Crikey - the Millennium Dome, I was friends with one of the board members when that was still in the planning stages and what a petty nit-picking nightmare it sounded. Remember all the fuss about the Faith Zone? My husband went to the closing down sale when it shut and was astonished at the boxes and boxes of unopened top end IT/multi-media kit going for a song. He bought a chunk of it - whoever was in charge of procurement needed shooting.
Yes - it's a good example of the sort of thing best left to the private sector in all its vulgar, customer-hunting glory. In its current incarnation as the O2 arena it's a success, but the Millennium organisers tried to be worthy, dignified and entertaining at the same time, and that's *almost* impossible, though I guess the Olympic ceremony shows it can be done. I'd forgotten the Faith Zone, though - what was that about?
The Faith Zone was meant to be some happy-clappy multi-faith area where visitors could erm... it ended up in squabbles between various preachers/silly hats and after much angst ended up IIRC as the Contemplation Zone which was a compromise blancmange of nothingness.
It stuck in my mind as the classic example of religion in the wrong place and appeasement that pleased no one.
(when) are UKIP going to change that logo with the pound sign?
It looks a bit 1960s Spa supermarket (with no comment as to whether Kippers look to that period as a golden age....)
I know this is a sarcastic question but I'll answer it in all honesty. And the fact is I don't know and people I've asked don't seem to know either. There was talk, before Eastleigh and the May locals, that a major re-design was being planned. I get the feeling, that since these successes and the pound sign being such an immediately recognised icon by all, this has been quietly dropped.
Thanks for responding - not a sarcastic question at all.
I get the bit about the £ but to me it looks outdated and without finesse. Now, that might suit you down to the ground but if you are going to go from NOTA to contender I would have thought you would need to get more "modern" (forgive the irony).
Therefore there will certainly be significant concessions available, irrespective of what the Eurocrats say and what the other 25 countries might think.
Good luck getting that ratified in the other 25 countries.
@RichardNabavi There is no concession capable of being offered by the EU that would satisfy the Europhobes (largely because they don't actually know what they want, since they like freedom of movement when they mean they can travel unhindered, but not when others can, they like freedom of trade when they can sell their goods and services, but not when others can etc etc etc). So David Cameron is embarking on a fool's errand.
Scotland remains depressingly left wing and socialist in it's outlook.
You need to cheer up and be less chippy. You now have the kippers should you want a different flavour of tory.
All you need is for Cammie and Osbrowne to keep banging on about Europe and immigration to keep their vote up. Happily that's a master strategy the incompetent fops show every sign of continuing with Crosby's help. Those EU elections should be a breeze.
I'd have thought vetos and opt-outs are the most important, in areas such as financial regulation, the social chapter, and anything not strictly related to the Single Market. Bear in mind that the Eurozone is likely to stagger painfully towards further integration; they'll be trying desperately to do this without a new treaty, but I'm doubtful that they'll succeed in that. Either way, the key point is that we will be affected by Eurozone-only decisions, so we need protection. It can be dressed up as a fair quid-pro-quo for that. And, crucially, it will be argued by Cameron, quite rightly I think, that it's better to be In with vetos and opt-outs enshrined in treaty than Out, with zero say on anything the EU does but still very much affected by it.
It doesn't seem to me as if the incompetent tory spinners have thought this through.
Huh?
Arsenal can now apparently afford to buy the best players in the world.
But that, together with your point about Tories and welfare, has nothing to do with my question as to why one sovereign power would seek to support the jobs market of another sovereign power.
The fact that with such a commitment, a 43-35 vote to leave becomes a 50-28 vote (or thereabouts) to stay speaks volumes of the power of the office and the ability it offers to suspend rational criticism.
A lot of it's probably just central tendency bias. You could probably get a majority for out by asking: a) in b) out but with a free trade arrangement c) out
...and a majority for in with: a) in, and more integration b) in, but no more integration c) out
So we're suggesting that there are three nebulous blocks of opinion out there - around 30% want completely out, another 30% want completely in and the remainder (35% let's say) who are open to being persuaded one way or another and within that group are some who won't need a lot of persuading one way or the other and a smaller group who will see what any re-negotiation offers and decide then.
The question ultimately will have only two possible options, not three in response. If you want to stay In, you will by definition have to support the re-negotiated package just as those who supported proportionality but opposed AV had to vote No in the May 2011 referendum.
@RichardNabavi There is no concession capable of being offered by the EU that would satisfy the Europhobes (largely because they don't actually know what they want, since they like freedom of movement when they mean they can travel unhindered, but not when others can, they like freedom of trade when they can sell their goods and services, but not when others can etc etc etc). So David Cameron is embarking on a fool's errand.
The first part of that statement is most certainly true, but that doesn't make it a fool's errand. For a start, we actually need the concessions (most urgently on financial regulation; the mind boggles at the Blair/Brown idiocy on conceding that one to our rivals and those who hate the City). But secondly, actually having a referendum would leave the Europhobes nowhere to hide. They can hardly keep bitching if they've got exactly what they've been asking for. Well, they can and will, but sensible people will see that the issue has been closed down.
Don't get me wrong - none of this is very attractive or satisfactory. If it had been my choice, we wouldn't have started from here. There are no good or easy options, thanks to the rank incompetence of the last government. But we are where we are.
Even more entertaining than a cat video, just one reminder to "serial labour voters" of why the hilarity of the GOP circus wasn't an invention of the librul meeja.
For those who aren't drunk here's the actual article in full and not the gibberish 'translation'.
Scottish independence: Proposal to retain welfare set-up
A welfare working group is to recommend Scotland shares the administration of pensions and benefits with the rest of the UK in the event of independence.
It is thought the Scottish government, which commissioned the report, is sympathetic to the idea.
A large proportion of welfare payments are processed in Scotland, including about a fifth of all state pensions.
The SNP has already indicated it would continue to share a monarch and a currency if there was a "yes" vote.
The Expert Working Group on Welfare was set up January 2013 to look at the costs and delivery of welfare in an independent Scotland.
In its first official report, it is expected to say that it would also make sense to keep the existing set-up for delivering pensions and benefits in the event of a "yes" vote in next year's referendum.
The Scottish government is likely to back the idea for a transitional period, as long as it would not tie them into policies which they oppose, such as recent housing benefit cuts.
Genuine question: if you were PM of an independent rUK, why would you not move these jobs back to the UK?
Presumably there will be some one time costs, and it would be a little bit less efficient on an ongoing basis (reduced fixed leverage).
But this would be offset by a bunch of new jobs in carefully selected marginal constituencies depressed parts of rUK. Reduced welfare payments, increased income tax, etc.
Surely that's a no-brainer decision to make?
Equally I can see why Scotland wants to keep the jobs...
Perhaps you should catch up on just how 'well' IDS welfare reforms are going before somewhat glibly suggesting the transfer of jobs would just be a little less efficient by moving some of them away from their point of assessment and delivery. Are you seriously proposing the PM of an rUK would try and force some claimants to travel up to hundreds of miles for processing on a regular basis? It' may not be all the infrastructure that does this (some handle claims UK wide) but it's enough to make any largescale move a logistical nightmare.
Not to mention how incredible that would look after a Yes vote which would necessitate it.
There will obviously be negotiations over the transfer of property, staff and IT systems but the idea that a PM of rUK could suddenly move everything to some marginal constituency is fanciful to say the least.
Best get a tory minister to try and scaremonger about such things as that's bound to help the credibility of such an idea with the average scottish voter.
That is a very weird response, Mr P0rk.
My assumption is that this is central processing, not asessment and delivery. Although not spelt out in the article, this is implied by the statement that 20% of all state pensions are processed in Scotland. I very much doubt that 20% of UK OAPs live in Scotland - otherwise UKIP would be doing better ;-)
To deal with your specific points:
(1) IDS is reforming the benefits system. That is massively more complex than moving the location of the same processing job
(2) If central processing then no travel needed (and if travel is needed, then why aren't 20% of UK OAPs regularly heading to Scotland?)
(3) The bits that require local processing should remain in Scotland, but that would be up to the Scottish government to decide what they want to do
(4) Of course there will be negotiations, and transitional arrangements, but (one would assume) that the IT system is owned by the Department so they can put it where they like. Property is probably owned by the department, but would be up for negotiation. Staff: no need to transfer. You just train new ones.
What you are missing is this is just a service contract and the customer can move it wherever and whenever they like
What you are missing is this is just a service contract and the customer can move it wherever and whenever they like
I expect there would be a useful business for Scotland providing outsourced low-cost admin services to the UK government. They have an English-speaking and reasonably well-educated workforce; we could save quite a lot since personnel costs would be a lot lower than they now are, because the staff wouldn't have to be on UK civil service salaries and pension arrangements.
There are also sizeable HMRC processing centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh IIRC - those will also largely move out of Scotland if it declares indy as it'd be absurd for a nation to have its tax collection based in another country.
Norway and Sweden share tax information with each other (much to the chagrin of my wealthy Swedish friend). There's nothing inherently absurd about tax collection being based in another country. Why shouldn't HMRC participate in northshoring?
@RichardNabavi There is no concession capable of being offered by the EU that would satisfy the Europhobes (largely because they don't actually know what they want, since they like freedom of movement when they mean they can travel unhindered, but not when others can, they like freedom of trade when they can sell their goods and services, but not when others can etc etc etc). So David Cameron is embarking on a fool's errand.
Since you have already made clear on here that you believe anyone who wants to leave the EU must be mentally ill, I hardly think you are in any position to pass any comment on what Eurosceptics may or may not want.
I am afraid you long ago lost all credibility as a commentator on the issue.
The placement of administration jobs in Scotland, such as the Child Support Agency in Falkirk, is possible because at the moment, despite having a different legal system, the rules in the UK for most benefits are common and can be applied anywhere.
David, the one thing I think most Nats fail to understand is the area of "common-tariff". If I need to send a letter to Companies House in Cardiff I have to pay TNT to deliver it from Eindhoven. The distance is about the same as from London to Glasgow but the tariff structure is different.
There are plenty of examples of such service provision that "Wee-Eck" and his disciples assume are cast-in-stone. Scotland has the misfortune of being an appendage, under-populated place reliant upon the good-will of her neighbour. When she realises this then maybe the independence debate will become more interesting.
@Richard_Tyndall I did not say that anyone who wanted to leave the EU must be mentally ill. I approved Matthew Parris's observation that the rise of UKIP (which is only tangentially related to wanting to leave the EU) is essentially a psychiatric phenomenon. It's a howl of rage against the modern world's complexities.
@Richard_Tyndall - If antifrank is wrong, then that must mean there are concessions, capable of being offered by the EU, which would mean you'd vote to stay In.
Somehow, I think that is a shade unlikely, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Euroholic(n.) - one who is intoxicated with and/or addicted to the notion of ever-closer and ever-deeper union of one's country with its European neighbours and who cannot accept arguments to the contrary, often branding their opponents as "extreme" or "racist" or "xenophobic" or even just "stupid". A Euroholic is often heard repeating the mantra "My EU right or wrong!".
Norway and Sweden share tax information with each other (much to the chagrin of my wealthy Swedish friend). There's nothing inherently absurd about tax collection being based in another country. Why shouldn't HMRC participate in northshoring?
I think you should spend some time looking at global logistics. You'd be surprised how many 'wealthy' countries cannot be served outwith the state-sector delivery-systems.*
Given PRISM, would you send your tax-returns and payments via a foreign-state courier? There are so may complexities within modern society your "northern-shored" complacency is worrying....
* Lots of Swiss and Norwegian areas are not "pick-up" collection points.
Cam surely knows that coming back with a couple of sops from an intransigent EU will lose him the next election and his premiership - whatever happens with the economy. UKIP will just be too strong. Maybe even stronger than they are now.
He's either extraordinarily naive to have staked his political future on this - or he has something up his sleeve.
Unless you are saying that the Scots would be prepared to do the work at a significant discount to the Brits (would that be the right word)?
I'm guessing it would be a trade off between costs of setting up new infrastructure and training staff from scratch, or continuing with the status quo (or version of such). Also relocating jobs isn't just a matter of landing in a depressed Northern area and expecting the indigents to fall to their knees in gratitude. You don't turn the tanker of post-industrial dependency around overnight.
Cam surely knows that coming back with a couple of sops from an intransigent EU will lose him the next election and his premiership - whatever happens with the economy. UKIP will just be too strong. Maybe even stronger than they are now.
He's either extraordinarily naive to have staked his political future on this - or he has something up his sleeve.
How do you figure that out? They'll have had the referendum they claim to want. Of course they'll argue that the concessions were feeble (whether they are or not). If voters then vote to stay in, what do they say next? 'It was rigged/the concessions were too good/we didn't really want a referendum anyway'?
Cameron has got a problem, but it's not the one you identify - it's the problem of having his party campaign on both sides of the issue.
What you are missing is this is just a service contract and the customer can move it wherever and whenever they like
I expect there would be a useful business for Scotland providing outsourced low-cost admin services to the UK government. They have an English-speaking and reasonably well-educated workforce; we could save quite a lot since personnel costs would be a lot lower than they now are, because the staff wouldn't have to be on UK civil service salaries and pension arrangements.
Possibly - although not convinced that the Scottish government will be fighting the unions to reduce unit labour costs.
However, you are also forgetting the societal costs (unemployment benefits, etc) which will reduce the net cost to the UK tax payer of doing the work at home. Plus, of course, the political benefits
Unless you are saying that the Scots would be prepared to do the work at a significant discount to the Brits (would that be the right word)?
I'm guessing it would be a trade off between costs of setting up new infrastructure and training staff from scratch, or continuing with the status quo (or version of such). Also relocating jobs isn't just a matter of landing in a depressed Northern area and expecting the indigents to fall to their knees in gratitude. You don't turn the tanker of post-industrial dependency around overnight.
agree and/but I think our exchange highlights the absurdity of the proposition of Scottish Independence. The polls say it ain't going to happen, the logistics, common sense, real-politik of it say it ain't going to happen...
But if it did happen then you can expect some pretty bold political moves on both sides including, yes, cutting and pasting a vast number of jobs from the north to the slightly-less-north.
Norway and Sweden share tax information with each other (much to the chagrin of my wealthy Swedish friend). There's nothing inherently absurd about tax collection being based in another country. Why shouldn't HMRC participate in northshoring?
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
The one thing the BritNats fail to understand is that the No campaign has the misfortune to be represented by gibbering idiots who keep peddling the lie that scotland is some kind of appendage reliant on their neighbour and incapable of self-governance. (ironic considering the 'quality' of the incompetent fops and their disciples)
How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland
In 1975, the Government faced a dilemma: how to exploit the potential of its new oil fields without fuelling demands for Scottish independence. So it buried the evidence
It was a document that could have changed the course of Scottish history. Nineteen pages long, Written in an elegant, understated academic hand by the leading Scottish economist Gavin McCrone, presented to the Cabinet office in April 1975 and subsequently buried in a Westminster vault for thirty years. It revealed how North Sea oil could have made an independent Scotland as prosperous as Switzerland.
The Freedom of Information Act has yielded many insights and revelations into the working of the British government, but none so vivid as the contents of Professor McCrone's paper, written on request in the dog days of Ted Heath's Tory government and only just unearthed under the FOI rules.
Earlier this week, the Chancellor Gordon Brown underlined the vital revenue stream that North Sea oil still is in the context of British politics. In his pre-budget report, Mr Brown extracted an extra £6.5b in tax from North Sea oil and gas producers, to be taken over the next three years. Economists like the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman Vince Cable say that high oil prices have already bailed out the Treasury to the tune of £1 billion this year.
"Americans have begun to learn more and more about the scandals from the government, including the revelation that the National Security Administration (NSA) has been undergoing massive surveillance of phone lines, as well as details of the NSA’s secret PRISM program. Many have expressed concerns over a loss of privacy in what was once considered the “land of the free”. George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, and it’s hauntingly prophetic portrayal of a totalitarian surveillance state, to many, has never seemed more relevant.
Orwell published the novel on June 8, 1949, and either the anniversary of the publishing or the relevance as “Big Brother” scandals continue to be revealed have caused the books sales to skyrocket. Tuesday morning, Amazon.com listed the novel as number four on its Movers and Shakers page, with a rise in sales of almost 5,000 percent.
Good luck getting that ratified in the other 25 countries.
Then it might be Auf Wiedersehen, Pet. I expect she'll find a way to avoid this.
So are there going to be two referendums following Merkel's great Head of State Hypnosis Summit, one after they sign and another after it fails to pass the Estonian Upper House or whatever?
Or is the "in" option going to be "in, but only if everybody ratifies, otherwise out"?
"Unremarkable", it was not, Ben. Obtuse, complex and inconclusive would have been better descriptions, but Bloomberg seems to have got its measure.
Herewith, their remarks:
U.K. industrial production unexpectedly rose in April, boosted by increased output at oil and water companies. Manufacturing fell after gains in February and March.
Output rose 0.1 percent from March, the Office for National Statistics said today in London. The median forecast of 28 economists in a Bloomberg News survey was for no change.
Manufacturing dropped 0.2 percent following large gains in February and March.
Industrial output posted its strongest quarterly performance in almost three years through April, adding to signs the economy is gaining momentum after returning to growth in the first quarter. Surveys by Markit Economics published this month showed services and manufacturing were at the highest in 14 months in May.
...
In the three months through April, industrial production gained 0.8 percent, the largest increase since July 2010, the ONS said. Manufacturing rose 0.5 percent, the most since September last year.
Well, well, well, Ben. At least Bloomberg thinks it is good news worthy of remark.
On topic, if I were a Green, I'd be pretty miffed, they have an actual MP.
IIRC the ComRes for the locals didn't prompt, and that was pretty accurate on the UKIP vote.
I guess in the ideal world, a pollster would conduct simultaneous polling, with UKIP prompted and unprompted, so we could do a comparison, but I guess that costs a lot money.
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
On topic, if I were a Green, I'd be pretty miffed, they have an actual MP.
IIRC the ComRes for the locals didn't prompt, and that was pretty accurate on the UKIP vote.
I guess in the ideal world, a pollster would conduct simultaneous polling, with UKIP prompted and unprompted, so we could do a comparison, but I guess that costs a lot money.
I would prefer a simul-poll with Labour prompted and unprompted
Long and O/T - but interesting I thought. PropertyVision view on the future of the market. Can't do a link unless someone shows me how to upload a PDF. Note, tim, that there is no mention of HtB or any other schemes impacting prices.
It is now five years into the financial crisis. In those words there is a something of an oxymoron – as a crisis shouldn’t last that long. Because it has, it has begun to seem like normal; life goes on and many – maybe most – are now planning their lives as if the economic landscape they see around them is normal, and that it will continue in this vein for the foreseeable future. They may be right. But what is emerging is a raft of unintended consequences, which should not surprise, as the Law of Unintended Consequences is one of the universe’s most immutable – along with that of Sod, Murphy and Thermodynamics.
Interest rates and their twin, Gilt yields, are at historic lows – held down by a mixture of quantitative easing and financial repression. The aim of this has been to take money from those that have it and use it to ease the lot of those that don’t – those who are borrowers rather than savers. Governments are doing everything they can to get borrowers to borrow and banks to lend in order to get growth which, so the script goes, will give the tax receipts that will enable them to pay down their vast debts. This has been the focus of media attention.
In more normal times interest rates this low would result in a spectacular property boom as professional developers and amateur speculators gear up and spend. This has not really happened – mainly because banks have had to repair their balance sheets and raise their capital ratios to satisfy Basel III. The boom that has happened has been on the other side of the balance sheet, amongst those with money looking for any sort of real return or somewhere that is safe from the predations of their own government. The obvious place where this has happened on an international scale is in the Central London property market, and its offshoots, which has become the asset class of choice for the internationally wealthy. For the most part these are cash investors – spectacularly so in the case of St George’s Hill in Surrey where there are nearly thirty new-build houses that will be coming on at between £10m and £30m. Very little of the finance for this is from banks – anecdotally it is mostly from Russians who see gold in the ‘Dacha’ effect. This weight of money is appearing in other places. Property auctions, traditionally populated by men in black hats and matching suits, have been seeing a rather different clientele of late. Women, more usually spotted on the King’s Road in SUVs, big hair and sunglasses, have been bidding up prices to sometimes double the auctioneer’s estimates in locations that they would have had a problem finding on a map in more normal times. Buy-to-let for modest ‘pension’ pots is becoming the asset du jour for those seeking a reliable income. All of this is putting upward pressure on prices of property that firsttime buyers would have bought in the past – forcing these buyers into borrowings, if they can get them, that may just about work in the ‘new normal’ of interest rates but which have the potential to become a train wreck if rates spike. Low rates are now baked into the pie of many buyers’ expectations.
This support by buy-to-let investors goes a long way to explain the resilience of the wider general market across the UK. A glance into estate agents’ windows across southern England reveals almost nothing that might resemble family accommodation at less than £200k. When the average wage is around £25k per annum and the bank lending ratios are 4:1 there would appear to be a disconnect – until the buy-to-let investor is taken into account. Whether the stagnation of the general economy outside the London effect will allow the rents to give the yields that these investors are chasing remains to be seen.
Back in the prime markets there is a noticeable change this year. For the last four or five years, the country-house market has been the poor relation in comparison with the explosion of values in London: in very broad terms London has doubled while the country market has stagnated. This has altered behaviours. Those who would naturally have sold in London and decamped to the country have taken a rain-check as they realised that such a move was likely to be one way: if they sold and moved out they were unlikely to be able to afford to move back. The last few years have seen a profusion of tyre-kickers and buyers’ chains in a market where traditionally scarcity had made cash buyers the only ones that estate agents took seriously.
This year it feels very different. We are seeing country buyers who want to buy – and soon – and plenty of them. Why the change? It may well be that the same factor – high London prices – that kept them anchored in the capital may now be working the other way as those making the move see a compelling advantage in the price arbitrage and feel that the risks of getting on the wrong side of the trade are diminishing. In other words they feel that London is getting fully priced. While in no way calling the top of the market, there are enough examples of houses and flats not making their asking prices and others being sold by long-term owners to make it feel that there is a change in the air – even if it is a natural pause after such a meteoric rise. We are also seeing the ‘mansion tax’ effect at work with the bulk of activity being up to £2m – and above £5m. Another unintended consequence.
So why the change this year? Stock markets certainly help – which is allied to the general feeling that, while all is patently not well with the world, the point of a neardeath experience has passed. For those agnostic about the direction of the world economy there seems to be a willingness to get on with life and make personal changes in the hope that, at worst, it is a zero-sum game with annoying extra costs. Let’s hope they are right.
agree and/but I think our exchange highlights the absurdity of the proposition of Scottish Independence. The polls say it ain't going to happen, the logistics, common sense, real-politik of it say it ain't going to happen...
You didn't used to have a job as the speech writer for Iain Gray by chance? In which case commiserations for the 2011 SLAB 'triumph'.
@RichardNabavi There is no concession capable of being offered by the EU that would satisfy the Europhobes (largely because they don't actually know what they want, since they like freedom of movement when they mean they can travel unhindered, but not when others can, they like freedom of trade when they can sell their goods and services, but not when others can etc etc etc). So David Cameron is embarking on a fool's errand.
The first part of that statement is most certainly true, but that doesn't make it a fool's errand. For a start, we actually need the concessions (most urgently on financial regulation; the mind boggles at the Blair/Brown idiocy on conceding that one to our rivals and those who hate the City). But secondly, actually having a referendum would leave the Europhobes nowhere to hide. They can hardly keep bitching if they've got exactly what they've been asking for. Well, they can and will, but sensible people will see that the issue has been closed down.
Don't get me wrong - none of this is very attractive or satisfactory. If it had been my choice, we wouldn't have started from here. There are no good or easy options, thanks to the rank incompetence of the last government. But we are where we are.
I think that competencies is actually the wrong way of looking at things. I really don't see Cameron coming back to the UK with our own fisheries policies or the deletion of authority over financial services for the EU.
What I think we keep failing to recognise in this country is that the EU is a dynamic organisation which is designed to evolve and change over time. So many in this country seem to view this as a form of cheating (principally because we have never been asked since 1975) but it was always built into the law and the treaties. At the present and for the foreseeable future that process will be driven by the needs and anguish of the EZ. Cameron cannot stand in the way of that but must find ways to ensure that the changes do not affect our interests in the way we are seeing, for example, with this idiotic bonus limit.
So I think he is looking for something more radical but less intrusive for the other members. We need to be able to opt out of fairly large swathes of EU law without preventing those members on the closer integration route getting on with it. The model I see would not be a million miles away from the 3 pillars model of Maastricht with a core of EU law we are signed up for, areas that we are no part of (such as the ECB) and areas where we may well be willing to agree co-operation on a case by case basis.
The key though is that the structure has to recognise that at least in the EZ things will continue to change and give us some comfort that that is not going to be to our disadvantage. If Cameron delivers such a deal he will have done this country a considerable service.
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
Sorry but isn't ECHELON the system monitoring telephone communications? My understanding (of what we know about it) is that PRISM is collecting TCP data.
Consideriing that TCP ensures "reliable delivery" and the internet DNS requires "routing" I'm complexed at what the fuss is about. Most IDE's come with 'package-sniffers' so I'm at a loss....
@Richard_Tyndall - If antifrank is wrong, then that must mean there are concessions, capable of being offered by the EU, which would mean you'd vote to stay In.
Somehow, I think that is a shade unlikely, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Of course there are concessions that would lead to me voting to remain. But they would be so unlikely and would run so counter to the drivers of the EU that they will not happen. A reversion to a trade organisation, the scrapping of all the social chapter, CFP, CAP, legal and foreign affairs influence would be a start. Effectively a free trade agreement with no other centralised controls.
Can you really see the rest of the EU agreeing to that? And yet polling tells us that is what the majority of the British public want.
Cam surely knows that coming back with a couple of sops from an intransigent EU will lose him the next election and his premiership - whatever happens with the economy. UKIP will just be too strong. Maybe even stronger than they are now.
He's either extraordinarily naive to have staked his political future on this - or he has something up his sleeve.
The whole strategy relies on him not telling anyone what he wants to renegotiate
Oh dear, timbo, you really must keep up with the news. Have you not heard of the Balance of EU Competences review being undertaken by the whole of the UK government under the leadership of William Hague and the Foreign Office?
Here is an FCO blog entry from May of this year explaining the approach of the government's approach to the upcoming negotiations with the EU on repatriation of powers.
As the Eurozone takes steps towards closer fiscal and economic integration, and as the EU continues to develop, we need to be absolutely clear when it is most appropriate to take decisions at the national or local level, closer to the people affected, and in other cases when it is best to take action at the EU or global level.
And we need to be comfortable about the EU moving towards greater “variable geometry” with member states in a number of different configurations cooperating in different policy areas. This will make the EU more effective, with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a single bloc.
This is why the review will look at the case for rebalancing responsibilities. It will be a thorough and detailed analysis possible on what the exercise of the EU’s powers does and what it means for the United Kingdom. We will ensure that our national debate is grounded in knowledge of the facts and will be a vital aid for policy making in Government.
This extensive review has never been attempted before. It is good for the EU that its members debate honestly and openly how it functions and responds to the challenges it faces. We know there are a lot of people out there with knowledge and expertise on how the EU affects the UK. We will want to hear from them. Keep an eye on the FCO website for updates on what areas of competence the review is working on.
agree and/but I think our exchange highlights the absurdity of the proposition of Scottish Independence. The polls say it ain't going to happen, the logistics, common sense, real-politik of it say it ain't going to happen...
Well, your 'realpolitik' includes Scotland having lower life expectancy, average wages & house prices than the UK average, the lowest concentration of wealthy households of all UK regions, a minimal say on the political make up of Westminster governments and the prospect of being extracted from the EU however we vote in any putative EU referendum. Throw in Iraq and Trident and I'm pretty sure what my common sense is telling me. As for the polling, I believe the swing to Yes will continue and put money where my mouth is on here. Strangely, no takers...
@Richard_Tyndall I did not say that anyone who wanted to leave the EU must be mentally ill. I approved Matthew Parris's observation that the rise of UKIP (which is only tangentially related to wanting to leave the EU) is essentially a psychiatric phenomenon. It's a howl of rage against the modern world's complexities.
Semantics. Just what I should have expected from a lawyer.
So are there going to be two referendums following Merkel's great Head of State Hypnosis Summit, one after they sign and another after it fails to pass the Estonian Upper House or whatever?
Or is the "in" option going to be "in, but only if everybody ratifies, otherwise out"?
That's a good question. As I said, none of this is easy.
However, those belittling Cameron's plan invariably say there won't be a need for a new treaty to get closer Eurozone integration. If they are wrong about that, then clearly that is the opportunity for us. If they are right about it, then it follows that things can be fudged. If things can be fudged, they can be fudged in our favour as much as in our disfavour. Quite what the mechanism would be I don't know, but the Eurocrats are very skilled at circumventing inconvenient democratic controls.
Sorry but isn't ECHELON the system monitoring telephone communications? My understanding (of what we know about it) is that PRISM is collecting TCP data.
Consideriing that TCP ensures "reliable delivery" and the internet DNS requires "routing" I'm complexed at what the fuss is about. Most IDE's come with 'package-sniffers' so I'm at a loss....
Verizon have also been caught up in this re phone calls IIRC - either way, PRISM is the current catch-all term for being spied on by your own Gov.
That 1984 has jumped to Amazon's Top 100 is remarkable.
Most of us begin negotiation by identifying a position and arguing for it, such as: “I want to retain the CEO title.” But such positional bargaining can limit your ability to arrive at a “wise agreement” that benefits both parties — the proverbial middle ground and the whole purpose of negotiation."
If Cameron comes back with glass beads I reckon many voters won't want to wait three years to reject a proposal that patently does not come anyway close to settling our relationship with Europe.
It would all look too much like masterly inaction in favour of the status quo. They know Cam's a europhile with a dodgy track record on referenda.
I reckon enough people would prefer Ed governing and being pressured by a properly eurosceptic and united right wing with Cameron gone.
UKIP voters have already proved they are plenty bloody minded enough to deliver that result.
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
They are not my rules they are the laws of the land. In FPTP elections we elect individual constituency representatives not parties. If you don't like it then get the laws changed and get the power and influence of the parties increased even more.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
@taffys - If there's a Conservative majority, the referendum will happen. There is simply no way Cameron could avoid that even if he wanted to - he'd be deposed, and quite rightly too. Even I would support a coup in that scenario, which gives you a good indication of the degree of certainty!
The UKIP primal scream isn;t again the complexities of modern living.
It's against the prevailing ruling class attitude that modern living is too complex for ordinary people to grasp - and so important decisions should not be left to them.
I reckon enough people would prefer Ed governing and being pressured by a properly eurosceptic and united right wing with Cameron gone.
UKIP voters have already proved they are plenty bloody minded enough to deliver that result.
There are certainly some like that. Of the current approx 17% in the polls I would say 4-6% would cut off their noses to spite their faces.
The remaining 10-12% will be returning whence they came and more will return to the Cons than to Lab for obvious reasons.
I know a lot of let's say "old school" and plain old "old" Tories and the vast majority get the fact that they are more likely to get what they want today with the Cons than wait (time they haven't got) for UKIP.
@taffys - If there's a Conservative majority, the referendum will happen.
Which one? The IN/OUT referendum that was supposedly conditional on renegotiation of a new treaty or the referendum on a referendum (mandate referendum) ?
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
They are not my rules they are the laws of the land. In FPTP elections we elect individual constituency representatives not parties. If you don't like it then get the laws changed and get the power and influence of the parties increased even more.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
Indeed, but if he had a clear view that he was going to shift parties so quickly then it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
@taffys - If there's a Conservative majority, the referendum will happen. There is simply no way Cameron could not avoid that even if he wanted to - he'd be deposed, and quite rightly too. Even I would support a coup in that scenario, which gives you a good indication of the degree of certainty!
So the scenario looks like this: - You've been saying the EU signing a treaty will give the UK leverage. - You've been saying an in/out referendum without a renegotiation would be a terrible strategy, because you can probably do better than "out", and "in" just strengthens the status quo. - If the above was true before, it's still true now. - Cameron is a proven winner, who saw off UKIP in 2015 and won a majority against the odds. - The EU is negotiating a treaty, but it's not finished yet, and Cameron says he wants to see the negotiation though, then have a referendum when it's done.
"Trust Dave, the man who couldn't recall a thing under oath"
"Trust Dave, the man who lied to you about the NHS"
What lies on the NHS ? Not pandering to the staff like Labour isn't lying.
Trust rEd on tax ? - they guy that benefited from an IHT trust and accepted a huge donation from a lobbyist who saved 40% tax on the deal ?
Using his son to lie about an NHS reorganisation blew away his trust. And of people he needs for his In campaign, remember the right will split fairly evenly, Dave needs to play nice with the centre left, if we reach the unlikely position where he wins an election and calls a referendum he'll be reliant on the Trade Unions.
The passage you quoted the other day had a pledge to end "pointless" reorganisations.
Presumably he believes this is not "pointless".
So that means it is not a lie, but a disagreement.
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
They are not my rules they are the laws of the land. In FPTP elections we elect individual constituency representatives not parties. If you don't like it then get the laws changed and get the power and influence of the parties increased even more.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
Indeed, but if he had a clear view that he was going to shift parties so quickly then it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
The journalist manages an admirable lack of clarity on the point.
"Cllr Board is the fourth local Tory to defect to UKIP this year. He had also resigned from the Conservative Party before the East Sussex County Council elections in May.
He said he wanted to spare the local Conservative association, for whom he has nothing but the ‘utmost respect’, the embarrassment of running their campaign with their sole councillor having left them."
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
They are not my rules they are the laws of the land. In FPTP elections we elect individual constituency representatives not parties. If you don't like it then get the laws changed and get the power and influence of the parties increased even more.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
Indeed, but if he had a clear view that he was going to shift parties so quickly then it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Nope since if you and Plato had bothered to read the article rather than commentating on it blind you would see he had already stood down as a Tory before the County elections.
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
I think you'll find that he was a long standing Con councillor befre he resigned, Plato.
@taffys - If there's a Conservative majority, the referendum will happen. There is simply no way Cameron could not avoid that even if he wanted to - he'd be deposed, and quite rightly too. Even I would support a coup in that scenario, which gives you a good indication of the degree of certainty!
So the scenario looks like this: - You've been saying the EU signing a treaty will give the UK leverage. - You've been saying an in/out referendum without a renegotiation would be a terrible strategy, because you can probably do better than "out", and "in" just strengthens the status quo. - If the above was true before, it's still true now. - Cameron is a proven winner, who saw off UKIP in 2015 and won a majority against the odds. - The EU is negotiating a treaty, but it's not finished yet, and Cameron says he wants to see the negotiation though, then have a referendum when it's done.
You'd support a coup in that scenario? Nah.
But how long would a renegotiation take? Would it really slip from 2017 (when presumably it's been going on for 2 years) to past 2020?
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
They are not my rules they are the laws of the land. In FPTP elections we elect individual constituency representatives not parties. If you don't like it then get the laws changed and get the power and influence of the parties increased even more.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
Indeed, but if he had a clear view that he was going to shift parties so quickly then it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
The journalist manages an admirable lack of clarity on the point.
"Cllr Board is the fourth local Tory to defect to UKIP this year. He had also resigned from the Conservative Party before the East Sussex County Council elections in May.
He said he wanted to spare the local Conservative association, for whom he has nothing but the ‘utmost respect’, the embarrassment of running their campaign with their sole councillor having left them."
It sounds like he was effected under false pretences. That would be an interesting test case.
A Better Together spokesperson said: “It is curious that despite once claiming that all vestiges of Britishness will disappear with a Yes vote, Pete Wishart is now desperate to keep his British passport. “The only way to guarantee we keep our British passports is to vote against separation next year.”
in Ireland that qualifies them for British citizenship and a passport.
Do keep up dear, you are only 3 decades out of date.
The 1981 British Nationality Act:
"provided that Irish citizens, in common with those from the Commonwealth, would be required to apply for naturalisation as British citizens rather than registration after five years residence in the UK (or three years if married, or in a Civil Partnership to a British citizen)."
In any case, it is within the gift of the rUK government - not the Scottish one.
The bigger question is why you would want to retain a British passport?
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
They are not my rules they are the laws of the land. In FPTP elections we elect individual constituency representatives not parties. If you don't like it then get the laws changed and get the power and influence of the parties increased even more.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
Indeed, but if he had a clear view that he was going to shift parties so quickly then it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Nope since if you and Plato had bothered to read the article rather than commentating on it blind you would see he had already stood down as a Tory before the County elections.
That's exactly the point. IF he had the Tory logo on the ballot paper when he was already (in effect) a UKIP member then he was running under a false flag.
You can't expect the average vote to check every candidate to see they are still members of the party they are running for.
Legally I'm sure it is fine, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
IF, of the other hand, he was a pre-existing councillor who wasn't up for election in this cycle then alls fair in love & war
@taffys - If there's a Conservative majority, the referendum will happen. There is simply no way Cameron could not avoid that even if he wanted to - he'd be deposed, and quite rightly too. Even I would support a coup in that scenario, which gives you a good indication of the degree of certainty!
So the scenario looks like this: - You've been saying the EU signing a treaty will give the UK leverage. - You've been saying an in/out referendum without a renegotiation would be a terrible strategy, because you can probably do better than "out", and "in" just strengthens the status quo. - If the above was true before, it's still true now. - Cameron is a proven winner, who saw off UKIP in 2015 and won a majority against the odds. - The EU is negotiating a treaty, but it's not finished yet, and Cameron says he wants to see the negotiation though, then have a referendum when it's done.
You'd support a coup in that scenario? Nah.
But how long would a renegotiation take? Would it really slip from 2017 (when presumably it's been going on for 2 years) to past 2020?
If it did he could have the mandate referendum which is still quite popular with some tories.
Most of us begin negotiation by identifying a position and arguing for it, such as: “I want to retain the CEO title.” But such positional bargaining can limit your ability to arrive at a “wise agreement” that benefits both parties — the proverbial middle ground and the whole purpose of negotiation."
So a good starting position is - we want to leave, what are you going to offer to keep us?
Yes, because it would impossible for him to run that line. His position would be untenable. Personally I think he was unwise to make the timescale so short - it should have been three years, not two - but that was the deal and he'll have to stick to it.
If negotiations with our EU friends aren't finalised when the referendum takes place, then that would be a factor people would have to take into account when voting. Clearly it would increase the probability of an Out result, which might help to focus minds in Berlin.
@taffys - If there's a Conservative majority, the referendum will happen. There is simply no way Cameron could not avoid that even if he wanted to - he'd be deposed, and quite rightly too. Even I would support a coup in that scenario, which gives you a good indication of the degree of certainty!
So the scenario looks like this: - You've been saying the EU signing a treaty will give the UK leverage. - You've been saying an in/out referendum without a renegotiation would be a terrible strategy, because you can probably do better than "out", and "in" just strengthens the status quo. - If the above was true before, it's still true now. - Cameron is a proven winner, who saw off UKIP in 2015 and won a majority against the odds. - The EU is negotiating a treaty, but it's not finished yet, and Cameron says he wants to see the negotiation though, then have a referendum when it's done.
You'd support a coup in that scenario? Nah.
But how long would a renegotiation take? Would it really slip from 2017 (when presumably it's been going on for 2 years) to past 2020?
Cameron's plan is supposed to be to piggy-back on changes to the Eurozone, so you have to work from that timetable. They can't really do much until the Eurozone economy gets better because the voters are too angry, and once you get going these things have tended to take five or ten years. So I reckon Cameron's game plan will be something like:
- Immediate slip from 2017 to 2018, but still getting done before the election. - Another slip to 2019, but we're nearly done, honest, you're going to love it. - Triumph coming right after you reelect him, but DON'T LET LABOUR RUIN IT.
Alternatively, if nothing seems to be moving, he can call a non-in-out referendum for the British to show the Europeans how angry they are and give him a mandate to negotiate with. Then restart negotiations after that, which also buys him a few years so he can kick the thing past the next election.
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
They are not my rules they are the laws of the land. In FPTP elections we elect individual constituency representatives not parties. If you don't like it then get the laws changed and get the power and influence of the parties increased even more.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
Indeed, but if he had a clear view that he was going to shift parties so quickly then it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Nope since if you and Plato had bothered to read the article rather than commentating on it blind you would see he had already stood down as a Tory before the County elections.
That's exactly the point. IF he had the Tory logo on the ballot paper when he was already (in effect) a UKIP member then he was running under a false flag.
You can't expect the average vote to check every candidate to see they are still members of the party they are running for.
Legally I'm sure it is fine, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
IF, of the other hand, he was a pre-existing councillor who wasn't up for election in this cycle then alls fair in love & war
The bloke is a town councillor elected in 2011. As ever the PB Tories do rage before research.
Which bit of my posting reflected any rage whatsoever?
The question about whether someone should resign or not on changing parties is an interesting one, and this was a good hook.
I'm of the view - the legals notwithstanding - that most voters vote for a party not a candidate (IIRC, NickPalmer suggested at one point that an MP could build up 1,000-1,500+ personal votes), so let's say about 5% max of their winning vote.
I would have thought that at a local level, though, the personal vote as a % of the total vote is likely to be higher because of smaller constituencies, a more immediate involvement with the community and lower turnout
Carlotta : Frankly I wouldn't describe an eight-point lead for the No campaign in the most recent poll as being "comfortably ahead", and in your heart of hearts I don't think you would either.
"provided that Irish citizens, in common with those from the Commonwealth, would be required to apply for naturalisation as British citizens rather than registration after five years residence in the UK (or three years if married, or in a Civil Partnership to a British citizen)."
In any case, it is within the gift of the rUK government - not the Scottish one.
The bigger question is why you would want to retain a British passport?
From the same Wiki page from which you c&ped
'Irish citizens seeking to become British citizens are usually required to live in the UK and become naturalised after meeting the normal residence and other requirements, unless they can claim British citizenship by descent from a UK born or naturalised parent.'
Which is what I said.
I'm not that bothered about a British passport, though the more the merrier when it comes to passports. The bigger question is, do you agree that it would be petulant for an RUK government to withhold from the Scots the status it confers on the Irish.
This morning's production release was not stunning, the monthly and yearly growth numbers confirm that. In addition the index is still below the recent peak and way below the pre-crash peak. Manufacturing has been ok (flat mostly after the rebound), but oil/gas has dragged the numbers down considerably over last few years. The monthly numbers are erratic. Largely the impressive 3m/3m number is due to weakness in January.
But in terms of Q2 GDP this morning's release is potentially very significant. If production is flat in May/June (note flat), then production in Q2 will have risen approx 1.2% in comparison to Q1. That will almost certainly mean a big Q2 GDP number.
As I said in Q4, there were a lot of base-effects and temporary weaknesses building up in the data around and in the run up to xmas. These were always likely to unwind in Q2. If they don't then it really is time to worry. If construction is in any way positive and services continues its steady upward trend then Q2 alone could see more growth than most are predicting for 2013 as a whole.
Reminds me of the old trader's adage: the time to buy is when the market is at its most pessimistic.
So a good starting position is - we want to leave, what are you going to offer to keep us?
Answer: we are happy to hand back control of mung bean classification and maybe look at reforming banana shape regulations.
Now, David Cameron, do you want to leave? (we know the answer).
It's not David Cameron's decision. His answer will be 'Dunno if I can get that past the party, let alone the voters, Angela. We have a referendum coming up. You'd better come up with something a bit chunkier or I won't be able to stop them taking us out and leaving you in thrall to those Club Med layabouts'
Carlotta, you seem to be glossing over the facts that a) independence is the most popular option in the Social Attitudes Survey, b) the status quo supported by the No campaign is the least popular option, and c) support for independence is seven points higher than it was two years ago and support for the status quo is three points lower.
I assume he was elected as a Tory only a month ago - that really isn't on. There have been a rash of these characters since May LEs - their voters chose a Tory and they're defecting 4 weeks later on a false prospectus.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
They are elected as individual representatives. If they chose to change parties they are entitled to do so. If people are stupid enough to vote for someone because of their party rather than their individual merits and beliefs then more fool them.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
If they run with the Tory logo on the ballot paper then they should be done for false advertising under your rules
They are not my rules they are the laws of the land. In FPTP elections we elect individual constituency representatives not parties. If you don't like it then get the laws changed and get the power and influence of the parties increased even more.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
Indeed, but if he had a clear view that he was going to shift parties so quickly then it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Nope since if you and Plato had bothered to read the article rather than commentating on it blind you would see he had already stood down as a Tory before the County elections.
That's exactly the point. IF he had the Tory logo on the ballot paper when he was already (in effect) a UKIP member then he was running under a false flag.
You can't expect the average vote to check every candidate to see they are still members of the party they are running for.
Legally I'm sure it is fine, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
IF, of the other hand, he was a pre-existing councillor who wasn't up for election in this cycle then alls fair in love & war
The bloke is a town councillor elected in 2011. As ever the PB Tories do rage before research.
Which bit of my posting reflected any rage whatsoever?
The question about whether someone should resign or not on changing parties is an interesting one, and this was a good hook.
I'm of the view - the legals notwithstanding - that most voters vote for a party not a candidate (IIRC, NickPalmer suggested at one point that an MP could build up 1,000-1,500+ personal votes), so let's say about 5% max of their winning vote.
I would have thought that at a local level, though, the personal vote as a % of the total vote is likely to be higher because of smaller constituencies, a more immediate involvement with the community and lower turnout
He was elected in 2011 as a bit of a fluke in Polegate North ward finishing in 10th place in a ward that elected 10 councillors . The Shing family candidate came 1st easily followed by 1 Lib Dem and 7 Polegate Residents Assoc candidates . If they had fielded another candidate he would not have been elected .
Can anyone explain why we are setting ourselves up as rivals to Shanghai and Singapore? Both places excel at churning out kids who are brilliant at passing exams. What is much less clear is where that actually leads to. My experience of both China and Singapore is that they are countries which produce good followers in terms of innovative and entrepreneurial activity, but not so many leaders - they are perfect places from which to recruit the middle managerial/engineering fodder for already established businesses. But they are also places that depend upon others to do the really clever stuff first. It's the same with most Asian countries in which they sweat their kids to within an inch of their lives. The one exception being India. There they also value a great educaiton, but place much greater emphasis on creativity and independence of thought. Surely we should too, as that is where our best chance of competing globally lies.
Comments
It stuck in my mind as the classic example of religion in the wrong place and appeasement that pleased no one.
I get the bit about the £ but to me it looks outdated and without finesse. Now, that might suit you down to the ground but if you are going to go from NOTA to contender I would have thought you would need to get more "modern" (forgive the irony).
All you need is for Cammie and Osbrowne to keep banging on about Europe and immigration to keep their vote up. Happily that's a master strategy the incompetent fops show every sign of continuing with Crosby's help. Those EU elections should be a breeze.
Huh?
Arsenal can now apparently afford to buy the best players in the world.
But that, together with your point about Tories and welfare, has nothing to do with my question as to why one sovereign power would seek to support the jobs market of another sovereign power.
The question ultimately will have only two possible options, not three in response. If you want to stay In, you will by definition have to support the re-negotiated package just as those who supported proportionality but opposed AV had to vote No in the May 2011 referendum.
Don't get me wrong - none of this is very attractive or satisfactory. If it had been my choice, we wouldn't have started from here. There are no good or easy options, thanks to the rank incompetence of the last government. But we are where we are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoNzwJGkM8s
There is of course more. Golly, there is so much more. ;^ )
Not to mention how incredible that would look after a Yes vote which would necessitate it.
There will obviously be negotiations over the transfer of property, staff and IT systems but the idea that a PM of rUK could suddenly move everything to some marginal constituency is fanciful to say the least.
Best get a tory minister to try and scaremonger about such things as that's bound to help the credibility of such an idea with the average scottish voter.
That is a very weird response, Mr P0rk.
My assumption is that this is central processing, not asessment and delivery. Although not spelt out in the article, this is implied by the statement that 20% of all state pensions are processed in Scotland. I very much doubt that 20% of UK OAPs live in Scotland - otherwise UKIP would be doing better ;-)
To deal with your specific points:
(1) IDS is reforming the benefits system. That is massively more complex than moving the location of the same processing job
(2) If central processing then no travel needed (and if travel is needed, then why aren't 20% of UK OAPs regularly heading to Scotland?)
(3) The bits that require local processing should remain in Scotland, but that would be up to the Scottish government to decide what they want to do
(4) Of course there will be negotiations, and transitional arrangements, but (one would assume) that the IT system is owned by the Department so they can put it where they like. Property is probably owned by the department, but would be up for negotiation. Staff: no need to transfer. You just train new ones.
What you are missing is this is just a service contract and the customer can move it wherever and whenever they like
There are also sizeable HMRC processing centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh IIRC - those will also largely move out of Scotland if it declares indy as it'd be absurd for a nation to have its tax collection based in another country.
I am afraid you long ago lost all credibility as a commentator on the issue.
There are plenty of examples of such service provision that "Wee-Eck" and his disciples assume are cast-in-stone. Scotland has the misfortune of being an appendage, under-populated place reliant upon the good-will of her neighbour. When she realises this then maybe the independence debate will become more interesting.
Under such circumstances, and assuming the govt wouldn't want to be petty or spiteful (!) I'd bet the jobs would be repatriated pronto.
Unless you are saying that the Scots would be prepared to do the work at a significant discount to the Brits (would that be the right word)?
Somehow, I think that is a shade unlikely, but correct me if I'm wrong.
http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/local-news/polegate-tory-turns-ukip-1-5178396#.UbajQXR7hvY.twitter
Given PRISM, would you send your tax-returns and payments via a foreign-state courier? There are so may complexities within modern society your "northern-shored" complacency is worrying....
* Lots of Swiss and Norwegian areas are not "pick-up" collection points.
I wonder why.
He's either extraordinarily naive to have staked his political future on this - or he has something up his sleeve.
http://www.britishrailwaystations.co.uk/polegate.html
Not atrocious. But not great at all.
No sign of a major recovery.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/11/uk-manufacturing-industry-factory-output
Cameron has got a problem, but it's not the one you identify - it's the problem of having his party campaign on both sides of the issue.
If you want a story involving pole dancing and politics, check out the girlfriend of that treasonous pig dog great freedom fighter, Edward Snowden.
Please note, this link is definitely not suitable for work, or if your wife and/or girlfriend is about.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339202/Lindsay-Mills-girlfriend-Edward-Snowden-Woman-NSA-leaker-left-member-acrobat-troupe.html
However, you are also forgetting the societal costs (unemployment benefits, etc) which will reduce the net cost to the UK tax payer of doing the work at home. Plus, of course, the political benefits
But if it did happen then you can expect some pretty bold political moves on both sides including, yes, cutting and pasting a vast number of jobs from the north to the slightly-less-north.
I've no time for such people - if he wanted to be a Kipper, he should have stood as one.
"Americans have begun to learn more and more about the scandals from the government, including the revelation that the National Security Administration (NSA) has been undergoing massive surveillance of phone lines, as well as details of the NSA’s secret PRISM program. Many have expressed concerns over a loss of privacy in what was once considered the “land of the free”. George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, and it’s hauntingly prophetic portrayal of a totalitarian surveillance state, to many, has never seemed more relevant.
Orwell published the novel on June 8, 1949, and either the anniversary of the publishing or the relevance as “Big Brother” scandals continue to be revealed have caused the books sales to skyrocket. Tuesday morning, Amazon.com listed the novel as number four on its Movers and Shakers page, with a rise in sales of almost 5,000 percent.
The novel, 1984, had been ranked as 12,507 in sales on Amazon, and rose to 259 within days, a rise of 4,728 percent. Another version of the novel has spent the last two days as one of the 100 best-selling books on Amazon. http://www.examiner.com/article/orwell-s-1984-rises-almost-5-000-percent-sales-days
Or is the "in" option going to be "in, but only if everybody ratifies, otherwise out"?
Herewith, their remarks:
U.K. industrial production unexpectedly rose in April, boosted by increased output at oil and water companies. Manufacturing fell after gains in February and March.
Output rose 0.1 percent from March, the Office for National Statistics said today in London. The median forecast of 28 economists in a Bloomberg News survey was for no change.
Manufacturing dropped 0.2 percent following large gains in February and March.
Industrial output posted its strongest quarterly performance in almost three years through April, adding to signs the economy is gaining momentum after returning to growth in the first quarter. Surveys by Markit Economics published this month showed services and manufacturing were at the highest in 14 months in May.
...
In the three months through April, industrial production gained 0.8 percent, the largest increase since July 2010, the ONS said. Manufacturing rose 0.5 percent, the most since September last year.
Well, well, well, Ben. At least Bloomberg thinks it is good news worthy of remark.
IIRC the ComRes for the locals didn't prompt, and that was pretty accurate on the UKIP vote.
I guess in the ideal world, a pollster would conduct simultaneous polling, with UKIP prompted and unprompted, so we could do a comparison, but I guess that costs a lot money.
The only exception to this should be where one is elected under a party list system. In that case the vote can rightfully be said to belong to the party not the individual.
In this case people should have seen what was coming as he resigned as a Tory before the County Council Elections.
It is now five years into the financial crisis. In those words there is a something of an
oxymoron – as a crisis shouldn’t last that long. Because it has, it has begun to seem like
normal; life goes on and many – maybe most – are now planning their lives as if the
economic landscape they see around them is normal, and that it will continue in this
vein for the foreseeable future. They may be right. But what is emerging is a raft of
unintended consequences, which should not surprise, as the Law of Unintended
Consequences is one of the universe’s most immutable – along with that of Sod,
Murphy and Thermodynamics.
Interest rates and their twin, Gilt yields, are at historic lows – held down by a mixture of
quantitative easing and financial repression. The aim of this has been to take money
from those that have it and use it to ease the lot of those that don’t – those who are
borrowers rather than savers. Governments are doing everything they can to get
borrowers to borrow and banks to lend in order to get growth which, so the script goes,
will give the tax receipts that will enable them to pay down their vast debts. This has
been the focus of media attention.
In more normal times interest rates this low would result in a spectacular property boom
as professional developers and amateur speculators gear up and spend. This has not
really happened – mainly because banks have had to repair their balance sheets and
raise their capital ratios to satisfy Basel III. The boom that has happened has been on the
other side of the balance sheet, amongst those with money looking for any sort of real
return or somewhere that is safe from the predations of their own government. The
obvious place where this has happened on an international scale is in the Central
London property market, and its offshoots, which has become the asset class of choice
for the internationally wealthy. For the most part these are cash investors – spectacularly
so in the case of St George’s Hill in Surrey where there are nearly thirty new-build houses
that will be coming on at between £10m and £30m. Very little of the finance for this is
from banks – anecdotally it is mostly from Russians who see gold in the ‘Dacha’ effect.
This weight of money is appearing in other places. Property auctions, traditionally
populated by men in black hats and matching suits, have been seeing a rather different
clientele of late. Women, more usually spotted on the King’s Road in SUVs, big hair and
sunglasses, have been bidding up prices to sometimes double the auctioneer’s estimates
in locations that they would have had a problem finding on a map in more normal times.
Buy-to-let for modest ‘pension’ pots is becoming the asset du jour for those seeking a
reliable income. All of this is putting upward pressure on prices of property that firsttime
buyers would have bought in the past – forcing these buyers into borrowings, if
they can get them, that may just about work in the ‘new normal’ of interest rates but
which have the potential to become a train wreck if rates spike. Low rates are now
baked into the pie of many buyers’ expectations.
This support by buy-to-let investors goes a long way to explain the resilience of the
wider general market across the UK. A glance into estate agents’ windows across
southern England reveals almost nothing that might resemble family accommodation at
less than £200k. When the average wage is around £25k per annum and the bank
lending ratios are 4:1 there would appear to be a disconnect – until the buy-to-let
investor is taken into account. Whether the stagnation of the general economy outside
the London effect will allow the rents to give the yields that these investors are chasing
remains to be seen.
Back in the prime markets there is a noticeable change this year. For the last four or five
years, the country-house market has been the poor relation in comparison with the
explosion of values in London: in very broad terms London has doubled while the
country market has stagnated. This has altered behaviours. Those who would naturally
have sold in London and decamped to the country have taken a rain-check as they
realised that such a move was likely to be one way: if they sold and moved out they
were unlikely to be able to afford to move back. The last few years have seen a
profusion of tyre-kickers and buyers’ chains in a market where traditionally scarcity had
made cash buyers the only ones that estate agents took seriously.
This year it feels very different. We are seeing country buyers who want to buy – and
soon – and plenty of them. Why the change? It may well be that the same factor – high
London prices – that kept them anchored in the capital may now be working the other
way as those making the move see a compelling advantage in the price arbitrage and
feel that the risks of getting on the wrong side of the trade are diminishing. In other
words they feel that London is getting fully priced. While in no way calling the top of the
market, there are enough examples of houses and flats not making their asking prices
and others being sold by long-term owners to make it feel that there is a change in the
air – even if it is a natural pause after such a meteoric rise. We are also seeing the
‘mansion tax’ effect at work with the bulk of activity being up to £2m – and above £5m.
Another unintended consequence.
So why the change this year? Stock markets certainly help – which is allied to the
general feeling that, while all is patently not well with the world, the point of a neardeath
experience has passed. For those agnostic about the direction of the world
economy there seems to be a willingness to get on with life and make personal changes
in the hope that, at worst, it is a zero-sum game with annoying extra costs. Let’s hope
they are right.
What I think we keep failing to recognise in this country is that the EU is a dynamic organisation which is designed to evolve and change over time. So many in this country seem to view this as a form of cheating (principally because we have never been asked since 1975) but it was always built into the law and the treaties. At the present and for the foreseeable future that process will be driven by the needs and anguish of the EZ. Cameron cannot stand in the way of that but must find ways to ensure that the changes do not affect our interests in the way we are seeing, for example, with this idiotic bonus limit.
So I think he is looking for something more radical but less intrusive for the other members. We need to be able to opt out of fairly large swathes of EU law without preventing those members on the closer integration route getting on with it. The model I see would not be a million miles away from the 3 pillars model of Maastricht with a core of EU law we are signed up for, areas that we are no part of (such as the ECB) and areas where we may well be willing to agree co-operation on a case by case basis.
The key though is that the structure has to recognise that at least in the EZ things will continue to change and give us some comfort that that is not going to be to our disadvantage. If Cameron delivers such a deal he will have done this country a considerable service.
Sorry but isn't ECHELON the system monitoring telephone communications? My understanding (of what we know about it) is that PRISM is collecting TCP data.
Consideriing that TCP ensures "reliable delivery" and the internet DNS requires "routing" I'm complexed at what the fuss is about. Most IDE's come with 'package-sniffers' so I'm at a loss....
Can you really see the rest of the EU agreeing to that? And yet polling tells us that is what the majority of the British public want.
Here is an FCO blog entry from May of this year explaining the approach of the government's approach to the upcoming negotiations with the EU on repatriation of powers.
As the Eurozone takes steps towards closer fiscal and economic integration, and as the EU continues to develop, we need to be absolutely clear when it is most appropriate to take decisions at the national or local level, closer to the people affected, and in other cases when it is best to take action at the EU or global level.
And we need to be comfortable about the EU moving towards greater “variable geometry” with member states in a number of different configurations cooperating in different policy areas. This will make the EU more effective, with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a single bloc.
This is why the review will look at the case for rebalancing responsibilities. It will be a thorough and detailed analysis possible on what the exercise of the EU’s powers does and what it means for the United Kingdom. We will ensure that our national debate is grounded in knowledge of the facts and will be a vital aid for policy making in Government.
This extensive review has never been attempted before. It is good for the EU that its members debate honestly and openly how it functions and responds to the challenges it faces. We know there are a lot of people out there with knowledge and expertise on how the EU affects the UK. We will want to hear from them. Keep an eye on the FCO website for updates on what areas of competence the review is working on.
As for the polling, I believe the swing to Yes will continue and put money where my mouth is on here. Strangely, no takers...
However, those belittling Cameron's plan invariably say there won't be a need for a new treaty to get closer Eurozone integration. If they are wrong about that, then clearly that is the opportunity for us. If they are right about it, then it follows that things can be fudged. If things can be fudged, they can be fudged in our favour as much as in our disfavour. Quite what the mechanism would be I don't know, but the Eurocrats are very skilled at circumventing inconvenient democratic controls.
That 1984 has jumped to Amazon's Top 100 is remarkable.
http://gigaom.com/2008/05/25/harvard-negotiation-project-5-lasting-rules-for-negotiating-anything/
"1. Don’t Bargain Over Positions
Most of us begin negotiation by identifying a position and arguing for it, such as: “I want to retain the CEO title.” But such positional bargaining can limit your ability to arrive at a “wise agreement” that benefits both parties — the proverbial middle ground and the whole purpose of negotiation."
If Cameron comes back with glass beads I reckon many voters won't want to wait three years to reject a proposal that patently does not come anyway close to settling our relationship with Europe.
It would all look too much like masterly inaction in favour of the status quo. They know Cam's a europhile with a dodgy track record on referenda.
I reckon enough people would prefer Ed governing and being pressured by a properly eurosceptic and united right wing with Cameron gone.
UKIP voters have already proved they are plenty bloody minded enough to deliver that result.
Besides almost every MP and councillor (and certainly party leaders) should be done for false advertising. They all lie to get elected.
The UKIP primal scream isn;t again the complexities of modern living.
It's against the prevailing ruling class attitude that modern living is too complex for ordinary people to grasp - and so important decisions should not be left to them.
Trust rEd on tax ? - they guy that benefited from an IHT trust and accepted a huge donation from a lobbyist who saved 40% tax on the deal ?
The remaining 10-12% will be returning whence they came and more will return to the Cons than to Lab for obvious reasons.
I know a lot of let's say "old school" and plain old "old" Tories and the vast majority get the fact that they are more likely to get what they want today with the Cons than wait (time they haven't got) for UKIP.
The IN/OUT referendum that was supposedly conditional on renegotiation of a new treaty or the referendum on a referendum (mandate referendum) ?
- You've been saying the EU signing a treaty will give the UK leverage.
- You've been saying an in/out referendum without a renegotiation would be a terrible strategy, because you can probably do better than "out", and "in" just strengthens the status quo.
- If the above was true before, it's still true now.
- Cameron is a proven winner, who saw off UKIP in 2015 and won a majority against the odds.
- The EU is negotiating a treaty, but it's not finished yet, and Cameron says he wants to see the negotiation though, then have a referendum when it's done.
You'd support a coup in that scenario? Nah.
Presumably he believes this is not "pointless".
So that means it is not a lie, but a disagreement.
At least the Labour position on the EU is clear - we will accept everything you say (no vasoline) and there will be no referendum - ever.
Has a certain simplicity and ease of understanding - I will give you that.
"Cllr Board is the fourth local Tory to defect to UKIP this year. He had also resigned from the Conservative Party before the East Sussex County Council elections in May.
He said he wanted to spare the local Conservative association, for whom he has nothing but the ‘utmost respect’, the embarrassment of running their campaign with their sole councillor having left them."
The 1981 British Nationality Act:
"provided that Irish citizens, in common with those from the Commonwealth, would be required to apply for naturalisation as British citizens rather than registration after five years residence in the UK (or three years if married, or in a Civil Partnership to a British citizen)."
In any case, it is within the gift of the rUK government - not the Scottish one.
The bigger question is why you would want to retain a British passport?
You can't expect the average vote to check every candidate to see they are still members of the party they are running for.
Legally I'm sure it is fine, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
IF, of the other hand, he was a pre-existing councillor who wasn't up for election in this cycle then alls fair in love & war
If negotiations with our EU friends aren't finalised when the referendum takes place, then that would be a factor people would have to take into account when voting. Clearly it would increase the probability of an Out result, which might help to focus minds in Berlin.
- Immediate slip from 2017 to 2018, but still getting done before the election.
- Another slip to 2019, but we're nearly done, honest, you're going to love it.
- Triumph coming right after you reelect him, but DON'T LET LABOUR RUIN IT.
Alternatively, if nothing seems to be moving, he can call a non-in-out referendum for the British to show the Europeans how angry they are and give him a mandate to negotiate with. Then restart negotiations after that, which also buys him a few years so he can kick the thing past the next election.
The question about whether someone should resign or not on changing parties is an interesting one, and this was a good hook.
I'm of the view - the legals notwithstanding - that most voters vote for a party not a candidate (IIRC, NickPalmer suggested at one point that an MP could build up 1,000-1,500+ personal votes), so let's say about 5% max of their winning vote.
I would have thought that at a local level, though, the personal vote as a % of the total vote is likely to be higher because of smaller constituencies, a more immediate involvement with the community and lower turnout
Answer: we are happy to hand back control of mung bean classification and maybe look at reforming banana shape regulations.
Now, David Cameron, do you want to leave? (we know the answer).
'Irish citizens seeking to become British citizens are usually required to live in the UK and become naturalised after meeting the normal residence and other requirements, unless they can claim British citizenship by descent from a UK born or naturalised parent.'
Which is what I said.
I'm not that bothered about a British passport, though the more the merrier when it comes to passports.
The bigger question is, do you agree that it would be petulant for an RUK government to withhold from the Scots the status it confers on the Irish.
But in terms of Q2 GDP this morning's release is potentially very significant. If production is flat in May/June (note flat), then production in Q2 will have risen approx 1.2% in comparison to Q1. That will almost certainly mean a big Q2 GDP number.
As I said in Q4, there were a lot of base-effects and temporary weaknesses building up in the data around and in the run up to xmas. These were always likely to unwind in Q2. If they don't then it really is time to worry. If construction is in any way positive and services continues its steady upward trend then Q2 alone could see more growth than most are predicting for 2013 as a whole.
Reminds me of the old trader's adage: the time to buy is when the market is at its most pessimistic.
Funny that.
He was elected in 2011 as a bit of a fluke in Polegate North ward finishing in 10th place in a ward that elected 10 councillors . The Shing family candidate came 1st easily followed by 1 Lib Dem and 7 Polegate Residents Assoc candidates . If they had fielded another candidate he would not have been elected .
Can anyone explain why we are setting ourselves up as rivals to Shanghai and Singapore? Both places excel at churning out kids who are brilliant at passing exams. What is much less clear is where that actually leads to. My experience of both China and Singapore is that they are countries which produce good followers in terms of innovative and entrepreneurial activity, but not so many leaders - they are perfect places from which to recruit the middle managerial/engineering fodder for already established businesses. But they are also places that depend upon others to do the really clever stuff first. It's the same with most Asian countries in which they sweat their kids to within an inch of their lives. The one exception being India. There they also value a great educaiton, but place much greater emphasis on creativity and independence of thought. Surely we should too, as that is where our best chance of competing globally lies.
Don't forget to go to the Fine Arts Museum. That place is amazing.