Michael Heaver (@Michael_Heaver) 02/03/2015 08:52 Sadly familiar: 300 victims of grooming and sexual abuse in Oxfordshire telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cr…
If the Lib Dems do hold on to a reasonable clutch of seats no doubt this is the explanation that will be given. It was all down to the reputation of individual MPs. I just can't see how Clegg would have the authority to survive, more still, act as a kingmaker.
If Dave loses ground how would he have the authority to remain as PM? If Ed fails to secure a majority how would he have the authority to become PM? As has been said here before, it's all down to numbers of seats. Someone has to govern and if they need to form a coalition in order to do that, then that is what they must do.
If no plausible Coalition is possible, or only a very weak one is possible which then implodes within weeks we are in rather uncharted territory with the FTPA idiocy.
If the LDs want to go into opposition and recuperate, but might agree on a bill by bill basis, and LAB can't make a deal with the SNP that it's backbenchers would wear, so it goes to bill-by-bill as well, its going to be a fun time with the possibility of the government falling almost every day.
The thing is under the fixed term parliament act in the case of a minority government the effective power to force an election and bring the government down is wholly handed over to the opposition parties. The government will not be able to dissolve parliament and call an election and so therefore could be left as a zombie government for months or even years potentially. It changes the dynamics of such matters significantly.
I think the government would have to resort to forcing everything through as votes of confidence and dare the other parties to vote them down. If the government falls they are off the hook and the other parties have a couple of weeks to form a new government or elections are called.
Or more mischievously, they declare a State of Emergency, then using powers in the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) they make an Order in Council to amend the FTPA or even the Representation of the People Act, and then call an election Blair was told to exclude those sort of acts from the CCA, but didn't, idiot.
The confidence vote ploy would not work because any vote of no confidence can be rescinded within two weeks so they vote down the legislation and then within two weeks recover their confidence generically in the government (without the legislation). Sadly FTPA allows al lsorts of shenanigans to go on.
A state of emergency might end up the only course possible........!
It's a straight fight. Cameron or Miliband as your Prime Minister?
I'd think that Miliband has probably got as many rallying to his flag as he is going to get. Cameron, though, still has plenty to grab who can't face the idea of Ed Miliband, Prime Minister....
As I've been saying for the last couple of years, there is a high probability of no viable government being possible.
I fully expect that Labour will be the largest party and hope that its by enough to make a stable minority + C&S with whoever to work. But its just as possible that we end up with a mess:
1. Labour the largest party. Cameron either goes ("encouraged" by grandees) or tries to carry on and ends up resigning a very minority government having lost the Queens Speech debate 2. Milliband becomes PM but the numbers don't really add up for any kind of stability. The only agreement across the house is that FTPA has to go, so it does 3. The Tories leadership election focuses on a populist angle that can sweep away the failure of the Cameron era to win an election. So Boris gets the gig. 4. The minority Labour government can't get enough of anything through a fractious commons, so we have a second election 5. Boris becomes PM heading a minority Tory government. 6. Labour swings rightwards once again to try and counter Boris, so Chukka Umunna becomes leader.
I don't want the above to happen. But its feasible.
Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) 02/03/2015 07:51 "Immigration is a shambles. PM cannot spend the next 10 weeks pretending it does not exist." @trevor_kavanagh today sunpl.us/60160hqn
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
You've still failed to answer how the UK will manage to replace £6bn of EU food imports with either home grown products and how it would avoid the EU Levy on CAP foodstuffs which would raise the cost the UK pays to import its food from the EU.
Or how the producers of manufactured foodstuffs would compete when their raw materials are subject to the CAP levy whereas EU manufacturers would be able to produce much cheaper ready meals and manufactured food and would be able to export it to the UK without a export levy.
And how the UK public would react to an import tariff on imported manufactured foods so any of the UK food manufacturing industry could survive.
As I've been saying for the last couple of years, there is a high probability of no viable government being possible.
I fully expect that Labour will be the largest party and hope that its by enough to make a stable minority + C&S with whoever to work. But its just as possible that we end up with a mess:
1. Labour the largest party. Cameron either goes ("encouraged" by grandees) or tries to carry on and ends up resigning a very minority government having lost the Queens Speech debate 2. Milliband becomes PM but the numbers don't really add up for any kind of stability. The only agreement across the house is that FTPA has to go, so it does 3. The Tories leadership election focuses on a populist angle that can sweep away the failure of the Cameron era to win an election. So Boris gets the gig. 4. The minority Labour government can't get enough of anything through a fractious commons, so we have a second election 5. Boris becomes PM heading a minority Tory government. 6. Labour swings rightwards once again to try and counter Boris, so Chukka Umunna becomes leader.
I don't want the above to happen. But its feasible.
Only one party wants a second election, the Tory party, as they are the only party that has the funding to fight two elections in a short space of time.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
There wouldn't be a currency union, Scotland would develop its own currency. As an exporting nation, Scotland would still have costs to bear by English withdrawl but that would partly be ameliorated by the English reliance on imports from Scotland. Scotland is self sufficient in electricity, food, fuel and water, England is not in the first three and projected not to be in the last.
The main difference to England staying in is that it might make it inevitable for Scotland to go down the EFTA route rather than retaining her EU membership. That might have positive long term benefits.
Wouldn't the tariffs you talked about make Scottish exports to the rUK (not just England) much less competitive? And wouldn't the separate currency also push up costs? And, of course, it would kill off the Scottish financial services sector. Why import expensive electricity, food and fuel from Scotland, when it can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere?
Further evidence of a continuing slide in support for UKIP, making Ladbrokes' 7/4 odds against them winning between 10% - 15% of the UK vote appear ever more attractive, unless of course one believes they could slip below the 10% level.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
There wouldn't be a currency union, Scotland would develop its own currency. As an exporting nation, Scotland would still have costs to bear by English withdrawl but that would partly be ameliorated by the English reliance on imports from Scotland. Scotland is self sufficient in electricity, food, fuel and water, England is not in the first three and projected not to be in the last.
The main difference to England staying in is that it might make it inevitable for Scotland to go down the EFTA route rather than retaining her EU membership. That might have positive long term benefits.
Wouldn't the tariffs you talked about make Scottish exports to the rUK (not just England) much less competitive? And wouldn't the separate currency also push up costs? And, of course, it would kill off the Scottish financial services sector. Why import expensive electricity, food and fuel from Scotland, when it can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere?
Isn't it the sovereign will of the Scottish people or summat that rump UK has to buy stuff from an Independent Scotland regardless of the cost.
Further evidence of a continuing slide in support for UKIP, making Ladbrokes' 7/4 odds against them winning between 10% - 15% of the UK vote appear ever more attractive, unless of course one believes they could slip below the 10% level.
Well they are currently below 10% with the two most accurate pollsters at the last election.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
There wouldn't be a currency union, Scotland would develop its own currency. As an exporting nation, Scotland would still have costs to bear by English withdrawl but that would partly be ameliorated by the English reliance on imports from Scotland. Scotland is self sufficient in electricity, food, fuel and water, England is not in the first three and projected not to be in the last.
The main difference to England staying in is that it might make it inevitable for Scotland to go down the EFTA route rather than retaining her EU membership. That might have positive long term benefits.
Wouldn't the tariffs you talked about make Scottish exports to the rUK (not just England) much less competitive? And wouldn't the separate currency also push up costs? And, of course, it would kill off the Scottish financial services sector. Why import expensive electricity, food and fuel from Scotland, when it can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere?
Yes they would. I never said it would have no impact on Scotland, it would. The impact on England would be far higher. Scottish electricity is amongst the cheapest in the world due to a proliferance of Hydro and Wind power which have near zero marginal costs.
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
You've still failed to answer how the UK will manage to replace £6bn of EU food imports with either home grown products and how it would avoid the EU Levy on CAP foodstuffs which would raise the cost the UK pays to import its food from the EU.
Or how the producers of manufactured foodstuffs would compete when their raw materials are subject to the CAP levy whereas EU manufacturers would be able to produce much cheaper ready meals and manufactured food and would be able to export it to the UK without a export levy.
And how the UK public would react to an import tariff on imported manufactured foods so any of the UK food manufacturing industry could survive.
You really haven't thought any of it through.
Why import from the EU?
Would Scotland really want additional tariffs imposed on trade with by far its biggest export market?
Further evidence of a continuing slide in support for UKIP, making Ladbrokes' 7/4 odds against them winning between 10% - 15% of the UK vote appear ever more attractive, unless of course one believes they could slip below the 10% level.
Well they are currently below 10% with the two most accurate pollsters at the last election.
On universal swing the Lib Dems should be facing oblivion at the moment having lost nearly 2/3 of their 2010 vote.
I just tried Baxtering the current UK Polling Report average and it has the LibDems on 18, which seems surprisingly perky. This drop in seats is only barely worse than the drop in vote share, which is impressive considering the way FPTP would normally hammer you disproportionately as you get further away from the sweet zone.
Quite a number of the Lib Dem seats have been built up to be seriously "safe" in normal times with very big majorities. So even very large swings have them hanging on.
But they do seem to be doing better than that (SPIN agrees) and as you say that really should not be the case as their overall support falls.
I have 2 small bets with Isam. The first, that the Lib Dems will outpoll UKIP I am pretty pessimistic about. The second, that the Lib Dems will have more than 4x the seats of UKIP I am supremely confident of.
Happy to double up both bets if you are game?
No, they are just fun bets, I wouldn't want them to get serious.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
There wouldn't be a currency union, Scotland would develop its own currency. As an exporting nation, Scotland would still have costs to bear by English withdrawl but that would partly be ameliorated by the English reliance on imports from Scotland. Scotland is self sufficient in electricity, food, fuel and water, England is not in the first three and projected not to be in the last.
The main difference to England staying in is that it might make it inevitable for Scotland to go down the EFTA route rather than retaining her EU membership. That might have positive long term benefits.
Wouldn't the tariffs you talked about make Scottish exports to the rUK (not just England) much less competitive? And wouldn't the separate currency also push up costs? And, of course, it would kill off the Scottish financial services sector. Why import expensive electricity, food and fuel from Scotland, when it can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere?
Yes they would. I never said it would have no impact on Scotland, it would. The impact on England would be far higher. Scottish electricity is amongst the cheapest in the world due to a proliferance of Hydro and Wind power which have near zero marginal costs.
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
How is it higher? The rUK is by far Scotland's biggest export market and significantly bigger than the rest of the EU.
Call from Gisela Stuart for a Con-Lab coalition cannot be discounted until both Con and Lab leadership rule it out.Current odds 50-1.The SNP,who have ruled a coalition with the Tories out,can make hay with this and further erode Slab vote.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
You've still failed to answer how the UK will manage to replace £6bn of EU food imports with either home grown products and how it would avoid the EU Levy on CAP foodstuffs which would raise the cost the UK pays to import its food from the EU.
Or how the producers of manufactured foodstuffs would compete when their raw materials are subject to the CAP levy whereas EU manufacturers would be able to produce much cheaper ready meals and manufactured food and would be able to export it to the UK without a export levy.
And how the UK public would react to an import tariff on imported manufactured foods so any of the UK food manufacturing industry could survive.
You really haven't thought any of it through.
Why import from the EU?
Would Scotland really want additional tariffs imposed on trade with by far its biggest export market?
You can import from wherever you want, at the moment the vast bulk of England's food is produced in Ireland and Scotland. If you see a way to produce that yourself good luck to you. If you can get it cheaper from RoW, good luck to you. It still doesn't address the basic that England goes from importing £6bn of cheap food from the EU to importing £6bn of more expensive food.
The bottom line is that CAP alone gives far more benefit to UK consumers than the UK pays into the EU.
Yes they would. I never said it would have no impact on Scotland, it would. The impact on England would be far higher. Scottish electricity is amongst the cheapest in the world due to a proliferance of Hydro and Wind power which have near zero marginal costs.
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
How is it higher? The rUK is by far Scotland's biggest export market and significantly bigger than the rest of the EU.
You're not making a coherent point.
The genesis of the argument is that the UK would be better off leaving the European Union.
It would not for the reasons I have explained and myriad others. The cost to Scotland as an independent country or as a continuing part of the UK isn't relevant to the Kippers argument. It is not a consideration to the Kippers desire to leave the EU.
England leaving the EU would be expensive for Scotland regardless of its status within the UK. I'm not arguing otherwise.
On universal swing the Lib Dems should be facing oblivion at the moment having lost nearly 2/3 of their 2010 vote.
I just tried Baxtering the current UK Polling Report average and it has the LibDems on 18, which seems surprisingly perky. This drop in seats is only barely worse than the drop in vote share, which is impressive considering the way FPTP would normally hammer you disproportionately as you get further away from the sweet zone.
Quite a number of the Lib Dem seats have been built up to be seriously "safe" in normal times with very big majorities. So even very large swings have them hanging on.
But they do seem to be doing better than that (SPIN agrees) and as you say that really should not be the case as their overall support falls.
I have 2 small bets with Isam. The first, that the Lib Dems will outpoll UKIP I am pretty pessimistic about. The second, that the Lib Dems will have more than 4x the seats of UKIP I am supremely confident of.
Happy to double up both bets if you are game?
No, they are just fun bets, I wouldn't want them to get serious.
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
True, but the positions are not comparable, the CONs are in the mid 30's, the LDs are in single digits, the roll of the junior partner pays differently with the public, you are the one supporting the government.
To be pedantic, the Conservatives (apart from a couple of polls) are around 32-33% which is roughly what they got in 2005.
You are of course correct about the "junior partner" and I'm tempted with hindsight to wonder if Cameron's "offer" the day after the election, which created the Coalition, wasn't predicated solely on having the LDs as a shield for unpopular decisions.
Even if that's true, what else could or should NIck have done ? Gone in with Labour - hardly. Offered S&C to a minority Conservative Government - that would be worse than now.
The only other option would have been to eschew all offers of Coalition and given the background noise that Greece was about to implode and drag the EU into a huge crisis, there was enormous pressure on some form of deal to happen. Even if that hadn't been the case, Nick would have been a) blamed for the political and financial instability which followed and b) the LDs would have been (rightly) accused of not being serious about politics.
Further evidence of a continuing slide in support for UKIP, making Ladbrokes' 7/4 odds against them winning between 10% - 15% of the UK vote appear ever more attractive, unless of course one believes they could slip below the 10% level.
Labour seem to have upped a couple of points lately. Maybe some Greens, but wondering if those Labour voters toying with UKIP have gone back to Labour?
That's going to leave a wedge of former Tory kippers with a decision of whether to hold their nose and go back to the Tories in May....or have Ed Miliband, Prime Minister. Some will, some won't. I have said before that I think UKIP will poll 9 point something percent on the day.
"Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use"
How long term exactly are we talking about?
I would say 2-3 teenage years is long enough
I guess this is anecdotal but my friends and I were v heavy cannabis smokers in our teens and everyone has suffered to an extent. I would do anything to prevent youngsters from trying it and risking the side effects
Yes they would. I never said it would have no impact on Scotland, it would. The impact on England would be far higher. Scottish electricity is amongst the cheapest in the world due to a proliferance of Hydro and Wind power which have near zero marginal costs.
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
How is it higher? The rUK is by far Scotland's biggest export market and significantly bigger than the rest of the EU.
You're not making a coherent point.
The genesis of the argument is that the UK would be better off leaving the European Union.
It would not for the reasons I have explained and myriad others. The cost to Scotland as an independent country or as a continuing part of the UK isn't relevant to the Kippers argument. It is not a consideration to the Kippers desire to leave the EU.
England leaving the EU would be expensive for Scotland regardless of its status within the UK. I'm not arguing otherwise.
I am not arguing for the UK to leave the EU. I have no strong opinion on that right now. I am exploring why you seem to think it is in Scotland's interests to be in the EU, even if this has a substantial and adverse affect on trade with by far its biggest export market.
What you seem to be accepting is that policies which are adverse to the interests of an independent Scotland that was a member of the EU would be imposed on the rUK by the EU and there would be nothing that Scotland could do about it.
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
There wouldn't be a currency union, Scotland would develop its own currency. As an exporting nation, Scotland would still have costs to bear by English withdrawl but that would partly be ameliorated by the English reliance on imports from Scotland. Scotland is self sufficient in electricity, food, fuel and water, England is not in the first three and projected not to be in the last.
The main difference to England staying in is that it might make it inevitable for Scotland to go down the EFTA route rather than retaining her EU membership. That might have positive long term benefits.
Wouldn't the tariffs you talked about make Scottish exports to the rUK (not just England) much less competitive? And wouldn't the separate currency also push up costs? And, of course, it would kill off the Scottish financial services sector. Why import expensive electricity, food and fuel from Scotland, when it can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere?
Yes they would. I never said it would have no impact on Scotland, it would. The impact on England would be far higher. Scottish electricity is amongst the cheapest in the world due to a proliferance of Hydro and Wind power which have near zero marginal costs.
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
How is it higher? The rUK is by far Scotland's biggest export market and significantly bigger than the rest of the EU.
Where is Scotland going to export all that water and power is the RUK isn't buying it?
"Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use"
How long term exactly are we talking about?
I would say 2-3 teenage years is long enough
I guess this is anecdotal but my friends and I were v heavy cannabis smokers in our teens and everyone has suffered to an extent. I would do anything to prevent youngsters from trying it and risking the side effects
Agree. You are lucky if you just experience the short term consequences of lack of motivation and poor academic performance.
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
Then it's poorly and inappropriately regulated.
It's an extremely dangerous drug the use of which should be vehemently opposed rather than treated as a harmless product that should be legalised/implicitly encouraged
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
You've still failed to answer how the UK will manage to replace £6bn of EU food imports with either home grown products and how it would avoid the EU Levy on CAP foodstuffs which would raise the cost the UK pays to import its food from the EU.
Or how the producers of manufactured foodstuffs would compete when their raw materials are subject to the CAP levy whereas EU manufacturers would be able to produce much cheaper ready meals and manufactured food and would be able to export it to the UK without a export levy.
And how the UK public would react to an import tariff on imported manufactured foods so any of the UK food manufacturing industry could survive.
You really haven't thought any of it through.
Why import from the EU?
Would Scotland really want additional tariffs imposed on trade with by far its biggest export market?
You can import from wherever you want, at the moment the vast bulk of England's food is produced in Ireland and Scotland. If you see a way to produce that yourself good luck to you. If you can get it cheaper from RoW, good luck to you. It still doesn't address the basic that England goes from importing £6bn of cheap food from the EU to importing £6bn of more expensive food.
The bottom line is that CAP alone gives far more benefit to UK consumers than the UK pays into the EU.
Before you get too carried away with that line of thought a brief acquaintance with the facts might be in order.
Levies, on the other hand, are used to increase the price of goods exported to countries outside the EC to the EC market level. This helps to ensure that a regular supply of goods remains within the EC. Since EC prices rarely fall below world-market level, in practice export levies are rare.
ie. it won't increase the price above the EU market value, which is what we are paying right now anyway.
Its worth noticing that CAP Levies also only applies to unprocessed goods.
Yes they would. I never said it would have no impact on Scotland, it would. The impact on England would be far higher. Scottish electricity is amongst the cheapest in the world due to a proliferance of Hydro and Wind power which have near zero marginal costs.
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
How is it higher? The rUK is by far Scotland's biggest export market and significantly bigger than the rest of the EU.
You're not making a coherent point.
The genesis of the argument is that the UK would be better off leaving the European Union.
It would not for the reasons I have explained and myriad others. The cost to Scotland as an independent country or as a continuing part of the UK isn't relevant to the Kippers argument. It is not a consideration to the Kippers desire to leave the EU.
England leaving the EU would be expensive for Scotland regardless of its status within the UK. I'm not arguing otherwise.
I am not arguing for the UK to leave the EU. I have no strong opinion on that right now. I am exploring why you seem to think it is in Scotland's interests to be in the EU, even if this has a substantial and adverse affect on trade with by far its biggest export market.
What you seem to be accepting is that policies which are adverse to the interests of an independent Scotland that was a member of the EU would be imposed on the rUK by the EU and there would be nothing that Scotland could do about it.
I said the best outcome for Scotland would probably be EFTA membership and a continuation of the British Isles free trade zone (which pre-dates the European Union).
Scotland would lose CAP (but as a population share of the UK CAP funding, Scotland already receives a rather small proportion) Ireland would be required to impose CAP Levies or leave the EU for EFTA.
In any of the three scenarios following a UK exit - Scotland in the UK, Scotland in EFTA or Scotland in the EU, food exports would increase in price as the (albeit comparatively smaller) CAP subsidy would be lost or replaced by Tarriffs. Staying inside the EU, over time the manufacture of foodstuffs currently could move from England to Ireland and Scotland as manufactureds do not incur the CAP levy. This might be more beneficial, hard to say. It would avoid food price rises for England. But England might try to avoid this with import tariffs.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
You've still failed to answer how the UK will manage to replace £6bn of EU food imports with either home grown products and how it would avoid the EU Levy on CAP foodstuffs which would raise the cost the UK pays to import its food from the EU.
Or how the producers of manufactured foodstuffs would compete when their raw materials are subject to the CAP levy whereas EU manufacturers would be able to produce much cheaper ready meals and manufactured food and would be able to export it to the UK without a export levy.
And how the UK public would react to an import tariff on imported manufactured foods so any of the UK food manufacturing industry could survive.
You really haven't thought any of it through.
For a start a significant amount of the imported food from the EU is as a result of qutas which resulted in us destroying our own agriculture and limiting what our own farmers can do because we were forced to buy from the EU. Apple Orchards grubbed up, milk poured away, a whole range of goods which we have grown and produced here but we are prevented from doing so by the EU because of the CAP. And this is not even producing cheaper food for the consumer because the imported stuff often costs more.
Besides, just because we were outside the EU would not mean we could not trade with them. That is another of those myths you love to perpetuate.
Oh and free trade agreements such as those with Mexico mean that the majority of agricultural products and food are not subject to levies. And export levies are only charged on agricultural goods where there is a declared shortage of those goods inside the EU or where the price charged outside the EU is higher than the EU price.
So once again your claims about levies on £6 billion of food imports to the UK are utter rubbish. I will be polite and assume it is ignorance rather than deception.
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
Then it's poorly and inappropriately regulated.
It's an extremely dangerous drug the use of which should be vehemently opposed rather than treated as a harmless product that should be legalised/implicitly encouraged
The genesis of the argument is that the UK would be better off leaving the European Union.
It would not for the reasons I have explained and myriad others. The cost to Scotland as an independent country or as a continuing part of the UK isn't relevant to the Kippers argument. It is not a consideration to the Kippers desire to leave the EU.
England leaving the EU would be expensive for Scotland regardless of its status within the UK. I'm not arguing otherwise.
I am not arguing for the UK to leave the EU. I have no strong opinion on that right now. I am exploring why you seem to think it is in Scotland's interests to be in the EU, even if this has a substantial and adverse affect on trade with by far its biggest export market.
What you seem to be accepting is that policies which are adverse to the interests of an independent Scotland that was a member of the EU would be imposed on the rUK by the EU and there would be nothing that Scotland could do about it.
I said the best outcome for Scotland would probably be EFTA membership and a continuation of the British Isles free trade zone (which pre-dates the European Union).
Scotland would lose CAP (but as a population share of the UK CAP funding, Scotland already receives a rather small proportion) Ireland would be required to impose CAP Levies or leave the EU for EFTA.
In any of the three scenarios following a UK exit - Scotland in the UK, Scotland in EFTA or Scotland in the EU, food exports would increase in price as the (albeit comparatively smaller) CAP subsidy would be lost or replaced by Tarriffs. Staying inside the EU, over time the manufacture of foodstuffs currently could move from England to Ireland and Scotland as manufactureds do not incur the CAP levy. This might be more beneficial, hard to say. It would avoid food price rises for England. But England might try to avoid this with import tariffs.
Your making this up as you are going along, Levies only raise prices to EC Market price, that is what we pay anyway inside the EU, their only function is to stop people selling stuff cheap outside the EU to the detriment of supply inside the EU. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
"It is now two months since David Cameron went into full election mode, dumping everything but national security, the budget and PMQs from his government diary to make room for ever more campaign work. And in those two months, how has the Tory poll number moved? Trick question, of course: it hasn't. The party is where it was, where it has been for years now: stable on around 32 per cent, and far away from the solid lead over Labour needed to be biggest party in May.
No matter what the spinners say, it wasn't supposed to be like this. Tory election planners were expecting things to be better than this by now. Some suggested last summer would be the "crossover" point, when the Tories clearly overtook Labour. Then the autumn was the moment, but It didn't come then either. And now, after two months of attacks on Mr Miliband and rehearsal of the key Tory election themes, the party is still waiting.
"We're stuck," is how one minister puts it. "Nothing we've done yet has moved anyone," says an MP. There's no panic or even much unhappiness to those observations. On the whole, Tories still have a Micawberish faith that Something Will Turn Up, that as election day approaches, voters will simply wake up to a binary Cameron-Miliband choice and vote Tory in droves. Many privately talk about 1992 as the template, when polls put John Major behind all the way to Election Day. It almost seems a bit rude to spoil that wishful thinking by pointing out that 1992's polls were later shown to have been systemically flawed, a flaw that has since been corrected."
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
There wouldn't be a currency union, Scotland would develop its own currency. As an exporting nation, Scotland would still have costs to bear by English withdrawl but that would partly be ameliorated by the English reliance on imports from Scotland. Scotland is self sufficient in electricity, food, fuel and water, England is not in the first three and projected not to be in the last.
The main difference to England staying in is that it might make it inevitable for Scotland to go down the EFTA route rather than retaining her EU membership. That might have positive long term benefits.
Wouldn't the tariffs you talked about make Scottish exports to the rUK (not just England) much less competitive? And wouldn't the separate currency also push up costs? And, of course, it would kill off the Scottish financial services sector. Why import expensive electricity, food and fuel from Scotland, when it can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere?
Yes they would. I never said it would have no impact on Scotland, it would. The impact on England would be far higher. Scottish electricity is amongst the cheapest in the world due to a proliferance of Hydro and Wind power which have near zero marginal costs.
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
How is it higher? The rUK is by far Scotland's biggest export market and significantly bigger than the rest of the EU.
Where is Scotland going to export all that water and power is the RUK isn't buying it?
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
Then it's poorly and inappropriately regulated.
It's an extremely dangerous drug the use of which should be vehemently opposed rather than treated as a harmless product that should be legalised/implicitly encouraged
Several countries and parts-of-countries around the world disagree with you. When you find yourself on the same side of the debate as Peter Hitchens and FalseFlag, you know you're in trouble.
Anyway, as with alcohol and tobacco, it can be legal and frowned upon. Legalisation doesn't imply it's a wholesome and harmless pass time (which it would be for the majority of users).
It could just be that SNP supporters are energized and thus take the trouble to join online polls.
Except the largest SNP lead in Scotland is with a phone pollster.
Yeah, but what about the phone canvassers' ACCENTS!
I bet SLAB's phone efforts are going something like this:
'Pollster' "Hello we're conducting a survey... how would you vote in the General Election"
Responder: "SNP"
'Pollster' "The SNP will put David Cameron in Gov't, bearing this in mind and the fact that Labour is the only party that can win in your constituency, how will you be voting"
Responder "SNP"
'Pollster" "The SNP kicked out Labour in around 1980 and lead to twenty years of Tory rule. Bearing this in mind are you more likely to vote Labour"
Responder "Errm I guess I'll consider it" *hangs up*
"Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use"
How long term exactly are we talking about?
I would say 2-3 teenage years is long enough
I guess this is anecdotal but my friends and I were v heavy cannabis smokers in our teens and everyone has suffered to an extent. I would do anything to prevent youngsters from trying it and risking the side effects
Agree. You are lucky if you just experience the short term consequences of lack of motivation and poor academic performance.
I kinda wish i'd smoked more weed as a teenager.
At least then i'd have a good excuse for my lack of motivation and poor academic performance.
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
Then it's poorly and inappropriately regulated.
It's an extremely dangerous drug the use of which should be vehemently opposed rather than treated as a harmless product that should be legalised/implicitly encouraged
Several countries and parts-of-countries around the world disagree with you. When you find yourself on the same side of the debate as Peter Hitchens and FalseFlag, you know you're in trouble!
Anyway, as with alcohol and tobacco, it can be legal and frowned upon. Legalisation doesn't imply it's a wholesome and harmless pass time (which it would be for the majority of users).
"extremely dangerous" - lol
Several countries in the world have allowed all day drinking for decades without the disaster of binge drinking that we unleashed by changing opening hours and licensing laws.
It is extremely dangerous, visit mental homes and see for yourself
I mostly find myself agreeing with peter hitchens and have no problem with that or agreeing anyone else who may be unfashionable or that I usually disagree with, it's called independent thinking
Farron profile. Still some 5/4 available if this doesn't put you off:
He voted against tuition fees, the NHS bill, Secret Courts and the bedroom tax. After the latter, one senior figure was moved to ask: “Which bit of the sanctimonious, god-bothering, treacherous little shit is there not to like?”
Here is an exercise in the hypothetical. David Cameron goes to the Queen after the election to inform her he cannot form a government and then Miliband goes to the palace and says the same thing. What then?
"It is now two months since David Cameron went into full election mode, dumping everything but national security, the budget and PMQs from his government diary to make room for ever more campaign work. And in those two months, how has the Tory poll number moved? Trick question, of course: it hasn't. The party is where it was, where it has been for years now: stable on around 32 per cent, and far away from the solid lead over Labour needed to be biggest party in May.
No matter what the spinners say, it wasn't supposed to be like this. Tory election planners were expecting things to be better than this by now. Some suggested last summer would be the "crossover" point, when the Tories clearly overtook Labour. Then the autumn was the moment, but It didn't come then either. And now, after two months of attacks on Mr Miliband and rehearsal of the key Tory election themes, the party is still waiting.
"We're stuck," is how one minister puts it. "Nothing we've done yet has moved anyone," says an MP. There's no panic or even much unhappiness to those observations. On the whole, Tories still have a Micawberish faith that Something Will Turn Up, that as election day approaches, voters will simply wake up to a binary Cameron-Miliband choice and vote Tory in droves. Many privately talk about 1992 as the template, when polls put John Major behind all the way to Election Day. It almost seems a bit rude to spoil that wishful thinking by pointing out that 1992's polls were later shown to have been systemically flawed, a flaw that has since been corrected."
Here is an exercise in the hypothetical. David Cameron goes to the Queen after the election to inform her he cannot form a government and then Miliband goes to the palace and says the same thing. What then?
I guess HMQ asks Sturgeon if she is able to form a government, then Clegg, then Farage/Carswell, then gives up and calls a new election.
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
Then it's poorly and inappropriately regulated.
It's an extremely dangerous drug the use of which should be vehemently opposed rather than treated as a harmless product that should be legalised/implicitly encouraged
Several countries and parts-of-countries around the world disagree with you. When you find yourself on the same side of the debate as Peter Hitchens and FalseFlag, you know you're in trouble!
Anyway, as with alcohol and tobacco, it can be legal and frowned upon. Legalisation doesn't imply it's a wholesome and harmless pass time (which it would be for the majority of users).
"extremely dangerous" - lol
Several countries in the world have allowed all day drinking for decades without the disaster of binge drinking that we unleashed by changing opening hours and licensing laws.
While your ongoing impression of Lady Whiteadder is hilarious, it's clear we're not going to agree, so I'm stepping out of this one.
I note with irony that your icon looks like someone smoking a bifter. (yeah, I know, smallest violin)
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
You've still failed to answer how the UK will manage to replace £6bn of EU food imports with either home grown products and how it would avoid the EU Levy on CAP foodstuffs which would raise the cost the UK pays to import its food from the EU.
Or how the producers of manufactured foodstuffs would compete when their raw materials are subject to the CAP levy whereas EU manufacturers would be able to produce much cheaper ready meals and manufactured food and would be able to export it to the UK without a export levy.
And how the UK public would react to an import tariff on imported manufactured foods so any of the UK food manufacturing industry could survive.
You really haven't thought any of it through.
Why import from the EU?
Would Scotland really want additional tariffs imposed on trade with by far its biggest export market?
You can import from wherever you want, at the moment the vast bulk of England's food is produced in Ireland and Scotland. If you see a way to produce that yourself good luck to you. If you can get it cheaper from RoW, good luck to you. It still doesn't address the basic that England goes from importing £6bn of cheap food from the EU to importing £6bn of more expensive food.
The bottom line is that CAP alone gives far more benefit to UK consumers than the UK pays into the EU.
More rubbish.
Scotland produces
12% of the UK cereal crop 10% of the UK pig production 9% of the UK dairy herd 20% of the UK sheep production 30% of the UK Beef production 4% of the UK fruit and veg.
East Anglia and Lincolnshire produce more vegetables alone than Scotland
The idea that Ireland and Scotland produce "the vast bulk of England's food" is yet another of those unfounded and plain wrong claims you seem to specialise in.
For a start a significant amount of the imported food from the EU is as a result of qutas which resulted in us destroying our own agriculture and limiting what our own farmers can do because we were forced to buy from the EU. Apple Orchards grubbed up, milk poured away, a whole range of goods which we have grown and produced here but we are prevented from doing so by the EU because of the CAP. And this is not even producing cheaper food for the consumer because the imported stuff often costs more.
Besides, just because we were outside the EU would not mean we could not trade with them. That is another of those myths you love to perpetuate.
Oh and free trade agreements such as those with Mexico mean that the majority of agricultural products and food are not subject to levies. And export levies are only charged on agricultural goods where there is a declared shortage of those goods inside the EU or where the price charged outside the EU is higher than the EU price.
So once again your claims about levies on £6 billion of food imports to the UK are utter rubbish. I will be polite and assume it is ignorance rather than deception.
You really are in cloud cuckoo land of denial.
The UK imports £6bn of food. Period. This is stated in the UK accounts.
You made the original claim that leaving the EU would give the UK a BoP surplus.
I pointed out this ignores that it would need to replace its imports.
It was YOUR claim that the UK would move to a BoP surplus and not a single thing you have said backs this up. The UK is already one of the most efficient food producers on the planet.
You can't change your argument because you lose (and it's not clear if you even are changing your argument despite being so embarrassed). The UK's BoP is not improved by leaving the EU. Period.
Further evidence of a continuing slide in support for UKIP, making Ladbrokes' 7/4 odds against them winning between 10% - 15% of the UK vote appear ever more attractive, unless of course one believes they could slip below the 10% level.
Labour seem to have upped a couple of points lately. Maybe some Greens, but wondering if those Labour voters toying with UKIP have gone back to Labour?
That's going to leave a wedge of former Tory kippers with a decision of whether to hold their nose and go back to the Tories in May....or have Ed Miliband, Prime Minister. Some will, some won't. I have said before that I think UKIP will poll 9 point something percent on the day.
In that case Laddies' 5% -10% band is the one to go for, paying 11/4, but be prepared for a very long, nervous wait for the final outcome. FWIW, I see UKIP winning between 11.5% - 12.5%. Under 10% and the Tories will form the next Government!
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
Then it's poorly and inappropriately regulated.
It's an extremely dangerous drug the use of which should be vehemently opposed rather than treated as a harmless product that should be legalised/implicitly encouraged
Several countries and parts-of-countries around the world disagree with you. When you find yourself on the same side of the debate as Peter Hitchens and FalseFlag, you know you're in trouble.
Anyway, as with alcohol and tobacco, it can be legal and frowned upon. Legalisation doesn't imply it's a wholesome and harmless pass time (which it would be for the majority of users).
"It is now two months since David Cameron went into full election mode, dumping everything but national security, the budget and PMQs from his government diary to make room for ever more campaign work. And in those two months, how has the Tory poll number moved? Trick question, of course: it hasn't. The party is where it was, where it has been for years now: stable on around 32 per cent, and far away from the solid lead over Labour needed to be biggest party in May.
No matter what the spinners say, it wasn't supposed to be like this. Tory election planners were expecting things to be better than this by now. Some suggested last summer would be the "crossover" point, when the Tories clearly overtook Labour. Then the autumn was the moment, but It didn't come then either. And now, after two months of attacks on Mr Miliband and rehearsal of the key Tory election themes, the party is still waiting.
"We're stuck," is how one minister puts it. "Nothing we've done yet has moved anyone," says an MP. There's no panic or even much unhappiness to those observations. On the whole, Tories still have a Micawberish faith that Something Will Turn Up, that as election day approaches, voters will simply wake up to a binary Cameron-Miliband choice and vote Tory in droves. Many privately talk about 1992 as the template, when polls put John Major behind all the way to Election Day. It almost seems a bit rude to spoil that wishful thinking by pointing out that 1992's polls were later shown to have been systemically flawed, a flaw that has since been corrected."
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
Then it's poorly and inappropriately regulated.
It's an extremely dangerous drug the use of which should be vehemently opposed rather than treated as a harmless product that should be legalised/implicitly encouraged
Several countries and parts-of-countries around the world disagree with you. When you find yourself on the same side of the debate as Peter Hitchens and FalseFlag, you know you're in trouble.
Anyway, as with alcohol and tobacco, it can be legal and frowned upon. Legalisation doesn't imply it's a wholesome and harmless pass time (which it would be for the majority of users).
On the UK leaving the EU - this wouldn't just mean the EU being a bit smaller. One of its biggest three beasts would have departed stage left. Furthermore, it would mean the exit of the only big beast outside the eurozone and Germany's perhaps most important ally for economic sanity against the spendthrift socialists of Club Med.
It would also destroy forever the notion that the EU could only grow, and provide a huge problem for the smaller EU. Would it be harsh to the UK to deter others from leaving, damaging trade and creating lasting enmity, or would it be reasonable, keeping trade going nicely but hardly putting off anyone from exiting and increasing the chances of others peeling off?
The EU is insane and unsustainable. Just look at its strategic position. A currency that's unworkable, an elite that regularly ignores, overrides or doesn't even bother with the democratic wishes of the people, one of its first forays into foreign policy led to war in Ukraine. Political idealism are economic innumeracy are in a marriage of perfect hell.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
There wouldn't be a currency union, Scotland would develop its own currency. As an exporting nation, Scotland would still have costs to bear by English withdrawl but that would partly be ameliorated by the English reliance on imports from Scotland. Scotland is self sufficient in electricity, food, fuel and water, England is not in the first three and projected not to be in the last.
The main difference to England staying in is that it might make it inevitable for Scotland to go down the EFTA route rather than retaining her EU membership. That might have positive long term benefits.
Wouldn't the tariffs you talked about make Scottish exports to the rUK (not just England) much less competitive? And wouldn't the separate currency also push up costs? And, of course, it would kill off the Scottish financial services sector. Why import expensive electricity, food and fuel from Scotland, when it can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere?
Yes they would. I never said it would have no impact on Scotland, it would. The impact on England would be far higher. Scottish electricity is amongst the cheapest in the world due to a proliferance of Hydro and Wind power which have near zero marginal costs.
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
How is it higher? The rUK is by far Scotland's biggest export market and significantly bigger than the rest of the EU.
Where is Scotland going to export all that water and power is the RUK isn't buying it?
The water isn't important at this time. Personally I'd invest surplus electricity in Hydrogen cracking, which is the future of personal transportation.
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
The biggest problem with cannabis is the unregulated market. Skunk, and other highly potent strains undoubtedly cause mental health issues. The prevalence of skunk is a relatively recent issue (10 years or so).
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
The regulated market in Colorado is selling super strength cannabis that has already created new victims
Then it's poorly and inappropriately regulated.
It's an extremely dangerous drug the use of which should be vehemently opposed rather than treated as a harmless product that should be legalised/implicitly encouraged
Several countries and parts-of-countries around the world disagree with you. When you find yourself on the same side of the debate as Peter Hitchens and FalseFlag, you know you're in trouble!
Anyway, as with alcohol and tobacco, it can be legal and frowned upon. Legalisation doesn't imply it's a wholesome and harmless pass time (which it would be for the majority of users).
"extremely dangerous" - lol
Several countries in the world have allowed all day drinking for decades without the disaster of binge drinking that we unleashed by changing opening hours and licensing laws.
While your ongoing impression of Lady Whiteadder is hilarious, it's clear we're not going to agree, so I'm stepping out of this one.
I note with irony that your icon looks like someone smoking a bifter. (yeah, I know, smallest violin)
Fair enough, I have tried every drug bar crack and heroin, have had to undergo treatment for the effects of a couple, and have seen friends have their lives destroyed by the drugs you encourage. So by all means laugh and joke about it, and criticise and mock those who try to warn of the dangers from their own experience, but it is your attitude that leads to misery for lots of children and their families
The UK imports £6bn of food. Period. This is stated in the UK accounts.
You made the original claim that leaving the EU would give the UK a BoP surplus.
I pointed out this ignores that it would need to replace its imports.
It was YOUR claim that the UK would move to a BoP surplus and not a single thing you have said backs this up. The UK is already one of the most efficient food producers on the planet.
You can't change your argument because you lose (and it's not clear if you even are). The UK's BoP is not improved by leaving the EU. Period.
C on a B.
It wont change, the same people, will by the same stuff from the same places as before, because all your talk about levies and tariffs from the EU is fantasy land, not least because it would break WTO rules.
@Dair - I enjoyed your observations on a UK exit from the EU and the calamity this would bring. I wondered where you think Scotland fits into this. If, say, the UK did leave and that somehow led to Scottish independence and Scotland's reintegration into the EU, how would having a non-member state as the country's biggest trading partner by far be affected by the tariffs you were talking about; and what would be the likelihood of a currency union in such circumstances?
You've still failed to answer how the UK will manage to replace £6bn of EU food imports with either home grown products and how it would avoid the EU Levy on CAP foodstuffs which would raise the cost the UK pays to import its food from the EU.
Or how the producers of manufactured foodstuffs would compete when their raw materials are subject to the CAP levy whereas EU manufacturers would be able to produce much cheaper ready meals and manufactured food and would be able to export it to the UK without a export levy.
And how the UK public would react to an import tariff on imported manufactured foods so any of the UK food manufacturing industry could survive.
You really haven't thought any of it through.
Why import from the EU?
Would Scotland really want additional tariffs imposed on trade with by far its biggest export market?
You can import from wherever you want, at the moment the vast bulk of England's food is produced in Ireland and Scotland. If you see a way to produce that yourself good luck to you. If you can get it cheaper from RoW, good luck to you. It still doesn't address the basic that England goes from importing £6bn of cheap food from the EU to importing £6bn of more expensive food.
The bottom line is that CAP alone gives far more benefit to UK consumers than the UK pays into the EU.
More rubbish.
Scotland produces
12% of the UK cereal crop 10% of the UK pig production 9% of the UK dairy herd 20% of the UK sheep production 30% of the UK Beef production 4% of the UK fruit and veg.
East Anglia and Lincolnshire produce more vegetables alone than Scotland
The idea that Ireland and Scotland produce "the vast bulk of England's food" is yet another of those unfounded and plain wrong claims you seem to specialise in.
We were talking about imports. But I do apologise for not making it crystal clear for Kipper Pedants.
Further evidence of a continuing slide in support for UKIP, making Ladbrokes' 7/4 odds against them winning between 10% - 15% of the UK vote appear ever more attractive, unless of course one believes they could slip below the 10% level.
Labour seem to have upped a couple of points lately. Maybe some Greens, but wondering if those Labour voters toying with UKIP have gone back to Labour?
That's going to leave a wedge of former Tory kippers with a decision of whether to hold their nose and go back to the Tories in May....or have Ed Miliband, Prime Minister. Some will, some won't. I have said before that I think UKIP will poll 9 point something percent on the day.
In that case Laddies' 5% -10% band is the one to go for, paying 11/4, but be prepared for a very long, nervous wait for the final outcome. FWIW, I see UKIP winning between 11.5% - 12.5%. Under 10% and the Tories will form the next Government!
Actually in that case you should back 11/4 5-10 and 7/4 10-15
If you think 9ish is the result then 4/7 5-15% is a great bet, and I think it is a great bet as it goes
For a start a significant amount of the imported food from the EU is as a result of qutas which resulted in us destroying our own agriculture and limiting what our own farmers can do because we were forced to buy from the EU. Apple Orchards grubbed up, milk poured away, a whole range of goods which we have grown and produced here but we are prevented from doing so by the EU because of the CAP. And this is not even producing cheaper food for the consumer because the imported stuff often costs more.
Besides, just because we were outside the EU would not mean we could not trade with them. That is another of those myths you love to perpetuate.
Oh and free trade agreements such as those with Mexico mean that the majority of agricultural products and food are not subject to levies. And export levies are only charged on agricultural goods where there is a declared shortage of those goods inside the EU or where the price charged outside the EU is higher than the EU price.
So once again your claims about levies on £6 billion of food imports to the UK are utter rubbish. I will be polite and assume it is ignorance rather than deception.
You really are in cloud cuckoo land of denial.
The UK imports £6bn of food. Period. This is stated in the UK accounts.
You made the original claim that leaving the EU would give the UK a BoP surplus.
I pointed out this ignores that it would need to replace its imports.
It was YOUR claim that the UK would move to a BoP surplus and not a single thing you have said backs this up. The UK is already one of the most efficient food producers on the planet.
You can't change your argument because you lose (and it's not clear if you even are). The UK's BoP is not improved by leaving the EU. Period.
Outright lies from you again Dair.
I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus. I simply pointed out that the idea that we were benefiting from EU membership in terms of BoP was a myth since the free market has resulted in a massive BoP deficit. Bar one year in the 1980s the last time we had a trade surplus with the countries of the EEC/EU was the year before we joined.
You have no idea whether our BoP would be improved or not by leaving the EU because you simply do not understand the basic principles and make stuff up out of thin air. Like your claims about agricultural levies, your claims about £15 billion costs of EEA membership and your latest laughable claims about where English food comes from.
Every number you have produced so far has been shown to be false and proved to be so with the actual numbers.
I would suggest you accept you know nothing about the subject and give up now.
If the Lib Dems do hold on to a reasonable clutch of seats no doubt this is the explanation that will be given. It was all down to the reputation of individual MPs. I just can't see how Clegg would have the authority to survive, more still, act as a kingmaker.
If Dave loses ground how would he have the authority to remain as PM? If Ed fails to secure a majority how would he have the authority to become PM? As has been said here before, it's all down to numbers of seats. Someone has to govern and if they need to form a coalition in order to do that, then that is what they must do.
If no plausible Coalition is possible, or only a very weak one is possible which then implodes within weeks we are in rather uncharted territory with the FTPA idiocy.
If the LDs want to go into opposition and recuperate, but might agree on a bill by bill basis, and LAB can't make a deal with the SNP that it's backbenchers would wear, so it goes to bill-by-bill as well, its going to be a fun time with the possibility of the government falling almost every day.
There's always a possible coalition Con/Lab or Lab/Con.
If the Lib Dems do hold on to a reasonable clutch of seats no doubt this is the explanation that will be given. It was all down to the reputation of individual MPs. I just can't see how Clegg would have the authority to survive, more still, act as a kingmaker.
If Dave loses ground how would he have the authority to remain as PM? If Ed fails to secure a majority how would he have the authority to become PM? As has been said here before, it's all down to numbers of seats. Someone has to govern and if they need to form a coalition in order to do that, then that is what they must do.
If no plausible Coalition is possible, or only a very weak one is possible which then implodes within weeks we are in rather uncharted territory with the FTPA idiocy.
If the LDs want to go into opposition and recuperate, but might agree on a bill by bill basis, and LAB can't make a deal with the SNP that it's backbenchers would wear, so it goes to bill-by-bill as well, its going to be a fun time with the possibility of the government falling almost every day.
FTPA doesn't say what you think it does.
If nobody can command the confidence of the House of Commons then there will be a new election.
All the FTPA prevents is the larger coalition partner "doing over" the junior one.
As someone else just posted it also allows opposition parties to condemn a lame duck minority government to a living death by refusing to let it lose confidence motions, or do anything useful.
Errr: the government just makes every act a confidence act.
They therefore either (a) cease to be lame duck, or (b) get an election.
The UK imports £6bn of food. Period. This is stated in the UK accounts.
You made the original claim that leaving the EU would give the UK a BoP surplus.
I pointed out this ignores that it would need to replace its imports.
It was YOUR claim that the UK would move to a BoP surplus and not a single thing you have said backs this up. The UK is already one of the most efficient food producers on the planet.
You can't change your argument because you lose (and it's not clear if you even are). The UK's BoP is not improved by leaving the EU. Period.
C on a B.
It wont change, the same people, will by the same stuff from the same places as before, because all your talk about levies and tariffs from the EU is fantasy land, not least because it would break WTO rules.
I'm unconvinced but there's no need for me not to accept your point in term's of Tyndall's drooling. It might mean it fairly small in terms of cost (but any cost might be enough to move manufacture of processed foods).
But leave that aside. Tyndall's nonsense argument is not about food costing the same. It's about leaving the EU removing the UK's BoP deficit. As the UK would still have to import food (regardless of price and tariffs) his argument is nonsense on stilts.
Here is an exercise in the hypothetical. David Cameron goes to the Queen after the election to inform her he cannot form a government and then Miliband goes to the palace and says the same thing. What then?
I guess HMQ asks Sturgeon if she is able to form a government, then Clegg, then Farage/Carswell, then gives up and calls a new election.
It's up to the politicians to sort it out. There was a surprising outcome in 2010, it may be more surprising in May. I guess that they'd want: a majority government, followed by a minority one, followed by a majority coalition, followed by a minority coalition and finally followed by a grand coalition. Someone's got to govern, the country will probably punish any party that subjected it to continuous elections while the economy struggled and markets fell.
"It is now two months since David Cameron went into full election mode, dumping everything but national security, the budget and PMQs from his government diary to make room for ever more campaign work. And in those two months, how has the Tory poll number moved? Trick question, of course: it hasn't. The party is where it was, where it has been for years now: stable on around 32 per cent, and far away from the solid lead over Labour needed to be biggest party in May.
No matter what the spinners say, it wasn't supposed to be like this. Tory election planners were expecting things to be better than this by now. Some suggested last summer would be the "crossover" point, when the Tories clearly overtook Labour. Then the autumn was the moment, but It didn't come then either. And now, after two months of attacks on Mr Miliband and rehearsal of the key Tory election themes, the party is still waiting.
"We're stuck," is how one minister puts it. "Nothing we've done yet has moved anyone," says an MP. There's no panic or even much unhappiness to those observations. On the whole, Tories still have a Micawberish faith that Something Will Turn Up, that as election day approaches, voters will simply wake up to a binary Cameron-Miliband choice and vote Tory in droves. Many privately talk about 1992 as the template, when polls put John Major behind all the way to Election Day. It almost seems a bit rude to spoil that wishful thinking by pointing out that 1992's polls were later shown to have been systemically flawed, a flaw that has since been corrected."
But what else can the Tories do? They've delivered on the economy and jobs, the NHS has failed to implode, the education system is still functioning OK etc, etc, etc. If the dear peepul want to choose someone else after all this then, I repeat, what can the Tories do?
The UK imports £6bn of food. Period. This is stated in the UK accounts.
You made the original claim that leaving the EU would give the UK a BoP surplus.
I pointed out this ignores that it would need to replace its imports.
It was YOUR claim that the UK would move to a BoP surplus and not a single thing you have said backs this up. The UK is already one of the most efficient food producers on the planet.
You can't change your argument because you lose (and it's not clear if you even are). The UK's BoP is not improved by leaving the EU. Period.
C on a B.
It wont change, the same people, will by the same stuff from the same places as before, because all your talk about levies and tariffs from the EU is fantasy land, not least because it would break WTO rules.
I'm unconvinced but there's no need for me not to accept your point in term's of Tyndall's drooling. It might mean it fairly small in terms of cost (but any cost might be enough to move manufacture of processed foods).
But leave that aside. Tyndall's nonsense argument is not about food costing the same. It's about leaving the EU removing the UK's BoP deficit. As the UK would still have to import food (regardless of price and tariffs) his argument is nonsense on stilts.
Typical Eurofanatic. When you are shown to have lost an argument just make something up as a straw man to pretend you were right all along.
Here is an exercise in the hypothetical. David Cameron goes to the Queen after the election to inform her he cannot form a government and then Miliband goes to the palace and says the same thing. What then?
New election, unless some other creative person in parliament comes up with a credible way they could do it and volunteers.
Labour seem to have upped a couple of points lately. Maybe some Greens, but wondering if those Labour voters toying with UKIP have gone back to Labour?
That's going to leave a wedge of former Tory kippers with a decision of whether to hold their nose and go back to the Tories in May....or have Ed Miliband, Prime Minister. Some will, some won't. I have said before that I think UKIP will poll 9 point something percent on the day.
Agreed. About half the Kippers I meet in Labour wards are fervent: they really like UKIP and will vote for them. The other half are tossing up whether they dislike all politicians more (so voting UKIP as a sod-you-all gesture) than they dislike the Tories in particular (so voting Labour).I imagine similar thought are going through Con-UKIP waverer minds.
The Greens are a bit different. They are not wavering in their support for their party, and have shrugged off the Bennett interview, but some are considering a hard-headed tactical vote.
Pretty much what I have been saying on here since the beginning of January.
It is just not happening for the Tories. It still could but it isn't.
My theory, for what it's worth, is that both major parties have core votes just above 30% which are almost impossible to shift: I meet almost NOBODY who says "I'm unsure between Labour and the Tories". The multitude of other options has been preventing the big two from getting many floating voters, but that is, I think, the reason for the remarkable stability.
Here is an exercise in the hypothetical. David Cameron goes to the Queen after the election to inform her he cannot form a government and then Miliband goes to the palace and says the same thing. What then?
New election, unless some other creative person in parliament comes up with a credible way they could do it and volunteers.
But who would call it because didnt the FPTA take away the monarchs ability to dissolve parliament? Would we get the scenario where all the elected MPs would have to troop into Westminster and their one act would be to vote for another election under the terms of the FPTA?
Labour seem to have upped a couple of points lately. Maybe some Greens, but wondering if those Labour voters toying with UKIP have gone back to Labour?
That's going to leave a wedge of former Tory kippers with a decision of whether to hold their nose and go back to the Tories in May....or have Ed Miliband, Prime Minister. Some will, some won't. I have said before that I think UKIP will poll 9 point something percent on the day.
Agreed. About half the Kippers I meet in Labour wards are fervent: they really like UKIP and will vote for them. The other half are tossing up whether they dislike all politicians more (so voting UKIP as a sod-you-all gesture) than they dislike the Tories in particular (so voting Labour).I imagine similar thought are going through Con-UKIP waverer minds.
The Greens are a bit different. They are not wavering in their support for their party, and have shrugged off the Bennett interview, but some are considering a hard-headed tactical vote.
Pretty much what I have been saying on here since the beginning of January.
It is just not happening for the Tories. It still could but it isn't.
My theory, for what it's worth, is that both major parties have core votes just above 30% which are almost impossible to shift: I meet almost NOBODY who says "I'm unsure between Labour and the Tories". The multitude of other options has been preventing the big two from getting many floating voters, but that is, I think, the reason for the remarkable stability.
DIdn't I see someone quoting polling the other day that suggested Labour's core was about 21% now?
DIdn't I see someone quoting polling the other day that suggested Labour's core was about 21% now?
Not really. Another 27% in the same poll say "they'd like to vote Labour" even though doubtful about EdM and half of those say they in fact intend to. It's always possible to break down a block of votes by asking extra questions (e.g. "Would you like to vote UKIP but are put off by some of their candidates?"). In practice I think that polling as well as direct conversation has shown that both major parties have a pretty solid 30+% in General Elections (NB does not necessarily apply to Euros, locals, etc.).
Comments
Michael Heaver (@Michael_Heaver)
02/03/2015 08:52
Sadly familiar: 300 victims of grooming and sexual abuse in Oxfordshire telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cr…
A state of emergency might end up the only course possible........!
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/02/david-cameron-plan-discounted-starter-homes-housing
I note Labour dismissed this lot as "pie in the sky, unfunded nonsense" (Radio 4/5 this morning) BUT WAIT
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/112413520254/as-grant-shapps-car-crash-interview-showed-the
Attack dog nonsense chasing their own tail from Labour.
I'd think that Miliband has probably got as many rallying to his flag as he is going to get. Cameron, though, still has plenty to grab who can't face the idea of Ed Miliband, Prime Minister....
1. Labour the largest party. Cameron either goes ("encouraged" by grandees) or tries to carry on and ends up resigning a very minority government having lost the Queens Speech debate
2. Milliband becomes PM but the numbers don't really add up for any kind of stability. The only agreement across the house is that FTPA has to go, so it does
3. The Tories leadership election focuses on a populist angle that can sweep away the failure of the Cameron era to win an election. So Boris gets the gig.
4. The minority Labour government can't get enough of anything through a fractious commons, so we have a second election
5. Boris becomes PM heading a minority Tory government.
6. Labour swings rightwards once again to try and counter Boris, so Chukka Umunna becomes leader.
I don't want the above to happen. But its feasible.
Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn)
02/03/2015 07:51
"Immigration is a shambles. PM cannot spend the next 10 weeks pretending it does not exist." @trevor_kavanagh today sunpl.us/60160hqn
Or how the producers of manufactured foodstuffs would compete when their raw materials are subject to the CAP levy whereas EU manufacturers would be able to produce much cheaper ready meals and manufactured food and would be able to export it to the UK without a export levy.
And how the UK public would react to an import tariff on imported manufactured foods so any of the UK food manufacturing industry could survive.
You really haven't thought any of it through.
"I mean, who hasn't had the urge to behead an unbeliever after a spliff."
I was thinking the same. There's something very Monty Python abour Hitchens on a roll
However the cost to Scotland of the UK leaving is much higher than the cost to Scotland of rUK leaving and Scotland either remaining in the EU or joining the EEA.
Would Scotland really want additional tariffs imposed on trade with by far its biggest export market?
Hitchens is right. We should be very wary indeed about promoting cannabis as at all safe
It could just be that SNP supporters are energized and thus take the trouble to join online polls.
The bottom line is that CAP alone gives far more benefit to UK consumers than the UK pays into the EU.
"Then you know nothing about the effects of long term cannabis use"
How long term exactly are we talking about?
The genesis of the argument is that the UK would be better off leaving the European Union.
It would not for the reasons I have explained and myriad others. The cost to Scotland as an independent country or as a continuing part of the UK isn't relevant to the Kippers argument. It is not a consideration to the Kippers desire to leave the EU.
England leaving the EU would be expensive for Scotland regardless of its status within the UK. I'm not arguing otherwise.
That seems odd, but your prerogative
However the absence of a spike in either mental health problems or violent (and especially unprovoked) crime following the rapid growth of consumption in the 60s - when the drug was much weaker - rather undermines your case.
You are of course correct about the "junior partner" and I'm tempted with hindsight to wonder if Cameron's "offer" the day after the election, which created the Coalition, wasn't predicated solely on having the LDs as a shield for unpopular decisions.
Even if that's true, what else could or should NIck have done ? Gone in with Labour - hardly. Offered S&C to a minority Conservative Government - that would be worse than now.
The only other option would have been to eschew all offers of Coalition and given the background noise that Greece was about to implode and drag the EU into a huge crisis, there was enormous pressure on some form of deal to happen. Even if that hadn't been the case, Nick would have been a) blamed for the political and financial instability which followed and b) the LDs would have been (rightly) accused of not being serious about politics.
That's going to leave a wedge of former Tory kippers with a decision of whether to hold their nose and go back to the Tories in May....or have Ed Miliband, Prime Minister. Some will, some won't. I have said before that I think UKIP will poll 9 point something percent on the day.
I guess this is anecdotal but my friends and I were v heavy cannabis smokers in our teens and everyone has suffered to an extent. I would do anything to prevent youngsters from trying it and risking the side effects
What you seem to be accepting is that policies which are adverse to the interests of an independent Scotland that was a member of the EU would be imposed on the rUK by the EU and there would be nothing that Scotland could do about it.
https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/levies-and-refunds-common-agricultural-policy-goods ie. it won't increase the price above the EU market value, which is what we are paying right now anyway.
Its worth noticing that CAP Levies also only applies to unprocessed goods.
Scotland would lose CAP (but as a population share of the UK CAP funding, Scotland already receives a rather small proportion) Ireland would be required to impose CAP Levies or leave the EU for EFTA.
In any of the three scenarios following a UK exit - Scotland in the UK, Scotland in EFTA or Scotland in the EU, food exports would increase in price as the (albeit comparatively smaller) CAP subsidy would be lost or replaced by Tarriffs.
Staying inside the EU, over time the manufacture of foodstuffs currently could move from England to Ireland and Scotland as manufactureds do not incur the CAP levy. This might be more beneficial, hard to say. It would avoid food price rises for England. But England might try to avoid this with import tariffs.
Yeah, but what about the phone canvassers' ACCENTS!
Besides, just because we were outside the EU would not mean we could not trade with them. That is another of those myths you love to perpetuate.
Oh and free trade agreements such as those with Mexico mean that the majority of agricultural products and food are not subject to levies. And export levies are only charged on agricultural goods where there is a declared shortage of those goods inside the EU or where the price charged outside the EU is higher than the EU price.
So once again your claims about levies on £6 billion of food imports to the UK are utter rubbish. I will be polite and assume it is ignorance rather than deception.
I could see it going either way tbh.
No matter what the spinners say, it wasn't supposed to be like this. Tory election planners were expecting things to be better than this by now. Some suggested last summer would be the "crossover" point, when the Tories clearly overtook Labour. Then the autumn was the moment, but It didn't come then either. And now, after two months of attacks on Mr Miliband and rehearsal of the key Tory election themes, the party is still waiting.
"We're stuck," is how one minister puts it. "Nothing we've done yet has moved anyone," says an MP. There's no panic or even much unhappiness to those observations. On the whole, Tories still have a Micawberish faith that Something Will Turn Up, that as election day approaches, voters will simply wake up to a binary Cameron-Miliband choice and vote Tory in droves. Many privately talk about 1992 as the template, when polls put John Major behind all the way to Election Day. It almost seems a bit rude to spoil that wishful thinking by pointing out that 1992's polls were later shown to have been systemically flawed, a flaw that has since been corrected."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11444236/Are-the-Conservatives-losing-their-nerve.html
Anyway, as with alcohol and tobacco, it can be legal and frowned upon. Legalisation doesn't imply it's a wholesome and harmless pass time (which it would be for the majority of users).
"extremely dangerous" - lol
'Pollster' "Hello we're conducting a survey... how would you vote in the General Election"
Responder: "SNP"
'Pollster' "The SNP will put David Cameron in Gov't, bearing this in mind and the fact that Labour is the only party that can win in your constituency, how will you be voting"
Responder "SNP"
'Pollster" "The SNP kicked out Labour in around 1980 and lead to twenty years of Tory rule. Bearing this in mind are you more likely to vote Labour"
Responder "Errm I guess I'll consider it" *hangs up*
Labour phone bank chalks up a Labour switcher.
At least then i'd have a good excuse for my lack of motivation and poor academic performance.
It is extremely dangerous, visit mental homes and see for yourself
I mostly find myself agreeing with peter hitchens and have no problem with that or agreeing anyone else who may be unfashionable or that I usually disagree with, it's called independent thinking
He voted against tuition fees, the NHS bill, Secret Courts and the bedroom tax. After the latter, one senior figure was moved to ask: “Which bit of the sanctimonious, god-bothering, treacherous little shit is there not to like?”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/tim-farron-profile-lib-dems-leader-waiting
I note with irony that your icon looks like someone smoking a bifter. (yeah, I know, smallest violin)
Scotland produces
12% of the UK cereal crop
10% of the UK pig production
9% of the UK dairy herd
20% of the UK sheep production
30% of the UK Beef production
4% of the UK fruit and veg.
East Anglia and Lincolnshire produce more vegetables alone than Scotland
The idea that Ireland and Scotland produce "the vast bulk of England's food" is yet another of those unfounded and plain wrong claims you seem to specialise in.
The UK imports £6bn of food. Period. This is stated in the UK accounts.
You made the original claim that leaving the EU would give the UK a BoP surplus.
I pointed out this ignores that it would need to replace its imports.
It was YOUR claim that the UK would move to a BoP surplus and not a single thing you have said backs this up. The UK is already one of the most efficient food producers on the planet.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc
You can't change your argument because you lose (and it's not clear if you even are changing your argument despite being so embarrassed). The UK's BoP is not improved by leaving the EU. Period.
FWIW, I see UKIP winning between 11.5% - 12.5%. Under 10% and the Tories will form the next Government!
It is just not happening for the Tories. It still could but it isn't.
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=482744
Even falseflag can get it right occasionally!
The idea that cannabis is harmless is delusional in itself.
this wouldn't just mean the EU being a bit smaller. One of its biggest three beasts would have departed stage left. Furthermore, it would mean the exit of the only big beast outside the eurozone and Germany's perhaps most important ally for economic sanity against the spendthrift socialists of Club Med.
It would also destroy forever the notion that the EU could only grow, and provide a huge problem for the smaller EU. Would it be harsh to the UK to deter others from leaving, damaging trade and creating lasting enmity, or would it be reasonable, keeping trade going nicely but hardly putting off anyone from exiting and increasing the chances of others peeling off?
The EU is insane and unsustainable. Just look at its strategic position. A currency that's unworkable, an elite that regularly ignores, overrides or doesn't even bother with the democratic wishes of the people, one of its first forays into foreign policy led to war in Ukraine. Political idealism are economic innumeracy are in a marriage of perfect hell.
It wont change, the same people, will by the same stuff from the same places as before, because all your talk about levies and tariffs from the EU is fantasy land, not least because it would break WTO rules.
Scotland is 8.3% of the UK population.
go figure.
If you think 9ish is the result then 4/7 5-15% is a great bet, and I think it is a great bet as it goes
I never at any time said that leaving the EU would give a BoP surplus. I simply pointed out that the idea that we were benefiting from EU membership in terms of BoP was a myth since the free market has resulted in a massive BoP deficit. Bar one year in the 1980s the last time we had a trade surplus with the countries of the EEC/EU was the year before we joined.
You have no idea whether our BoP would be improved or not by leaving the EU because you simply do not understand the basic principles and make stuff up out of thin air. Like your claims about agricultural levies, your claims about £15 billion costs of EEA membership and your latest laughable claims about where English food comes from.
Every number you have produced so far has been shown to be false and proved to be so with the actual numbers.
I would suggest you accept you know nothing about the subject and give up now.
They therefore either (a) cease to be lame duck, or (b) get an election.
But leave that aside. Tyndall's nonsense argument is not about food costing the same. It's about leaving the EU removing the UK's BoP deficit. As the UK would still have to import food (regardless of price and tariffs) his argument is nonsense on stilts.
There was a surprising outcome in 2010, it may be more surprising in May.
I guess that they'd want:
a majority government,
followed by a minority one,
followed by a majority coalition,
followed by a minority coalition
and finally followed by a grand coalition.
Someone's got to govern, the country will probably punish any party that subjected it to continuous elections while the economy struggled and markets fell.
Predictable and contemptible.
The Greens are a bit different. They are not wavering in their support for their party, and have shrugged off the Bennett interview, but some are considering a hard-headed tactical vote. My theory, for what it's worth, is that both major parties have core votes just above 30% which are almost impossible to shift: I meet almost NOBODY who says "I'm unsure between Labour and the Tories". The multitude of other options has been preventing the big two from getting many floating voters, but that is, I think, the reason for the remarkable stability.
I would definitely vote Labour no matter who their leader is 21%
http://comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Daily-Mail-Political-Poll_24th-February-2015.pdf