether he drains that particular swamp is a little unfair.
Overall he's making good progress - just google "Ingenious Media HMRC" (without the inverted commas) for an example. Slightly surprised you seem to have missed it in the news.
Yes he has but nontheless he still has much more he should be doing and as I have pointed out time is money.
Same should apply to UK plc.
Sometimes in international negotiations you can only move at the pace of the slowest - but he's made decent progress.
And on items such as the patent box (not sure where the German whinges stand) he's at least making sure we are competitive.
Of course Charles.
But plugging the hole doesn't stop negotiations continuing does it ? And sometimes the pressure is what is needed to cut the Gordian knot.
Well what are you proposing that he does? He's introduced GAAR, HMRC are much more aggressive, he's pressuring the havens.
He should be hitting the transfer of value between Uk and offshore harder and making it more difficult to invent charges and if that means prosecution of the UK directors so be it. I still say the best way to stop aggressive tax schemes is to hit it at source with the accounting partner. Those guys just won't want to have the hassle of having their ability to practice supended.
HMRC say they will issue licences for tax accountants and will only deal with licenced accountants. As part of the licence you have to submit accounts within the letter and spirit of the UK tax system. Dodgy stuff which requires lots of corporate lawyers and which the public purse then has to fork out equally on lawyers gets the submitting accountants licence suspended .
You'd quickly find agressive tax schemes would dry up and more revenue is collected.
One of the most aggressive groups of tax planners is within BP. How do you deal with them?
They'd still need a licence. No play no ball. If they are stupid impose a tax estimate on them and watch them argue for it back.
You ignore at your peril Marquee Mark's Maxim: money flees taxation. Whether it is capital or investment, there are plenty of alternative places that will welcome money. The BPs of this world just have enough clout to lobby to change laws they don't like - so they don't need to leave.
I think Osborne has been generally astute on corporate taxes. Lobbying for all large corporations to pay tax SOMEWHERE, whilst offering low corporate tax rates to make the UK a very attractive somewhere.
LOL if you think BP which works in one of the most politicised industries in the world and which regularly needs HMGs support will offshore well be my guest.
As for money leaving well some will some won't. There's more to tax rates when studying where to leave your cash as 2008 showed. However if a multinat wants to trade in one of the world's largest and most stable economy's then they should be made pay their whack towards its upkeep. They benefit from trading environment why should others subsidised them as well ?
The UK is not remotely stable when it comes to the energy sector. There are far more stable tax regimes in dodgy Nations around the globe. The energy sector is the first to get played politics with by Chancellors in this country. The UK has one of the highest components of "political risk"when assessing investment decisions. Ed Miliband's energy price freeze suggests that high risk is entirely justified.
If EdM is leading the largest party but is short of a majority, are there conditions where Labour would force him to stand down and choose a successor? Such as after 6 months? If EdM's present polling continues, then his MPs will know that they gained office despite EdM not due to him. A very weak Leader presiding over a minority/coalition Govt does not look stable. EMICIPM but not for long...
@CarlottaVance One of the problems about the "free market" in public transport is that while it provides competition, it is usually irrational on integration.
HMRC say they will issue licences for tax accountants and will only deal with licenced accountants. As part of the licence you have to submit accounts within the letter and spirit of the UK tax system. Dodgy stuff which requires lots of corporate lawyers and which the public purse then has to fork out equally on lawyers gets the submitting accountants licence suspended .
You'd quickly find agressive tax schemes would dry up and more revenue is collected.
One of the most aggressive groups of tax planners is within BP. How do you deal with them?
They'd still need a licence. No play no ball. If they are stupid impose a tax estimate on them and watch them argue for it back.
You ignore at your peril Marquee Mark's Maxim: money flees taxation. Whether it is capital or investment, there are plenty of alternative places that will welcome money. The BPs of this world just have enough clout to lobby to change laws they don't like - so they don't need to leave.
I think Osborne has been generally astute on corporate taxes. Lobbying for all large corporations to pay tax SOMEWHERE, whilst offering low corporate tax rates to make the UK a very attractive somewhere.
LOL if you think BP which works in one of the most politicised industries in the world and which regularly needs HMGs support will offshore well be my guest.
As for money leaving well some will some won't. There's more to tax rates when studying where to leave your cash as 2008 showed. However if a multinat wants to trade in one of the world's largest and most stable economy's then they should be made pay their whack towards its upkeep. They benefit from trading environment why should others subsidised them as well ?
The UK is not remotely stable when it comes to the energy sector. There are far more stable tax regimes in dodgy Nations around the globe. The energy sector is the first to get played politics with by Chancellors in this country. The UK has one of the highest components of "political risk"when assessing investment decisions. Ed Miliband's energy price freeze suggests that high risk is entirely justified.
Your talking about energy distribution now, not oil exploration.
And the UK is one of the most stable places about see euro crisis 2011.
And since you seem to think just moving offshore is all about tax, how beneficial do you think moving to Geneva would be for hedgies now that the Swiss Franc has appreciated by 20+% in a couple of months ?
Did the traders take a 20% pay cut or have the management had a 20% hit to their employee costs ?
If EdM is leading the largest party but is short of a majority, are there conditions where Labour would force him to stand down and choose a successor? Such as after 6 months? If EdM's present polling continues, then his MPs will know that they gained office despite EdM not due to him. A very weak Leader presiding over a minority/coalition Govt does not look stable. EMICIPM but not for long...
The Labour leadership rules make this quite a hard trick to pull off. So do the practicalities of staying in government while you tinker around with your choice of PM: If you're a minor party, how do you cut a deal with an unknown person?
Realistically Ed Miliband can be leader for as long as he's still Prime Minister. But not long after that. Cameron could be in a similar position, which oddly could give the LibDems a lot of leverage, if there are enough of them left to pull it.
@CarlottaVance One of the problems about the "free market" in public transport is that while it provides competition, it is usually irrational on integration.
I think it works well in London, where its regulated - but outside London it was royally buggered under the Tories - for example, Tyneside used to have an integrated Metro/Bus system with interchanges - kept buses out of the city centre as people transferred to the Metro - that was all scrapped and its a mess, with cherry picking of profitable routes and naff all frequency on the quieter ones....
Looks like Tsipras and Varoufakis are about to compromise on debt relief. Should be clearer by the end of next week, might be zero coupon bonds and the EU exiting the overseeing of the bailout conditions.
Pulpstar Yes got over 40% of the vote in Quebec's first independence referendum too, I always felt it was on the cards, but I still feel most Scots want to stay in the UK but with much more powers as was the case in Quebec, that is why they voted No but then switched from Labour to the SNP to stand up for their interests
This week's ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), 10 polls inc. the YouGov/Sunday Times:
Lab 33.5% (nc) Con 32.1% (-0.6%) UKIP 14.8% (-0.6%) LD 7.4% (+0.6%) Green 6.6% (+0.3%)
Lab lead 1.3% (+0.5%) LibDem lead over Greens 0.8% (+0.3%)
* Interesting to see Con and UKIP down by same amount, while Lab remain unchanged * Drop in Con score gives Lab their second highest % lead this year * LibDems recover this week from their record low in ELBOW last week * Green surge falters somewhat, but 6.6 is still their 2nd highest score in ELBOW
The other reason why have a very negative balance of payments is massive inflows of foreign money looking for safety.
If you have large capital inflows, it is very hard to run a positive current account or balance of payments.
It's about time the government stared talking us down. We've been seen as a safe haven for too long. That allows us to go on consuming without paying our way in the world but in the end what will we be once we've sold off all our assests? A nation of indebted serfs serving the global elite.
I think we should feel entirely justified, like the Swiss, in trying to devalue.
Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 12m12 minutes ago Only one in 10 pupils at London primary now speaks English as first language. It was 90% in 1997 before Labour: http://dailym.ai/16U6etw
@CarlottaVance One of the problems about the "free market" in public transport is that while it provides competition, it is usually irrational on integration.
Aaah. Central planning. So much more efficient. Never mind if those pesky humans get in the way.
This week's ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), 10 polls inc. the YouGov/Sunday Times:
Lab 33.5% (nc) Con 32.1% (-0.6%) UKIP 14.8% (-0.6%) LD 7.4% (+0.6%) Green 6.6% (+0.3%)
Lab lead 1.3% (+0.5%) LibDem lead over Greens 0.8% (+0.3%)
* Interesting to see Con and UKIP down by same amount, while Lab remain unchanged * Drop in Con score gives Lab their second highest % lead this year * LibDems recover this week from their record low in ELBOW last week * Green surge falters somewhat, but 6.6 is still their 2nd highest score in ELBOW
The other reason why have a very negative balance of payments is massive inflows of foreign money looking for safety.
If you have large capital inflows, it is very hard to run a positive current account or balance of payments.
It's about time the government stared talking us down. We've been seen as a safe haven for too long. That allows us to go on consuming without paying our way in the world but in the end what will we be once we've sold off all our assests? A nation of indebted serfs serving the global elite.
I think we should feel entirely justified, like the Swiss, in trying to devalue.
@CarlottaVance One of the problems about the "free market" in public transport is that while it provides competition, it is usually irrational on integration.
Aaah. Central planning. So much more efficient. Never mind if those pesky humans get in the way.
That does rather depend on whether you mean operational efficiency or financial efficiency.
And since you seem to think just moving offshore is all about tax, how beneficial do you think moving to Geneva would be for hedgies now that the Swiss Franc has appreciated by 20+% in a couple of months ?
Did the traders take a 20% pay cut or have the management had a 20% hit to their employee costs ?
Assuming they operate on a 2/20 basis, then - most likely - they will have taken a big hit to the funds management fee income (assuming they are operating a USD or EUR fund rather than a CHF fund). Base salaries are most likely to be in CHF for the back office and junior staff, while the partners may well be in the same currency as the fund. So the juniors will be ok, while the partners will be squeezed.
@Charles Deregulation has it's limits, and an unshakeable belief that the market is the best arbiter for the benefit of society as a whole is insane. Neither nationalization, or deregulation seems to have worked well, perhaps we should stop arguing and find out what does work?
The other reason why have a very negative balance of payments is massive inflows of foreign money looking for safety.
If you have large capital inflows, it is very hard to run a positive current account or balance of payments.
It's about time the government stared talking us down. We've been seen as a safe haven for too long. That allows us to go on consuming without paying our way in the world but in the end what will we be once we've sold off all our assests? A nation of indebted serfs serving the global elite.
I think we should feel entirely justified, like the Swiss, in trying to devalue.
Gibberish
You're satisfied with the current balance of payments and its consequences?
"Mr Garton tells the documentary team there is 'a sort of three-way split of backgrounds' throughout the school – a third are Eastern European, mainly Albanian-Kosovan, a third are of African origin, and a third are from the Indian subcontinent, with a 'tiny percentage' of white British children"
@isam It hardly matters which school, for a variety of financial, security and cultural reasons "ghettos" of people are always being created, then usually with the fullness of time, they get destroyed by gentrification. Harlem in NY was the same.
Good to see that Nun"gate" was the disaster for Labour that many of the weird Tory fantasists on here were predicting. The Scott_P Tendency is burgeoning.
A new benchmark has been set for bonkers PB Tory wishful thinking.
But they never, ever, ever learn.
Ah, Mr Bobajob or whatever you are called this week.
On Friday evening you were regaling us with how you employ people of all nationalities, how you pay over the going rate etc, though you did refuse to tell us what industry you are in.
I was going to ask you where you advertise or recruit from, the UK or overseas, however I was knackered and went to bed, perhaps you could tell us now please.
@isam It hardly matters which school, for a variety of financial, security and cultural reasons "ghettos" of people are always being created, then usually with the fullness of time, they get destroyed by gentrification. Harlem in NY was the same.
Comments
"directly subsidizing house prices."
http://moneyweek.com/paul-hodges-interview-the-great-unwinding/
Paul Hodges: UK house prices could fall 50% in global ‘Great Unwinding’
Who killed off more of British Industry Thatcher or Blair ?
And far from regarding it a failure to get us out of the mess they see it as a success to recreate the economy of summer 2007.
Its the Notting Hill dinner party mentality again:
House prices rising
City bonuses rising
Gentrification proceeding
And sod all knowledge of or interest in anything outside their privileged comfort zone.
One very plausible outcome of this is that the voters vote "in" when asked about the EU as described in the treaty Cameron says will pass, but then end up having another referendum on the actual treaty that's supposed to contain these provisions when it shows up in 2025 or 2030. They're most likely to vote this treaty down, and this site will be full of righteously indignant arguments trying to work out what on earth the two results cumulatively mean.
1. YG LAB lead of 1% is a result of rounding - correct figure is 0.15
2. The iconoclasts on here who want to tear all down and rebuild have not studied recent history. After WW2, because the UK was broke, we continued to use the same industrial processes, same industrial relations and same technology for the next 30+ years and ignored the fact that we were losing markets (not just market share) until economic reality forced us to look again - but we are out of many markets for ever.
So it is far harder to build than destroy - if a port is destroyed there is no guarantee that ships will return to it when it is rebuilt, as other (and often better) facilities will have been used/put in place in the meantime.
3. Corporation tax, many countries (including Ireland) have adjusted their taxation to encourage companies to be based there. If you want equal taxation between countries, then you are talking about a form of one-world government and just look at the useless example of the UN.
4. Currently people who work say in the Middle East for a minimum period of time do not pay any UK income tax, should these people pay UK tax irrespective of where they work? Indeed USA is trying to tax people and business on their income wherever earned. How would EdM enforce that on the Chinese and Russians?
Unless one or other Ed says they’re going to scrap the scheme. Which, at this stage, they would be insane to do!
Despite the UK's 'sick man of Europe' problems in 1979 industrial production rose during Thatcher's premiership and her government made strenuous efforts to encourage industrial investment from foreign businesses - the Nissan, Toyota and Honda car factories being only the most prominent examples.
A new benchmark has been set for bonkers PB Tory wishful thinking.
But they never, ever, ever learn.
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/moneyweek-and-their-end-of-britain.html
Do your own research as to whether tey're right or not.
Yes, YG Lab = 32.67, Tories = 32.52.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/labourlist/scottish_labour_is_going_down_in_flames_8211_and_taking_miliband8217s_chance_of_a_majority_with_them/?utm_source=reply&utm_medium=email&utm_content=read_more#comment-1834105843
Ed is crap in England, but in Scotland he's taken it to a whole new level.
He could have eliminated the defict by cutting government spending by about 20%. That would have reduced our Gdp by about the same amount and massively reduced domestic demand improving the BoP. We would also have had French or Spanish levels of unemployment of course.
He could have tried a massive competitive devaluation. We did do a bit of that. It would also have made ourselves massively poorer but once again the BoP would have improved.
What else is he supposed to do? He has provided a stable macro economic framework. He has worked hard with Cameron leading trade missions around the world, especially in Asia.
There comes a point when we have to stop blaming governments for our failings and get to work. Talking of which....
Election is hard to call, and could yield a messy result.
Incidentally, there may also be horse-racing, F1 and tennis tips if you're into that sort of thing.
And on items such as the patent box (not sure where the German whinges stand) he's at least making sure we are competitive.
The best situation would have been that it wasn't required.
But having it, in the current circumstances, is better than not having it.
Purchased with money we lent them. This government has bragged about sending 'non lethal' aid.
Ukraine War ~ Video of a train of Ukrainian tanks moving to the front li...: http://youtu.be/cnRx5hxk1GA
These are Polish tanks supplied to the Ukrainian forces, unlike the Russians they don't have invisible tanks incapable of being videoed or caught by satellite with which to supply one faction in a civil war.
(1) as leader of the opposition your words can influence outcomes, especially if you are favorite to become the next PM. You have a responsibility to be careful
(2) I get no indication that Miliband and his team have done the hard work needed to figure out the detail. They are more like Brown in 2007 than Blair in 1997. I fear intellectual paralysis and knee-jerk governing post the election
But plugging the hole doesn't stop negotiations continuing does it ? And sometimes the pressure is what is needed to cut the Gordian knot.
But the regulatory response was supine. More executives should have been prosecuted. Fining the institutions is pretty meaningless.
And contracts, in future, should be less generous for failure.
Britain will not get a say on leaving the European Union until 2017, after Downing Street rejected claims a referendum could be held next year.
Number 10 made clear there are 'absolutely no plans' to hold the referendum in 2016, after a minister was quoted as saying a vote next year was the 'preferred route'.
Prime Minister David Cameron told MailOnline the vote could not be brought forward because he needed time to 'renegotiate a better deal for Britain'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2944573/Cameron-NOT-hold-EU-referendum-earlier-2017-needs-time-better-deal-Brussels.html#ixzz3R9Wxvfgd
Maybe if you could pull your head out of your arse for a while you might understand why the Conservatives aren't regaining all those voters they have lost.
I think Osborne has been generally astute on corporate taxes. Lobbying for all large corporations to pay tax SOMEWHERE, whilst offering low corporate tax rates to make the UK a very attractive somewhere.
Dave: "I'd call Notting Hill more west than north George."
As for money leaving well some will some won't. There's more to tax rates when studying where to leave your cash as 2008 showed. However if a multinat wants to trade in one of the world's largest and most stable economy's then they should be made pay their whack towards its upkeep. They benefit from trading environment why should others subsidised them as well ?
But the real problem is that on insolvency all the contents of current accounts are frozen until the mess is resolved. The government insurance scheme, IIRC, at the time protected up to around £50K, so most people would have got their money back - after say a month.
But in the meantime, people couldn't have bought food that weekend. Firms couldn't pay salaries. Small businesses would have lost all their reserves above the £50K limit.
The money markets would have frozen up as contagion spread: banks would not have been able to borrow overnight, probably bringing down a number of other banks.
Systemically important actually means something. It's why banks should be heavily regulated, low risk, low return entities. It's the most important reason why there should be a proper separation of investment banking from retail banking.
If Ed is PM it is entirely the fault of UKIP.
The Emperors New Clothes 2015 stylee
The other reason why have a very negative balance of payments is massive inflows of foreign money looking for safety.
If you have large capital inflows, it is very hard to run a positive current account or balance of payments.
If you think this is the case:
Lib Dems more seats than SNP is 7-2.
Also Lib Dems 6-1 Edinburgh West (Almost borders like 34% Yes vote here)
Spot on.
My reasons are:
1) Ed Miliband is crap. But in Scotland, he's supercrap, a distilled, purified, concentrated mass of effluence.
2) Brown was rubbish but Scottish, and this helped Labour retain their seats (making stark the contrast with Miliband).
3) Anti-unionists will flock to the SNP. As will pro-DevoMax types. The pro-Unionists have several parties to choose from, leading to a fragmented vote.
4) There's a sort of committed and sometimes angry zealotry to much of the Yes vote. I think this will translate into a lot of willing foot soldiers for the SNP, much as it's translated already into a massive membership.
No, you're right, its another triumph!
@LabourPolicies: If elected, Labour will force Landlords to offer 3 year leases, and ban landlords from above inflation rent hikes on their tenants.
Too many big multi-nationals are putting Profit before Passenger in our UK Bus Network. Labour will introduce Not for Profit bussing in May
If UK Crown Dependent Tax Havens have not opened their books by 7th November 2015, Ed Miliband, if PM, will internationally blacklist them.
I wonder what impact '3 year leases with pegged increases' will have on rents?
Oh, and Ed can't 'internationally blacklist' anyone - only the OECD can do that, and they'd have to blacklist the US, France, Germany & Spain too....
Although - if you have strong views on the Punic Wars, you might want to break yourself in gently....
One of the problems about the "free market" in public transport is that while it provides competition, it is usually irrational on integration.
Cameron is AVB to Thatcher's Mourinho.. trying to change the image of the team but upsetting/driving away the people that made it successful
Abramovich blamed the manager not the players and the fans, and hey presto, top of the league again.
Cameroons would still have AVB in charge and be blaming Terry/Drogba/Lampard for not adapting to the new system
And the UK is one of the most stable places about see euro crisis 2011.
And since you seem to think just moving offshore is all about tax, how beneficial do you think moving to Geneva would be for hedgies now that the Swiss Franc has appreciated by 20+% in a couple of months ?
Did the traders take a 20% pay cut or have the management had a 20% hit to their employee costs ?
Realistically Ed Miliband can be leader for as long as he's still Prime Minister. But not long after that. Cameron could be in a similar position, which oddly could give the LibDems a lot of leverage, if there are enough of them left to pull it.
The fact that somebody managed to get some money for the Saxons, or that you think they constitute lethal aid.
This week's ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), 10 polls inc. the YouGov/Sunday Times:
Lab 33.5% (nc)
Con 32.1% (-0.6%)
UKIP 14.8% (-0.6%)
LD 7.4% (+0.6%)
Green 6.6% (+0.3%)
Lab lead 1.3% (+0.5%)
LibDem lead over Greens 0.8% (+0.3%)
* Interesting to see Con and UKIP down by same amount, while Lab remain unchanged
* Drop in Con score gives Lab their second highest % lead this year
* LibDems recover this week from their record low in ELBOW last week
* Green surge falters somewhat, but 6.6 is still their 2nd highest score in ELBOW
Was it all that you hoped for?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/564397207026425856
I think we should feel entirely justified, like the Swiss, in trying to devalue.
Only one in 10 pupils at London primary now speaks English as first language. It was 90% in 1997 before Labour: http://dailym.ai/16U6etw
Yalla Allah!
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/08/10m-magna-carta-found-in-council-archives
You forgot fire, pestilence, and flood.
Polish plumbers are followers of Islam?
Tick Tock. Tick Tock...
My heart bleeds for the poor dears
Deregulation has it's limits, and an unshakeable belief that the market is the best arbiter for the benefit of society as a whole is insane.
Neither nationalization, or deregulation seems to have worked well, perhaps we should stop arguing and find out what does work?
For which school?
"Mr Garton tells the documentary team there is 'a sort of three-way split of backgrounds' throughout the school – a third are Eastern European, mainly Albanian-Kosovan, a third are of African origin, and a third are from the Indian subcontinent, with a 'tiny percentage' of white British children"
Labour lead in ELBOW increases to 1.3% from 0.8% last week
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/564397780618477568
#LibDem versus #Greens in ELBOW 8th Feb. #Greensurge
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/564400170809700354
It hardly matters which school, for a variety of financial, security and cultural reasons "ghettos" of people are always being created, then usually with the fullness of time, they get destroyed by gentrification.
Harlem in NY was the same.
On Friday evening you were regaling us with how you employ people of all nationalities, how you pay over the going rate etc, though you did refuse to tell us what industry you are in.
I was going to ask you where you advertise or recruit from, the UK or overseas, however I was knackered and went to bed, perhaps you could tell us now please.