My hunch is that £3 supporters and trade union affiliates will split three ways: some will vote for someone they’ve heard of (benefiting Jowell and Abbott), others will vote according to the politics of the candidate closest to Corbyn’s (benefiting Abbott) and others will vote tactically to stop the Blairite Jowell (benefiting Khan). What size those three groups are in will decide the mayoralty.
So London's voters won't decide it then? There is no risk they might possibly not vote for one of these three?
Free owls for all. 90% income tax rates come back for the £100,000 range..... Unions for the self employed (er), one colour phone hansets, british leyland reborn, IMF rules....
This is a list of what?
I'm thinking it's a list of the Corbyn outcomes you recently voted for.....
Apart from Nick the P and BJ for owls the agreed view on here is that Corbyn's election will be bad for Labour. the next question is what will happen to Labour's 2015 voters? First they should get back a whopping 1% to 2% from the Greens. In Scotland probably a wash as they will lose votes on competence and gain a similar number of socialists from the SNP. Of their 2015 voters i can see two camps that are likely to move. 1. The Progress voters who attract the headlines and just will not stomach the socialists. A few to the Conservatives, a few to the LDs but a lot may not vote at all. 2. The WWC voters. Some of these I guess will move a few % to the Conservatives but a larger % may go to UKIP because of immigration. Overall vote shares in the range of Con 40%, Lab 20%, UKIP 17% and LD 9%.
And that masks another big problem for Labour which occurred in May. the majority of any extra votes they get are going to be in the cities - where they don't need them; while the votes they lose will be in the Midlands marginals and some in the northern small towns - where they really do need them. The whole fiasco highlights the problem of parties analysing election results by talking almost exclusively to their existing members and supporters.
AB thinks women leader would be great when the right candidate comes forward
What a loathsome man Burnham is.
He is the hero of all Conservatives. We pray he wins and not Corbyn. We get the best of both worlds, we get Burnham (yipee!) with the Corbyn millstone round his neck.
Indigo - Good point on the BTL tax. But at least it is phased in on a long notice period. Josias should note the change as he is against BTL and this tax change will have a big impact eventually.
There's a difference between the couple who have one BTL property and the companies that hold dozens.
..snip..
Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem, plus the rather basic issue that we just plain don't have enough with quarter of a million new people arriving in the country every year, and the increase in family breakdowns meaning less people live in each property.
Bidding for BTL properties - especially by companies - increases the cost of houses because they can afford to outbid people, especially as mortgages are apparently becoming more BTL friendly.
On another note, a local rental agency recently went bust, with string rumours of financial mismanagement. A friend of ours has really been left in the lurch, as have his (good) tenants.
Not too surprising to me. Letting agents are at best horrible leeches sucking off tenants who have little choice but to use them.
That is people choosing poor letting agents. Good ones are around.
The good ones are horrible leeches. The bad ones verge on the criminal.
I think you may have had the Big BE (Bad Experience) (?)
The good ones are professionals doing a professional job. For example, one I use turns away landlords and properties that don't meet the required "Comfort Standard", which (for student houses) includes:
37" Flat screen TV (preferably wall mounted) TV licence included as part of the rent Spacious rooms (~10sqm+) - All designed to have double beds and large desks Tall fridge and separate tall freezer (or combination) A designated eating area. In some cases that will be a dining area with table and chairs, or for others a good sized breakfast bar with stools. Either double or 3/4 beds in all bedrooms. If the room cannot fit a 3/4 bed in, we don't think it's big enough to be a bedroom!
Hating on agents too much will backfire, as Scotland discovered. They banned agency fees so rents had to go up instead, and competition pressure was removed. So no pressure to reduce fees, as they are not allowed to tell anyone what the hidden fees are.
AB thinks women leader would be great when the right candidate comes forward
What a loathsome man Burnham is.
He is the hero of all Conservatives. We pray he wins and not Corbyn. We get the best of both worlds, we get Burnham (yipee!) with the Corbyn millstone round his neck.
An even better outcome for the Conservatives would be the one somebody - forget who - suggested a few days ago. Corbyn wins, makes a mess, resigns and is replaced by Andy Burnham.
The only way that could be improved upon for the Tories is - well, actually, given that Burnham has also jumped the shark in the last 72 hours, slavering over Corbyn and now coming out as a chauvinist, it's hard to see how it could be improved upon!
OGH: That’s the disaster waiting for Labour in just two and a half weeks time and the surprising thing is that many in the party don’t see it.
There are a fair number of Labourites here on PB.com whom I view as being highly intelligent, politically savvy, as well as being reasonably moderate in their outlook. I have therefore been surprised, startled even, by how many of these have professed their support for Corbyn in the leadership contest over recent weeks. It's almost as if they feel bitter and twisted by the General Election result they had expected to win and that somewhat perversely this is their way of getting back at the party's establishment who they consider let them down so badly.
Holiday homes, and homes bought as investment and never lived in are the real problem
Holiday homes are well under 1% of the housing stock. There are very few homes never lived in.
I have an odd problem which maybe someone can advise on. I inherited a family company a while back whose main asset was a flat, which we rent out. We now want to wind up the company and are selling the flat as part of that. However, we like the tenant (a relative) and want to give him sitting tenancy protection, even though that reduces the money we get for the place substantially. The buyer, who is a friend of the tenant, has cheerfully agreed - the tenant is elderly and paying a good rent, so the buyer is fine with getting rent for now and the full value later, and the buyer has cash so doesn't need a mortgage. But of course the buyer die or might sell it on, so we want the tenant protected legally, which an informal deal might not do.
I'm having extraordinary difficulty in getting the solicitor to give me a secured sitting tenancy agreement - she keeps emailing to say it's not in our interest, it's most unusual, nobody does this nowadays, won't I think again? I say "No, get on with it!" and she is still dragging her heels - 6 weeks have passed since my original request. Is there an online site where I can just download such an agreement? Even the Shelter website seems to assume that any current agreement will be an unsecured shorthold.
To the best of my knowledge, Protected Tenancies no longer exist. Most of the tenants who had one, will likely have expired too. In a previous life, I worked for a business who specialised in managing estates containing such individuals, who were encouraged to move on so that the properties could be redeveloped. Many benefited extremely well financially.
You need to find a new solicitor, and be prepared to spend some money getting what you want.
I can't see any upside for Labour in electing Jezza.
They will gain enthusiasm and numbers? They will gain the shouty, obnoxious brigade who vote Labour anyway and do their best to put off any undecided. "We don't want you, you're not Labour enough."
Brilliant strategy.
After Salmond announced his resignation as First Minister, the membership of the SNP increased by 100,000. The SNP then went on to virtually wipe out Labour and the LibDem MPs in Scotland in the GE.
The Labour party has increased it's membership to 600,000, and I suspect many more will join if Corbyn wins. Er! Perhaps you might see some possibilities in the correlation between the SNP and Labour's increases in active members living a dream of change.
Or not if you are a Tory, with a declining and ageing membership?
On the other hand the Greens made a big deal out of the fact that they overtook both the LDs and UKIP in terms of membership numbers, but yet they got a million less votes than the LDs and 2 million less than UKIP at the GE
Expecting them to all come here once they get a residence card.
If Germany and Sweden wish to pursue open-door immigration policies, then Germany and Sweden must live with the consequences, and not expect other EU member states to follow their example.
Free owls for all. 90% income tax rates come back for the £100,000 range..... Unions for the self employed (er), one colour phone hansets, british leyland reborn, IMF rules....
This is a list of what?
I'm thinking it's a list of the Corbyn outcomes you recently voted for.....
Spot on.
Except it contains no policies Jezza has espoused.
To be honest, if I lived in MENA, I'd probably be trying to get here by hook or by crook. What possible disincentive is there when you compare the rewards to the alternative?
However, at the same time, I probably wouldn't have much respect for these countries as soft-touches who indiscriminately let everyone in out of guilt.
I know some will consider this 'sexist', but it's the best contemporary analogy I can come up with: it's a bit like a not-unattractive girl with very low self-esteem who everyone knows is available and will sleep with anyone who makes the effort, and says the right things.
Yes, you might probably want to as well if you haven't had it in months, and the alternative is celibacy, but that doesn't mean you'll enter a loving relationship with her.
@ocheye it's not 'simplistic' it's obvious. The alex in your pocket meme was there right from the start, and it was potent because it was true. To be fair you had to add to it the utter pointlessness of the LDs. And of course in reverse it should have propped up the scottish labour vote since clearly an SNP vote was a wasted vote in that the very presence of the SNP ensured that labour lost and the SNP would exert no influence.
If you want 'simplistic' --- the SNP are being propped up by Labours loony toon anti nuclear fringe. Thats what drives their desire for independence. They see it as a way to undermine the western alliance. Thats why the lefty nutjobs are supporting Corbyn and I'm sure they will love him north of the border too.
...How on earth can anyone trust the judgement of MPs who went out of their way to nominate him, first of all knowing him and his views and then knowing full well the way their electorate was open to manipulation, from both outside and from the Unions.
I've just had a fiver with Betfair at 100 on Chuka Umunna being the "Next Prime Minister after Cameron" - that looks like great value to me, particularly as a trading opportunity on the exchange. For anyone interested, there's a few quids worth to be had at 90.
Expecting them to all come here once they get a residence card.
If Germany and Sweden wish to pursue open-door immigration policies, then Germany and Sweden must live with the consequences, and not expect other EU member states to follow their example.
Except, if they grant them EU citizenship, we could be facing the same bow-wave in 5-10 years time.
Corbyn's latest wizard wheeze is to sack the governor of the BoE if he refuses to print money. I'm astounded that the leader of the opposition thinks this is a good idea
As I said yesterday, if Labour is elected on a manifesto that includes printing money, and then enacts the necessary legislation to enable it, it's no business of the Governor of the BoE to stand in its way. He can advise that it's a moronic policy that would bring ruin to many if its carried out consistently and on a large scale but ultimately, he is a servant of the state and has to defer to the crown in parliament.
Or he could refuse to do it as unlawful and counter to the provisions of TFEU Article 123 Sure the government could disapply the European Communities Act but that might not be without a certain political cost!
If political cost were a consideration, he would't be standing.
Trust you now know your BLTs from your BTLs. Tenants are not caterpillars. Mainly.
*blush*
Actually I am not in that line of business at all, although Mrs Indigo keeps bugging me about it, at least the recent changes have let me bury that idea for the moment.
Its more that I had an whole evening of getting my ear bent on the subject by a very pissed off WWC guy with a couple of modest properties who was voicing serious doubts about why he voted Tory this time, and I believe will be a sure fire kipper next time around.
He is a higher rate tax payer? UKIP are going to reverse the policy?
I've just heard a hustings on radio 5 featuring all 4 Labour prospective leaders. From the objectivity of the Cote d'Azur my feelings were these;
Corbyn. I could see the attraction. Without doubt the most persuasive. Avuncular non preachy said all the things Guardianistas like hearing and if it wasn't for his history and the certain knowledge that he has some unattractive backers I'd certainly go for him.
Kendall was the surprise. The most impressive of the non Corbyn's. She sounded sincere and even original. She had a little bit of early Blair about her. One to watch.
Cooper's sincerity didn't convince me. Up till now she was my choice and she does seem very nice. She'd probably make the best Prime Minister but just nothing that raised her above the crowd. I'm sure labour need something more striking.
Burnham is too lightweight to even consider and his answer to the immigration question was a complete fail as far as I was concerned
AB thinks women leader would be great when the right candidate comes forward
What a loathsome man Burnham is.
Surely Burnham's comment is merely a statement of the obvious. After all, what's the alternative: "we should have a woman leader when she's not the right candidate"?
"A German citizen is someone who holds German citizenship, i.e. someone who has acquired it and not lost it.
Refugees, ethnic German resettlers or exiled persons of German origin and their families who have been admitted into Germany (Statusdeutsche, or Germans by status but not citizenship) are also German. Since 1 August 1999, they have legally been acquiring German citizenship by virtue of certification issued in accordance with § 15 of the Federal Refugees Act."
So it sounds like they could come here immediately as soon as Germany admits them.
Is there anyone with better knowledge of this that can tell me if I've got that right?
I'm almost sure that Ganesh is right. And yet, there is a small possibility that somehow the general public will also get swept away with the utopian vision of a 'people's QE' spewing money into hospitals, railways and energy companies and mass taxing of the wealthy. The young in particular may suddenly rise up and actually start to vote. Ken Clarke has warned against Tory complacency. To me, old enough to have lived through the 80s and years of Militant madness and all the rest, it seems impossible to believe.
Not even Labour's core vote will be fooled. But even if they are - just how many outside it will be?
Expecting them to all come here once they get a residence card.
If Germany and Sweden wish to pursue open-door immigration policies, then Germany and Sweden must live with the consequences, and not expect other EU member states to follow their example.
Except, if they grant them EU citizenship, we could be facing the same bow-wave in 5-10 years time.
Expecting them to all come here once they get a residence card.
If Germany and Sweden wish to pursue open-door immigration policies, then Germany and Sweden must live with the consequences, and not expect other EU member states to follow their example.
Except, if they grant them EU citizenship, we could be facing the same bow-wave in 5-10 years time.
It's another argument in favour of a No vote.
See my link below. It sounds like they could come here before we could even vote out.
I'm feeling a little sad. After fourteen months of looking after the little 'un, with only one day off (to see Kate Bush), I've just dropped him off at a nursery for his first half-day.
It's not something we wanted to do this early, but the doctor says I won't heal if I'm having to look after him. So off he's gone, and I'm already missing him.
On the other hand, in three hours I'll be seeing him again. Yay!
I've just had a fiver with Betfair at 100 on Chuka Umunna being the "Next Prime Minister after Cameron" - that looks like great value to me, particularly as a trading opportunity on the exchange. For anyone interested, there's a few quids worth to be had at 90.
If the market was next Labour PM, then Corbyn could be decent value (Or maybe even Burnham). But NEXT PM is surely a Tory ?
That ComRes poll is a bit of a stinker for the ABCs – and yet a lot of people are pinning their hopes on Jeremy Corbyn standing down before 2020 to be replaced with one of them...
Good luck with that one, you'd need a heart of stone no laugh really.
How do they know they are all genuine asylum seekers? Some might be Assad thugs; some might be IS thugs. If Germany is not going to apply the terms of the Refugee Convention, why should Britain abide by it? Indeed why should Britain abide by the EU's free movement laws if Germany is not going to comply with the rules?
Brutal as it sounds Europe cannot and should not accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East. All that will happen is that the murderous mess - the politics, the war, the violence - of the Middle East will move to Europe.
I'm having extraordinary difficulty in getting the solicitor to give me a secured sitting tenancy agreement - she keeps emailing to say it's not in our interest, it's most unusual, nobody does this nowadays, won't I think again? I say "No, get on with it!" and she is still dragging her heels - 6 weeks have passed since my original request. Is there an online site where I can just download such an agreement? Even the Shelter website seems to assume that any current agreement will be an unsecured shorthold.
Get yourself a new solicitor. She's only considering your financial interests, not the totality of your interests. Alternatively you can put in writing that you are aware she has advised against this, but have decided to do it anyway and agree not to sue her...
Expecting them to all come here once they get a residence card.
If Germany and Sweden wish to pursue open-door immigration policies, then Germany and Sweden must live with the consequences, and not expect other EU member states to follow their example.
Except, if they grant them EU citizenship, we could be facing the same bow-wave in 5-10 years time.
It's another argument in favour of a No vote.
I think most people simply can't understand why we can't stay in a single market and control our borders, and what the government finds so hard in arranging that.
"A German citizen is someone who holds German citizenship, i.e. someone who has acquired it and not lost it.
Refugees, ethnic German resettlers or exiled persons of German origin and their families who have been admitted into Germany (Statusdeutsche, or Germans by status but not citizenship) are also German. Since 1 August 1999, they have legally been acquiring German citizenship by virtue of certification issued in accordance with § 15 of the Federal Refugees Act."
So it sounds like they could come here immediately as soon as Germany admits them.
Is there anyone with better knowledge of this that can tell me if I've got that right?
To me that reads only as those who are of German origin - not all refugees. IE Germans who got displaced by the USSR and ended up in Poland etc are still Germans.
That would not apply to Syrians or other refugees.
Mr. Jessop, right decision. How long will your wound take to heal?
Mr. kle4, well, quite. Microtransactions are the work of Satan, and Hayter's replacement baffles me. The game is reportedly excellent, but I won't be getting it.
I have an odd problem which maybe someone can advise on. I inherited a family company a while back whose main asset was a flat, which we rent out. We now want to wind up the company and are selling the flat as part of that. However, we like the tenant (a relative) and want to give him sitting tenancy protection, even though that reduces the money we get for the place substantially. The buyer, who is a friend of the tenant, has cheerfully agreed - the tenant is elderly and paying a good rent, so the buyer is fine with getting rent for now and the full value later, and the buyer has cash so doesn't need a mortgage. But of course the buyer die or might sell it on, so we want the tenant protected legally, which an informal deal might not do.
I'm having extraordinary difficulty in getting the solicitor to give me a secured sitting tenancy agreement - she keeps emailing to say it's not in our interest, it's most unusual, nobody does this nowadays, won't I think again? I say "No, get on with it!" and she is still dragging her heels - 6 weeks have passed since my original request. Is there an online site where I can just download such an agreement? Even the Shelter website seems to assume that any current agreement will be an unsecured shorthold.
In these circs I would not do it without advice. Really.
I think the problem may be that by going for a Secure Tenancy you will remove flexibility in the future should the landscape change.
It will probably halve the value, but you know that. Are there any CGT or Stamp Duty implications for you?
eg Mr O has just abolished the very basic principle for landlords that business expenses get deducted from costs and the tax is applied to the profit, by taxing the expenses even if the business is lossmaking.
He could do something that undermines your new arrangement, and your friend would not be in a position to change it - which means that to maintain the property properly your friend could be subsidising it.
One option is to consider is a normal tenancy with a long fixed term (eg 3 or 5 years), which will give some stability and some flexibility. But that doesn't protect the tenant if your friend goes bankrupt, in extremis.
For advice, you could perhaps do worse than talk to Tessa Shepperton at Landlordlaw Blog: http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/, who is very well established in the field and has an excellent reputation and an online advice service.
It's almost as if they feel bitter and twisted by the General Election result they had expected to win and that somewhat perversely this is their way of getting back at the party's establishment who they consider let them down so badly.
That's an interesting take on the curious bout of madness which has engulfed even some of the saner Labour supporters.
"A German citizen is someone who holds German citizenship, i.e. someone who has acquired it and not lost it.
Refugees, ethnic German resettlers or exiled persons of German origin and their families who have been admitted into Germany (Statusdeutsche, or Germans by status but not citizenship) are also German. Since 1 August 1999, they have legally been acquiring German citizenship by virtue of certification issued in accordance with § 15 of the Federal Refugees Act."
So it sounds like they could come here immediately as soon as Germany admits them.
Is there anyone with better knowledge of this that can tell me if I've got that right?
To me that reads only as those who are of German origin - not all refugees. IE Germans who got displaced by the USSR and ended up in Poland etc are still Germans.
That would not apply to Syrians or other refugees.
I don't think that's right. It's listing three different categories.
- Refugees - Ethnic German resettlers - Exiled persons of German origin
You seem to be reading the "of German origin" clause as referring to all three categories, but I don't think that's right. The fact it adds the description "ethnic German" to the middle category suggests the "of German origin" is only referring to the last group. In addition, the act was passed in 1999, where there were no ethnic German refugees, so it wouldn't make sense.
How do they know they are all genuine asylum seekers? Some might be Assad thugs; some might be IS thugs. If Germany is not going to apply the terms of the Refugee Convention, why should Britain abide by it? Indeed why should Britain abide by the EU's free movement laws if Germany is not going to comply with the rules?
Brutal as it sounds Europe cannot and should not accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East. All that will happen is that the murderous mess - the politics, the war, the violence - of the Middle East will move to Europe.
The refugee convention enacts minimum requirements. Germany is quite entitled to let in anyone else who it likes, and give them passports. They are not breaking any European laws. But yes, we can question the wisdom of it, and you raise very good criticisms. We can also question whether we want to stay in the free movement of labour zone if such policies are being pursued by other member states.
"A German citizen is someone who holds German citizenship, i.e. someone who has acquired it and not lost it.
Refugees, ethnic German resettlers or exiled persons of German origin and their families who have been admitted into Germany (Statusdeutsche, or Germans by status but not citizenship) are also German. Since 1 August 1999, they have legally been acquiring German citizenship by virtue of certification issued in accordance with § 15 of the Federal Refugees Act."
So it sounds like they could come here immediately as soon as Germany admits them.
Is there anyone with better knowledge of this that can tell me if I've got that right?
To me that reads only as those who are of German origin - not all refugees. IE Germans who got displaced by the USSR and ended up in Poland etc are still Germans.
That would not apply to Syrians or other refugees.
I don't think that's right. It's listing three different categories.
- Refugees - Ethnic German resettlers - Exiled persons of German origin
You seem to be reading the "of German origin" clause as referring to all three categories, but I don't think that's right. The fact it adds the description "ethnic German" to the middle category suggests the "of German origin" is only referring to the last group. In addition, the act was passed in 1999, where there were no ethnic German refugees, so it wouldn't make sense.
I think its listing three different categories for people of German origin. The of German origin applies to all of them. I think its primarily a translation issue.
Mr Fishing (I think) says --- ''the cost of land and planning permission is such a high proportion of the cost of a house (70% now instead of 2% in the 1930s) ''
Maybe. Maybe not. However if you look at any estate type development post war than overwhelmingly they have zero architectural input. 'little boxes little boxes' all the same. Endless rows of trussed raftered shallow roofed concrete tiled boring windowed bland semis with a bit of garden and a garage thats too small for a car. Everywhere. 'Executive' styled houses were a bit better and perhaps detached. And if the location location location were a bit more suitable you may get a bit of grand design. I suggest this has less to do with land cost and more to do with a total lack of ambition and taste from the buying public.
"A German citizen is someone who holds German citizenship, i.e. someone who has acquired it and not lost it.
Refugees, ethnic German resettlers or exiled persons of German origin and their families who have been admitted into Germany (Statusdeutsche, or Germans by status but not citizenship) are also German. Since 1 August 1999, they have legally been acquiring German citizenship by virtue of certification issued in accordance with § 15 of the Federal Refugees Act."
So it sounds like they could come here immediately as soon as Germany admits them.
Is there anyone with better knowledge of this that can tell me if I've got that right?
To me that reads only as those who are of German origin - not all refugees. IE Germans who got displaced by the USSR and ended up in Poland etc are still Germans.
That would not apply to Syrians or other refugees.
I don't think that's right. It's listing three different categories.
- Refugees - Ethnic German resettlers - Exiled persons of German origin
You seem to be reading the "of German origin" clause as referring to all three categories, but I don't think that's right. The fact it adds the description "ethnic German" to the middle category suggests the "of German origin" is only referring to the last group. In addition, the act was passed in 1999, where there were no ethnic German refugees, so it wouldn't make sense.
Wouldn't that still apply in 1999 to Germans in places like Danzig/Gdansk?
Germany's borders have been very flexible after world wars.
Also there has been a very recent high profile example of Frau Merkel sending refugees home?
JEO if you search for German Federal Refugees Act I can't find any reference to an act of that exact name. The top article is a Wiki one for the Federal Expellee Law which clearly refers to people of German Origin though it was passed in 1953: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Expellee_Law
Your Saxon article is there but I can't find anything that clearly says that non-Germanic refugees get automatic citizenship, quite the opposite.
The quota of migrants, if we were to take one, would inevitably be put in with the poorest in our existing society. The existing poor would then find themselves competing for jobs with the new influx, finding their already miserable living conditions worsened by the arrival of a large group of people from the third world, complain about it, get called racist, get frustrated etc etc
If we must take our fair share, then let's house them in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, Devon, the posh parts of Scotland, or allocate two dozen migrants for each quaint country village where the schools and standard of living are already higher quality than the over crowded city ghettos. Places where there are no immigrants now. A progressive immigrant housing policy is the only way to ease the burden on the already struggling working class, who suffer the effects of immigration and then are chastised for mentioning it by those who profit from it without living with the downside
Mr. Jessop, right decision. How long will your wound take to heal?
Another couple of weeks at least. The problem is that I can just about deal with him - I've managed for two or three weeks now - but it is painful and hindering the healing. If it had been an immobilising fracture I wouldn't even have tried.
We could only get him in for three days a week, so we're having to do other things for the other two days.
Thankfully we have enough savings and income to pay for it (it is not cheap). It'd be a different story if we did not, and our families were as far away as they are.
On another note, expect for there to be more calls for closed cockpits in F1 after Justin Wilson's sad death.
I think its listing three different categories for people of German origin. The of German origin applies to all of them. I think its primarily a translation issue.
That's a good point. I had assumed correct English was being used, but it could easily be a translation issue.
In that case, you get naturalisation in Germany after living there for eight years. So they'll likely be able to start coming here in 2022, given they first started arriving in big numbers last year. Most would probably stay in Germany at that point, but I'd guess something like ~10% could start coming here if they found Germany less multicultural than here.
Sweden is a lot shorter. You can apply for citizenship after just four years. So we should probably start seeing them arrive in the UK in 2018.
How do they know they are all genuine asylum seekers? Some might be Assad thugs; some might be IS thugs. If Germany is not going to apply the terms of the Refugee Convention, why should Britain abide by it? Indeed why should Britain abide by the EU's free movement laws if Germany is not going to comply with the rules?
Brutal as it sounds Europe cannot and should not accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East. All that will happen is that the murderous mess - the politics, the war, the violence - of the Middle East will move to Europe.
The refugee convention enacts minimum requirements. Germany is quite entitled to let in anyone else who it likes, and give them passports. They are not breaking any European laws. But yes, we can question the wisdom of it, and you raise very good criticisms. We can also question whether we want to stay in the free movement of labour zone if such policies are being pursued by other member states.
You are quite right about the free movement of labour zone when we have mass economic immigration from outside the EU. But this will affect Norway as much as it affects us... and the Swiss too. Norway is in Schengen and we are not. An independent Scotland would be in Schengen! So what happens to these rules is important. But the EU may not even matter on a practical level. The reality is this issue of economic migration. And on the subject of what seems to be this German decision - they have of course kicked the principle of EU commonality in the teeth, so I do not see Camerons job made more difficult by it when viewed from the vantage point of all the other EU members.
AB thinks women leader would be great when the right candidate comes forward
What a loathsome man Burnham is.
He is the hero of all Conservatives. We pray he wins and not Corbyn. We get the best of both worlds, we get Burnham (yipee!) with the Corbyn millstone round his neck.
An even better outcome for the Conservatives would be the one somebody - forget who - suggested a few days ago. Corbyn wins, makes a mess, resigns and is replaced by Andy Burnham.
The only way that could be improved upon for the Tories is - well, actually, given that Burnham has also jumped the shark in the last 72 hours, slavering over Corbyn and now coming out as a chauvinist, it's hard to see how it could be improved upon!
How do they know they are all genuine asylum seekers? Some might be Assad thugs; some might be IS thugs. If Germany is not going to apply the terms of the Refugee Convention, why should Britain abide by it? Indeed why should Britain abide by the EU's free movement laws if Germany is not going to comply with the rules?
Brutal as it sounds Europe cannot and should not accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East. All that will happen is that the murderous mess - the politics, the war, the violence - of the Middle East will move to Europe.
The refugee convention enacts minimum requirements. Germany is quite entitled to let in anyone else who it likes, and give them passports. They are not breaking any European laws. But yes, we can question the wisdom of it, and you raise very good criticisms. We can also question whether we want to stay in the free movement of labour zone if such policies are being pursued by other member states.
You are quite right about the free movement of labour zone when we have mass economic immigration from outside the EU. But this will affect Norway as much as it affects us... and the Swiss too. Norway is in Schengen and we are not. An independent Scotland would be in Schengen! So what happens to these rules is important. But the EU may not even matter on a practical level. The reality is this issue of economic migration. And on the subject of what seems to be this German decision - they have of course kicked the principle of EU commonality in the teeth, so I do not see Camerons job made more difficult by it when viewed from the vantage point of all the other EU members.
The difference is that immigrants widely see the UK as a far more desirable place to come to than Norway, as we are far more multiracial, multicultural and English-speaking.
That means it will affect us more than it will affect Norway. The Swiss are currently limiting immigration into Switzerland in contravention of EU treaties.
The quota of migrants, if we were to take one, would inevitably be put in with the poorest in our existing society. The existing poor would then find themselves competing for jobs with the new influx, finding their already miserable living conditions worsened by the arrival of a large group of people from the third world, complain about it, get called racist, get frustrated etc etc
If we must take our fair share, then let's house them in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, Devon, the posh parts of Scotland, or allocate two dozen migrants for each quaint country village where the schools and standard of living are already higher quality than the over crowded city ghettos. Places where there are no immigrants now. A progressive immigrant housing policy is the only way to ease the burden on the already struggling working class, who suffer the effects of immigration and then are chastised for mentioning it by those who profit from it without living with the downside
The quota of migrants, if we were to take one, would inevitably be put in with the poorest in our existing society. The existing poor would then find themselves competing for jobs with the new influx, finding their already miserable living conditions worsened by the arrival of a large group of people from the third world, complain about it, get called racist, get frustrated etc etc
If we must take our fair share, then let's house them in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, Devon, the posh parts of Scotland, or allocate two dozen migrants for each quaint country village where the schools and standard of living are already higher quality than the over crowded city ghettos. Places where there are no immigrants now. A progressive immigrant housing policy is the only way to ease the burden on the already struggling working class, who suffer the effects of immigration and then are chastised for mentioning it by those who profit from it without living with the downside
This is completely unpopular but the so-called poor in this country don't know the meaning of the word "miserable living conditions" compared to most of the globe including these migrants.
The quota of migrants, if we were to take one, would inevitably be put in with the poorest in our existing society. The existing poor would then find themselves competing for jobs with the new influx, finding their already miserable living conditions worsened by the arrival of a large group of people from the third world, complain about it, get called racist, get frustrated etc etc
If we must take our fair share, then let's house them in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, Devon, the posh parts of Scotland, or allocate two dozen migrants for each quaint country village where the schools and standard of living are already higher quality than the over crowded city ghettos. Places where there are no immigrants now. A progressive immigrant housing policy is the only way to ease the burden on the already struggling working class, who suffer the effects of immigration and then are chastised for mentioning it by those who profit from it without living with the downside
All that will happen is that the murderous mess - the politics, the war, the violence - of the Middle East will move to Europe.
Haven't IS stated that they would flood Europe with refugees? Looks as if what you suggest is part of their plan.
Yes, we have Cameron bombing Libya to open up the dam, then guardianistas demanding we take in the flood of migrants despite the state that beheads Christians for breakfast telling us they will be infiltrating that swarm...
Farage has been pointing this out all year, probably why the virtue signallers are demanding we let everyone in and vote to stay in the EU
I think its listing three different categories for people of German origin. The of German origin applies to all of them. I think its primarily a translation issue.
That's a good point. I had assumed correct English was being used, but it could easily be a translation issue.
In that case, you get naturalisation in Germany after living there for eight years. So they'll likely be able to start coming here in 2022, given they first started arriving in big numbers last year. Most would probably stay in Germany at that point, but I'd guess something like ~10% could start coming here if they found Germany less multicultural than here.
Sweden is a lot shorter. You can apply for citizenship after just four years. So we should probably start seeing them arrive in the UK in 2018.
That's assuming that after eight years of living in Germany that these migrants won't have settled down in Germany, learnt to speak German, got a house, jobs, friends and family in Germany etc - the desire to uproot and move countries once you've settled down in a first world developed nation for nearly a decade is going to be completely different to doing so coming from an impoverished war-torn African nation.
Plus after eight years living and working in Germany anyone who does come over is likely to be in a very different situation to being a migrant direct from Africa.
The quota of migrants, if we were to take one, would inevitably be put in with the poorest in our existing society. The existing poor would then find themselves competing for jobs with the new influx, finding their already miserable living conditions worsened by the arrival of a large group of people from the third world, complain about it, get called racist, get frustrated etc etc
If we must take our fair share, then let's house them in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, Devon, the posh parts of Scotland, or allocate two dozen migrants for each quaint country village where the schools and standard of living are already higher quality than the over crowded city ghettos. Places where there are no immigrants now. A progressive immigrant housing policy is the only way to ease the burden on the already struggling working class, who suffer the effects of immigration and then are chastised for mentioning it by those who profit from it without living with the downside
This is completely unpopular but the so-called poor in this country don't know the meaning of the word "miserable living conditions" compared to most of the globe including these migrants.
Why make the poorest in societies plight worse? Spread the burden
Mr. Flightpath, Germany has the whip hand over the eurozone and is now trying to dictate the migrant response too.
My leg's been bad for thirty years. It's my elbow that's of more immediate concern.
It's all open-cockpit racing though. When closed-cockpits were first mentioned after Massa's lucky escape, the sad death of Henry Surtees in an F2 race was widely discussed. I'm against closed cockpits, but this tragedy will get people considering it once again.
MattW --- ''eg Mr O has just abolished the very basic principle for landlords that business expenses get deducted from costs and the tax is applied to the profit, by taxing the expenses even if the business is lossmaking.''
Where has he done that? From what I read whereas before, 10% could be deducted for wear and tear... now that relief is limited to furnishings. In other words the actual costs not hypotherical ones. What other wear and tear could there be but carpets curtains and fittings? Other expenses are deductible.
On other matters I'm surprised at a Corbyn supporter believing in the principle of inheritance. Surely all inheritance should be taxed at 100%
I think its listing three different categories for people of German origin. The of German origin applies to all of them. I think its primarily a translation issue.
That's a good point. I had assumed correct English was being used, but it could easily be a translation issue.
In that case, you get naturalisation in Germany after living there for eight years. So they'll likely be able to start coming here in 2022, given they first started arriving in big numbers last year. Most would probably stay in Germany at that point, but I'd guess something like ~10% could start coming here if they found Germany less multicultural than here.
Sweden is a lot shorter. You can apply for citizenship after just four years. So we should probably start seeing them arrive in the UK in 2018.
That's assuming that after eight years of living in Germany that these migrants won't have settled down in Germany, learnt to speak German, got a house, jobs, friends and family in Germany etc - the desire to uproot and move countries once you've settled down in a first world developed nation for nearly a decade is going to be completely different to doing so coming from an impoverished war-torn African nation.
Plus after eight years living and working in Germany anyone who does come over is likely to be in a very different situation to being a migrant direct from Africa.
No, it's not assuming that at all. That's why I said only 10% would come here. If they could come here immediately, I would expect it to be a lot closer to 50%. We do have an existing example of the Somali population of the UK, which largely came to this country after claiming asylum in the Netherlands. They lived there for almost a decade, and then moved to the UK, so this isn't pure speculation. With Sweden, which has a much shorter four year time period, I suspect it will be more.
I think its listing three different categories for people of German origin. The of German origin applies to all of them. I think its primarily a translation issue.
That's a good point. I had assumed correct English was being used, but it could easily be a translation issue.
In that case, you get naturalisation in Germany after living there for eight years. So they'll likely be able to start coming here in 2022, given they first started arriving in big numbers last year. Most would probably stay in Germany at that point, but I'd guess something like ~10% could start coming here if they found Germany less multicultural than here.
Sweden is a lot shorter. You can apply for citizenship after just four years. So we should probably start seeing them arrive in the UK in 2018.
That's assuming that after eight years of living in Germany that these migrants won't have settled down in Germany, learnt to speak German, got a house, jobs, friends and family in Germany etc - the desire to uproot and move countries once you've settled down in a first world developed nation for nearly a decade is going to be completely different to doing so coming from an impoverished war-torn African nation.
Plus after eight years living and working in Germany anyone who does come over is likely to be in a very different situation to being a migrant direct from Africa.
Fair point but there is also a big chance they will be living in impoverished ghettos with other asylum seekers/immigrants rather than going to the Oktoberfest and efficiently wearing lederhosen
Bit like someone coming to London from Africa, spending 8 years at the Finsbury park mosque, tower hamlets or Bradford then saying "I is as english as a cup of tea! Inshallah Allah Akbar etc'"
The quota of migrants, if we were to take one, would inevitably be put in with the poorest in our existing society. The existing poor would then find themselves competing for jobs with the new influx, finding their already miserable living conditions worsened by the arrival of a large group of people from the third world, complain about it, get called racist, get frustrated etc etc
If we must take our fair share, then let's house them in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, Devon, the posh parts of Scotland, or allocate two dozen migrants for each quaint country village where the schools and standard of living are already higher quality than the over crowded city ghettos. Places where there are no immigrants now. A progressive immigrant housing policy is the only way to ease the burden on the already struggling working class, who suffer the effects of immigration and then are chastised for mentioning it by those who profit from it without living with the downside
This is completely unpopular but the so-called poor in this country don't know the meaning of the word "miserable living conditions" compared to most of the globe including these migrants.
Why make the poorest in societies plight worse? Spread the burden
Because Thompson and his out of touch lot couldn't give a sh*t,he doesn't live in the poor ghettos or society's of this country.
Was updating my own models today, plugged in a bunch of PSF data and other data. My estimate is for the deficit to fall to around £64bn this year, ~ £4bn lower than the OBR estimate.
I'm also building a new "resilience" model, but early signs are that the current economy has higher resilience to downturns and recessions than in 2008, so if China does go bang and bring the world economy down with it, then we shouldn't fare too badly. The government and businesses did a lot of work to protect themselves and the economy from the EMU crisis and that should carry through to the next crisis.
"Somalis are one of the biggest such groups, with an estimated 20,000 coming to the UK from the Netherlands alone. Studies show that between one third and a half of the entire Dutch Somali community has moved to the UK."
So our last example of a north European state accepting a large number of asylum seekers from the broader Muslim world, did indeed see them live there for a decade, and then 30-50% coming to the UK.
And Germany is less multicultural than the Netherlands, and has a shorter time requirement for how long they need to live there to come to the UK. It seems my estimation of 10% was highly conservative. It is likely to be 25% or higher of the Syrian refugee population into Germany and Sweden that will come here. That would be about 200,000 from this year's intake.
@ocheye it's not 'simplistic' it's obvious. The alex in your pocket meme was there right from the start, and it was potent because it was true. To be fair you had to add to it the utter pointlessness of the LDs. And of course in reverse it should have propped up the scottish labour vote since clearly an SNP vote was a wasted vote in that the very presence of the SNP ensured that labour lost and the SNP would exert no influence.
If you want 'simplistic' --- the SNP are being propped up by Labours loony toon anti nuclear fringe. Thats what drives their desire for independence. They see it as a way to undermine the western alliance. Thats why the lefty nutjobs are supporting Corbyn and I'm sure they will love him north of the border too.
You really don't get it, whatever you think "it" actually is
AS was no longer FM at the GE, Nippy Sweetie was, She was the one voters were afraid would be controlling PM Miliband by the short and curlies. She was the one being painted as the scarlet devil/temptress by the English Tory media.
The SNP are not just "being propped up by Labours loony toon anti nuclear fringe" although admittedly they are part. There are a heck of lot more ex-Tory voters in the North East and lowlands, ex-LibDems everywhere as well as centrist ex-Labour . The SNP are a very broad church whose religion is based on "Independence". At the moment, the Glasgow wing is in the ascendent, but the North East is where the money comes from, and that tap can be turned off.
And as for the SWP supporting Corbyn, the influence of them and many other ultra left supporters are as limited as the numbers of their total joint membership. As soon as they get more than three members they spit into 4 new parties.Mostly they can't even be bothered infiltrating local constituency parties - too much like hard work and extremely boring especially when they start talking about class warfare amongst themselves - every body else having left, resigned and quit.
Mind you, it is good scare tactics from those who have no other ways of denigrating Corbyn.
Pity, it seems that whenever it is tried now, it is seen for exactly what it is. Fake!
Apart from Nick the P and BJ for owls the agreed view on here is that Corbyn's election will be bad for Labour. the next question is what will happen to Labour's 2015 voters? First they should get back a whopping 1% to 2% from the Greens. In Scotland probably a wash as they will lose votes on competence and gain a similar number of socialists from the SNP. Of their 2015 voters i can see two camps that are likely to move. 1. The Progress voters who attract the headlines and just will not stomach the socialists. A few to the Conservatives, a few to the LDs but a lot may not vote at all. 2. The WWC voters. Some of these I guess will move a few % to the Conservatives but a larger % may go to UKIP because of immigration. Overall vote shares in the range of Con 40%, Lab 20%, UKIP 17% and LD 9%.
And that masks another big problem for Labour which occurred in May. the majority of any extra votes they get are going to be in the cities - where they don't need them; while the votes they lose will be in the Midlands marginals and some in the northern small towns - where they really do need them. The whole fiasco highlights the problem of parties analysing election results by talking almost exclusively to their existing members and supporters.
"Muslim immigration: the most radical change in European history By Ed West: August 24th, 2009
I know I go on about Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe a bit much, but it's only because I believe it's going to be one of the most influential political books of the next two decades. The benefits of mass immigration are the Emperor's New Clothes and Caldwell is the little boy who sees the truth, which is why I urge everyone to read it. A friend of mine, who was initially less sceptical than I was about immigration, said the book was so well-written and eye-opening it filled a void in his life that had been left by his finishing The Sopranos and The Wire.
You might not hear much about this book much in the next month, nor even in the next year, but it will affect your life in some way, and that of our country and continent.
Christopher Caldwell is a mild-mannered Financial Times journalist who over the past decade has covered continental Europe (France especially) and its relationship with Islam in particular.
That Caldwell is so mainstream, well-respected and analytical makes his conclusion all the more devastating – that the mass migration of Africans and Asians into Europe since the Second World War was an unprecedented, economically unnecessary and ill-thought-out plan that has had a profoundly negative impact on our way of life. Furthermore, he says, the mass importation of Muslims at a time when Europe has lost its own faith and Islam has developed a dangerous and powerful radicalism threatens the very freedom of Europe."
"A German citizen is someone who holds German citizenship, i.e. someone who has acquired it and not lost it.
Refugees, ethnic German resettlers or exiled persons of German origin and their families who have been admitted into Germany (Statusdeutsche, or Germans by status but not citizenship) are also German. Since 1 August 1999, they have legally been acquiring German citizenship by virtue of certification issued in accordance with § 15 of the Federal Refugees Act."
So it sounds like they could come here immediately as soon as Germany admits them.
Is there anyone with better knowledge of this that can tell me if I've got that right?
To me that reads only as those who are of German origin - not all refugees. IE Germans who got displaced by the USSR and ended up in Poland etc are still Germans.
That would not apply to Syrians or other refugees.
I don't think that's right. It's listing three different categories.
- Refugees - Ethnic German resettlers - Exiled persons of German origin
You seem to be reading the "of German origin" clause as referring to all three categories, but I don't think that's right. The fact it adds the description "ethnic German" to the middle category suggests the "of German origin" is only referring to the last group. In addition, the act was passed in 1999, where there were no ethnic German refugees, so it wouldn't make sense.
Wouldn't that still apply in 1999 to Germans in places like Danzig/Gdansk?
Germany's borders have been very flexible after world wars.
Also there has been a very recent high profile example of Frau Merkel sending refugees home?
Nail on the head. Also looking further east to the ethnic Germans invited by various Tsars to Russia. It's basically a sweeper now, very few left whether in East Prussia, Silesia or Volga region.
Err, it's not the case that in Germany immigrants get citizenship after 8 years of residence. It is the case that 8 years of residence is the minimum time which allows an immigrant to apply for citizenship:
Interestingly, iSam's approach to housing refugees was tried in the Netherlands and was one of the things that caused Somalis to move to the UK, where they could live in Somali communities:
"From 1989 to 1998, the Netherlands was the second-most common European destination for Somali asylum-seekers, only slightly behind the United Kingdom and more than double the total of the next-most common destination, Denmark.[3] However, between 2000 and 2005, there was a significant outflow of Somalis from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, unofficially estimated to be as large as 20,000 people.[4] Factors mentioned as driving forces behind the exodus included... Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community."
It reminds me of the mother of the Charlie Hebdo murderers, who had moved from France to the UK for a "more Islamic environment".
Britain will take in more net migration as it has done almost every year since the war, and it will continue to do fine, as one of the best countries in the world, a country in which people want to bring children into the world, while anti-immigrant countries like Japan die out.
Interesting that German citizenship requires "you are committed to the free democratic constitutional order of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany".
Comments
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/will-corbyn-surge-spell-end-tessa-jowell
Rather an optimistic last paragraph though: So London's voters won't decide it then? There is no risk they might possibly not vote for one of these three?
Jezza says Tony Blair talks to Hamas. He would talk to both even though both have views with which he strongly disagrees.
Liz, Andy, Yvette wouldn't apologise for Iraq Jezza would.
The good ones are professionals doing a professional job. For example, one I use turns away landlords and properties that don't meet the required "Comfort Standard", which (for student houses) includes:
37" Flat screen TV (preferably wall mounted)
TV licence included as part of the rent
Spacious rooms (~10sqm+) - All designed to have double beds and large desks
Tall fridge and separate tall freezer (or combination)
A designated eating area. In some cases that will be a dining area with table and chairs, or for others a good sized breakfast bar with stools.
Either double or 3/4 beds in all bedrooms. If the room cannot fit a 3/4 bed in, we don't think it's big enough to be a bedroom!
Hating on agents too much will backfire, as Scotland discovered. They banned agency fees so rents had to go up instead, and competition pressure was removed. So no pressure to reduce fees, as they are not allowed to tell anyone what the hidden fees are.
May need to agree to differ, methinks.
The only way that could be improved upon for the Tories is - well, actually, given that Burnham has also jumped the shark in the last 72 hours, slavering over Corbyn and now coming out as a chauvinist, it's hard to see how it could be improved upon!
Mmm hmm. Motes and beams, Mascara Man.
Not sure if it has 1 p or 2 but i think it refers to his ability to drink significant amounts of alcohol without falling over
I'm having extraordinary difficulty in getting the solicitor to give me a secured sitting tenancy agreement - she keeps emailing to say it's not in our interest, it's most unusual, nobody does this nowadays, won't I think again? I say "No, get on with it!" and she is still dragging her heels - 6 weeks have passed since my original request. Is there an online site where I can just download such an agreement? Even the Shelter website seems to assume that any current agreement will be an unsecured shorthold.
To the best of my knowledge, Protected Tenancies no longer exist. Most of the tenants who had one, will likely have expired too. In a previous life, I worked for a business who specialised in managing estates containing such individuals, who were encouraged to move on so that the properties could be redeveloped. Many benefited extremely well financially.
You need to find a new solicitor, and be prepared to spend some money getting what you want.
Off topic: I'm wondering how the civilised world can give proper recognition to the great Khalad al-Asaad.
Corbyn answer worries me about the guy but if you want mass immigration,the guy answered it pretty well,he came out fighting for it.
Burnham went on labour vote that went to Ukip and cooper on we should be doing more on asylum
Burnham's an oaf.
Except it contains no policies Jezza has espoused.
However, at the same time, I probably wouldn't have much respect for these countries as soft-touches who indiscriminately let everyone in out of guilt.
I know some will consider this 'sexist', but it's the best contemporary analogy I can come up with: it's a bit like a not-unattractive girl with very low self-esteem who everyone knows is available and will sleep with anyone who makes the effort, and says the right things.
Yes, you might probably want to as well if you haven't had it in months, and the alternative is celibacy, but that doesn't mean you'll enter a loving relationship with her.
it's not 'simplistic' it's obvious.
The alex in your pocket meme was there right from the start, and it was potent because it was true. To be fair you had to add to it the utter pointlessness of the LDs.
And of course in reverse it should have propped up the scottish labour vote since clearly an SNP vote was a wasted vote in that the very presence of the SNP ensured that labour lost and the SNP would exert no influence.
If you want 'simplistic' --- the SNP are being propped up by Labours loony toon anti nuclear fringe. Thats what drives their desire for independence. They see it as a way to undermine the western alliance. Thats why the lefty nutjobs are supporting Corbyn and I'm sure they will love him north of the border too.
Japanese small caps, hedged european equity and UK special situations
He is very strange isn't he.
Labour MPs clearly had a better idea, and the older ones were well aware of Militant. It just gets more and more WTF Were You Thinking?
For anyone interested, there's a few quids worth to be had at 90.
Temple's re-release and Treasure's release has been pushed back slightly, to around March.
On the plus side, the third book [not even submitted yet, mind] is very nearly done.
1.4+ is brown trouser time for me.
Corbyn. I could see the attraction. Without doubt the most persuasive. Avuncular non preachy said all the things Guardianistas like hearing and if it wasn't for his history and the certain knowledge that he has some unattractive backers I'd certainly go for him.
Kendall was the surprise. The most impressive of the non Corbyn's. She sounded sincere and even original. She had a little bit of early Blair about her. One to watch.
Cooper's sincerity didn't convince me. Up till now she was my choice and she does seem very nice. She'd probably make the best Prime Minister but just nothing that raised her above the crowd. I'm sure labour need something more striking.
Burnham is too lightweight to even consider and his answer to the immigration question was a complete fail as far as I was concerned
http://www.sachsen.de/en/1444.htm
"A German citizen is someone who holds German citizenship, i.e. someone who has acquired it and not lost it.
Refugees, ethnic German resettlers or exiled persons of German origin and their families who have been admitted into Germany (Statusdeutsche, or Germans by status but not citizenship) are also German. Since 1 August 1999, they have legally been acquiring German citizenship by virtue of certification issued in accordance with § 15 of the Federal Refugees Act."
So it sounds like they could come here immediately as soon as Germany admits them.
Is there anyone with better knowledge of this that can tell me if I've got that right?
I'm feeling a little sad. After fourteen months of looking after the little 'un, with only one day off (to see Kate Bush), I've just dropped him off at a nursery for his first half-day.
It's not something we wanted to do this early, but the doctor says I won't heal if I'm having to look after him. So off he's gone, and I'm already missing him.
On the other hand, in three hours I'll be seeing him again. Yay!
That ComRes poll is a bit of a stinker for the ABCs – and yet a lot of people are pinning their hopes on Jeremy Corbyn standing down before 2020 to be replaced with one of them...
Good luck with that one, you'd need a heart of stone no laugh really.
Brutal as it sounds Europe cannot and should not accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East. All that will happen is that the murderous mess - the politics, the war, the violence - of the Middle East will move to Europe.
But they may be forced to pick.
That would not apply to Syrians or other refugees.
Mr. kle4, well, quite. Microtransactions are the work of Satan, and Hayter's replacement baffles me. The game is reportedly excellent, but I won't be getting it.
I think the problem may be that by going for a Secure Tenancy you will remove flexibility in the future should the landscape change.
It will probably halve the value, but you know that. Are there any CGT or Stamp Duty implications for you?
eg Mr O has just abolished the very basic principle for landlords that business expenses get deducted from costs and the tax is applied to the profit, by taxing the expenses even if the business is lossmaking.
He could do something that undermines your new arrangement, and your friend would not be in a position to change it - which means that to maintain the property properly your friend could be subsidising it.
One option is to consider is a normal tenancy with a long fixed term (eg 3 or 5 years), which will give some stability and some flexibility. But that doesn't protect the tenant if your friend goes bankrupt, in extremis.
For advice, you could perhaps do worse than talk to Tessa Shepperton at Landlordlaw Blog:
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/, who is very well established in the field and has an excellent reputation and an online advice service.
- Refugees
- Ethnic German resettlers
- Exiled persons of German origin
You seem to be reading the "of German origin" clause as referring to all three categories, but I don't think that's right. The fact it adds the description "ethnic German" to the middle category suggests the "of German origin" is only referring to the last group. In addition, the act was passed in 1999, where there were no ethnic German refugees, so it wouldn't make sense.
I can't find any other reference to refugees getting automatic citizenship. This link says that those who are successfully granted asylum in Germany get a "temporary residence permit" not automatic citzenship: http://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/Topics/Migration-Integration/Asylum-Refugee-Protection/Asylum-Refugee-Protection_Germany/asylum-refugee-policy-germany_node.html
Maybe. Maybe not.
However if you look at any estate type development post war than overwhelmingly they have zero architectural input. 'little boxes little boxes' all the same. Endless rows of trussed raftered shallow roofed concrete tiled boring windowed bland semis with a bit of garden and a garage thats too small for a car. Everywhere.
'Executive' styled houses were a bit better and perhaps detached. And if the location location location were a bit more suitable you may get a bit of grand design.
I suggest this has less to do with land cost and more to do with a total lack of ambition and taste from the buying public.
That it's easy for London MP's (Corbyn) to sound magnanamous but the problem with immigrants to working class Northeners is very real
If Corbyn wins UKIP could do well in the north based almost entirely on immigration.
Germany's borders have been very flexible after world wars.
Also there has been a very recent high profile example of Frau Merkel sending refugees home?
Your Saxon article is there but I can't find anything that clearly says that non-Germanic refugees get automatic citizenship, quite the opposite.
If we must take our fair share, then let's house them in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, Devon, the posh parts of Scotland, or allocate two dozen migrants for each quaint country village where the schools and standard of living are already higher quality than the over crowded city ghettos. Places where there are no immigrants now. A progressive immigrant housing policy is the only way to ease the burden on the already struggling working class, who suffer the effects of immigration and then are chastised for mentioning it by those who profit from it without living with the downside
We could only get him in for three days a week, so we're having to do other things for the other two days.
Thankfully we have enough savings and income to pay for it (it is not cheap). It'd be a different story if we did not, and our families were as far away as they are.
On another note, expect for there to be more calls for closed cockpits in F1 after Justin Wilson's sad death.
@corbynjokes: Just deleted my German friend from my phone.
It's unforgivable how they've treated Greece.
In that case, you get naturalisation in Germany after living there for eight years. So they'll likely be able to start coming here in 2022, given they first started arriving in big numbers last year. Most would probably stay in Germany at that point, but I'd guess something like ~10% could start coming here if they found Germany less multicultural than here.
Sweden is a lot shorter. You can apply for citizenship after just four years. So we should probably start seeing them arrive in the UK in 2018.
So what happens to these rules is important. But the EU may not even matter on a practical level. The reality is this issue of economic migration.
And on the subject of what seems to be this German decision - they have of course kicked the principle of EU commonality in the teeth, so I do not see Camerons job made more difficult by it when viewed from the vantage point of all the other EU members.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-million-adults-worldwide-migrate.aspx
That means it will affect us more than it will affect Norway. The Swiss are currently limiting immigration into Switzerland in contravention of EU treaties.
Hope your leg mends soon.
Mr. Flightpath, Germany has the whip hand over the eurozone and is now trying to dictate the migrant response too.
Farage has been pointing this out all year, probably why the virtue signallers are demanding we let everyone in and vote to stay in the EU
Plus after eight years living and working in Germany anyone who does come over is likely to be in a very different situation to being a migrant direct from Africa.
It's all open-cockpit racing though. When closed-cockpits were first mentioned after Massa's lucky escape, the sad death of Henry Surtees in an F2 race was widely discussed. I'm against closed cockpits, but this tragedy will get people considering it once again.
Where has he done that?
From what I read whereas before, 10% could be deducted for wear and tear... now that relief is limited to furnishings. In other words the actual costs not hypotherical ones. What other wear and tear could there be but carpets curtains and fittings?
Other expenses are deductible.
On other matters I'm surprised at a Corbyn supporter believing in the principle of inheritance. Surely all inheritance should be taxed at 100%
Bit like someone coming to London from Africa, spending 8 years at the Finsbury park mosque, tower hamlets or Bradford then saying "I is as english as a cup of tea! Inshallah Allah Akbar etc'"
I'm also building a new "resilience" model, but early signs are that the current economy has higher resilience to downturns and recessions than in 2008, so if China does go bang and bring the world economy down with it, then we shouldn't fare too badly. The government and businesses did a lot of work to protect themselves and the economy from the EMU crisis and that should carry through to the next crisis.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/28/british-dream-europe-african-citizens
You have to have been in the Netherlands 10 years to get naturalisation:
http://www.expatica.com/nl/visas-and-permits/citizenship/How-to-get-Dutch-citizenship_107817.html
So our last example of a north European state accepting a large number of asylum seekers from the broader Muslim world, did indeed see them live there for a decade, and then 30-50% coming to the UK.
And Germany is less multicultural than the Netherlands, and has a shorter time requirement for how long they need to live there to come to the UK. It seems my estimation of 10% was highly conservative. It is likely to be 25% or higher of the Syrian refugee population into Germany and Sweden that will come here. That would be about 200,000 from this year's intake.
AS was no longer FM at the GE, Nippy Sweetie was, She was the one voters were afraid would be controlling PM Miliband by the short and curlies. She was the one being painted as the scarlet devil/temptress by the English Tory media.
The SNP are not just "being propped up by Labours loony toon anti nuclear fringe" although admittedly they are part. There are a heck of lot more ex-Tory voters in the North East and lowlands, ex-LibDems everywhere as well as centrist ex-Labour . The SNP are a very broad church whose religion is based on "Independence". At the moment, the Glasgow wing is in the ascendent, but the North East is where the money comes from, and that tap can be turned off.
And as for the SWP supporting Corbyn, the influence of them and many other ultra left supporters are as limited as the numbers of their total joint membership. As soon as they get more than three members they spit into 4 new parties.Mostly they can't even be bothered infiltrating local constituency parties - too much like hard work and extremely boring especially when they start talking about class warfare amongst themselves - every body else having left, resigned and quit.
Mind you, it is good scare tactics from those who have no other ways of denigrating Corbyn.
Pity, it seems that whenever it is tried now, it is seen for exactly what it is. Fake!
"Muslim immigration: the most radical change in European history
By Ed West: August 24th, 2009
I know I go on about Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe a bit much, but it's only because I believe it's going to be one of the most influential political books of the next two decades. The benefits of mass immigration are the Emperor's New Clothes and Caldwell is the little boy who sees the truth, which is why I urge everyone to read it. A friend of mine, who was initially less sceptical than I was about immigration, said the book was so well-written and eye-opening it filled a void in his life that had been left by his finishing The Sopranos and The Wire.
You might not hear much about this book much in the next month, nor even in the next year, but it will affect your life in some way, and that of our country and continent.
Christopher Caldwell is a mild-mannered Financial Times journalist who over the past decade has covered continental Europe (France especially) and its relationship with Islam in particular.
That Caldwell is so mainstream, well-respected and analytical makes his conclusion all the more devastating – that the mass migration of Africans and Asians into Europe since the Second World War was an unprecedented, economically unnecessary and ill-thought-out plan that has had a profoundly negative impact on our way of life.
Furthermore, he says, the mass importation of Muslims at a time when Europe has lost its own faith and Islam has developed a dangerous and powerful radicalism threatens the very freedom of Europe."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100007334/muslim-immigration-the-most-radical-change-in-european-history/
"Balfour Beatty exits UK’s northern hub railway electrification project"
http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsbalfour-beatty-exits-uks-northern-hub-railway-electrification-project-4653990
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-33997472
http://www.bamf.de/EN/Einbuergerung/InDeutschland/indeutschland-node.html
In practice it's quite hard to get German citizenship, which is why so few of the 1.5 million or so Turkish citizens living in Germany have done so.
"From 1989 to 1998, the Netherlands was the second-most common European destination for Somali asylum-seekers, only slightly behind the United Kingdom and more than double the total of the next-most common destination, Denmark.[3] However, between 2000 and 2005, there was a significant outflow of Somalis from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, unofficially estimated to be as large as 20,000 people.[4] Factors mentioned as driving forces behind the exodus included... Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community."
It reminds me of the mother of the Charlie Hebdo murderers, who had moved from France to the UK for a "more Islamic environment".
Do we have anything similar here?