Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage
To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
The worker.
Under tax credits the worker has a marginal tax rate of 80% which is a cap on income. Under the living wage the worker has a marginal tax rate of 32% which is so much better for them.
Only once they have reached the "excess income" threshold..it's still 80% till then.
Which is the idea of the Living Wage changes. The ideal is to get more people who are working full time off the need of claiming tax credits at all - which means they then keep 32% of their wages and not 80%.
This is quite clearly first and foremost to the benefit of the worker who gets to keep 68% of their marginal income rather than 20%
Thre is a clear explanation and some worked examples here:
Yes and the notion that two people working full time should be on benefits currently is clearly absurd. As they are now off tax credits in that scenario their marginal tax rate is dropping down to just 32% giving them a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of any opportunity to boost their income.
Whereas currently people are taxed by the existing tax credit system so much that they'll turn down an opportunity to boost their income. That is an absurd situation which is why it is great it is being transformed for the better.
Two people working full time on minimum wage should be paying a 32% tax rate not a tax rate in the 70s to 80s%
Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage
To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
There is very little limit to which a minimum wage can be pushed. It has no visible effect on the economy, although ideally there is probably a reasonable argument for trades agreements (as in Australia or Denmark) than a universal minimum wage. But even there, the general wage rate dictates the minimum wage for all sectors and in all instances it is artificial and not market led.
People have said the national minimum wage has had no effect on the economy, but what exactly would be the mechanism for discerning whether it had if it had? So far as I can see, when something closes here and relocates to a foreign country, that's surely due to a higher cost base here. Just because the company doesn't issue a statement, or perhaps even think, that the minimum wage is a factor, I'm not sure that means it isn't one.
If you look at countries with similar GDP/head, then there is a correlation between:
Minimum Wage + Social Contributions
and
The Level of Employment
Labour is a commodity like any other, and demand for it is price elastic. If the minimum price for a worker is greater than the economic output they create, then they will not be employed.
[EDIT: disclaimer to add, this analysis doesn't work for politicians. They seem to get paid despite creating negative economic value.]
Sample size of "countries with similar GDP/head,"?
According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing.
The same edition of Briefing, for December 1984, carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.”
Bit difficult to see how Corbyn and McDonnell can credibly explain this one away.
They have not been able to credibly explain anything away so far.
You should see how his supporters are spinning it on Twitter.
Are they virtually spitting in the face of anyone who posts a link to it?
London Labour Briefing evolved into Labour Left Briefing and is now Labour Briefing. I subscribed a decade or so ago (but not in 1984). It was an interesting read and fairly moderate in most things.
It's a very complicated area. Yes, there is a practical limit but it is completely unrelated to the current arguments in the UK over whether it should be £7.50 or £9.
The reality of minimum wages is that paying a McDonalds employee £15 an hour (as happens in Denmark) only adds about 20p to the cost of a Big Mac, the majority of costs are swallowed outside of the consumer price.
The very real factor that any service industry that requires people, on site, cannot cut back when minimum wage increases. Any customer facing service industry is almost immune to job losses. Of course there are industries where external economic factors play an impact hence why trades agreements might be a better idea. But it's almost into the realm of semantics. In the UK a £15 minimum wage would have no detrimental impact outside of a very small amount of transitory unemployment.
And of course the knock on effect of a very high minimum wage is that price differential means ALL wages are increased. This could, of course be inflationary. But fortunately we live in a Globalised World where an individual national government does not have much control over inflation.
How are the costs covered, if not by the consumer?
Also, I don't think customer-facing industries are immune from job losses. Those businesses can go bust, and there is no law saying another similar business has to come in to replace it.
Costs get spread. Some comes from an increase in consumer price (but as we can see around the world, it is small), some comes from an reduction in profit at all levels, some comes from a significant reduction in rent (as this is the most volative part of cost structure). Rent reductions really scare tories no matter what positive impact they can have on the economy. Rents are likely to be the biggest loser from minimum wages because it is outside the realm of productivity.
Businesses don't generally go bust, it can be sector dependent (again why I say there is an argument for trades agreements rather than a universal minimum wage) but in most of the economy they don't unless there is criminality (again a problem for Tories). If every cleaning company has just doubled its wage bill, you have no competitive disadvantage.
Sorry, how does increasing minimum wage decrease rent costs for businesses?
Through the mechanism of profit.
You can't cut inputs - you are in a global market. You can't cut labour - you are labour controlled. All that can be cut is Rent. So a new balance is found between Rent and Profit, instead of the current UK situation of a balance between Wages and Profit.
Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage
To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
The worker.
Under tax credits the worker has a marginal tax rate of 80% which is a cap on income. Under the living wage the worker has a marginal tax rate of 32% which is so much better for them.
Only once they have reached the "excess income" threshold..it's still 80% till then.
Which is the idea of the Living Wage changes. The ideal is to get more people who are working full time off the need of claiming tax credits at all - which means they then keep 32% of their wages and not 80%.
This is quite clearly first and foremost to the benefit of the worker who gets to keep 68% of their marginal income rather than 20%
Thre is a clear explanation and some worked examples here:
Yes and the notion that two people working full time should be on benefits currently is clearly absurd. As they are now off tax credits in that scenario their marginal tax rate is dropping down to just 32% giving them a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of any opportunity to boost their income.
Whereas currently people are taxed by the existing tax credit system so much that they'll turn down an opportunity to boost their income. That is an absurd situation which is why it is great it is being transformed for the better.
Two people working full time on minimum wage should be paying a 32% tax rate not a tax rate in the 70s to 80s%
How about one person working full time on minimum wage? Why penalise them with a 80% marginal tax rate. They are poorer.
According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing.
The same edition of Briefing, for December 1984, carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.”
Bit difficult to see how Corbyn and McDonnell can credibly explain this one away.
They have not been able to credibly explain anything away so far.
It is completely astonishing to me that Corbyn leads the Labour Party, given some of his views he really shouldn't even be a member of a supposedly mainstream democratic political party. Blair got too up himself, Brown was never suitable for the job, Miliband was hopeless, but they weren't scum like Corbyn and McDonnell.
It's a very complicated area. Yes, there is a practical limit but it is completely unrelated to the current arguments in the UK over whether it should be £7.50 or £9.
The reality of minimum wages is that paying a McDonalds employee £15 an hour (as happens in Denmark) only adds about 20p to the cost of a Big Mac, the majority of costs are swallowed outside of the consumer price.
The very real factor that any service industry that requires people, on site, cannot cut back when minimum wage increases. Any customer facing service industry is almost immune to job losses. Of course there are industries where external economic factors play an impact hence why trades agreements might be a better idea. But it's almost into the realm of semantics. In the UK a £15 minimum wage would have no detrimental impact outside of a very small amount of transitory unemployment.
And of course the knock on effect of a very high minimum wage is that price differential means ALL wages are increased. This could, of course be inflationary. But fortunately we live in a Globalised World where an individual national government does not have much control over inflation.
How are the costs covered, if not by the consumer?
Also, I don't think customer-facing industries are immune from job losses. Those businesses can go bust, and there is no law saying another similar business has to come in to replace it.
Costs get spread. Some comes from an increase in consumer price (but as we can see around the world, it is small), some comes from an reduction in profit at all levels, some comes from a significant reduction in rent (as this is the most volative part of cost structure). Rent reductions really scare tories no matter what positive impact they can have on the economy. Rents are likely to be the biggest loser from minimum wages because it is outside the realm of productivity.
Businesses don't generally go bust, it can be sector dependent (again why I say there is an argument for trades agreements rather than a universal minimum wage) but in most of the economy they don't unless there is criminality (again a problem for Tories). If every cleaning company has just doubled its wage bill, you have no competitive disadvantage.
Sorry, how does increasing minimum wage decrease rent costs for businesses?
Through the mechanism of profit.
You can't cut inputs - you are in a global market. You can't cut labour - you are labour controlled. All that can be cut is Rent. So a new balance is found between Rent and Profit, instead of the current UK situation of a balance between Wages and Profit.
Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage
To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
The worker.
Under tax credits the worker has a marginal tax rate of 80% which is a cap on income. Under the living wage the worker has a marginal tax rate of 32% which is so much better for them.
Is the Living Wage mandatory? Just asking.
It must be if you think about it. It will be taken into account when calculating any benefits and an employer will be in breach of the law if he does not pay it.
So the difference between that and the Minimum Wage is?
It's just renaming the minimum wage.
If you've heard the term living wage before it refers to a different thing calculated by a non government body.
To be fair the Low Pay Commission - which recommends the actual National Minimum Wage - is also independent of government
I assume the Low Pay Commission is now redundant as Osborne now determines the National Minimum Wage aka the National Living Wage.
The budget states that the Low Pay Commission will be in charge of setting the rate of the living wage.
So if they use the same criteria they will get the same answer. The new living wage will be the same as the old minimum wage? But Osborne announced a figure for the new living wage. I genuinely don't get it.
How about one person working full time on minimum wage? Why penalise them with a 80% marginal tax rate. They are poorer.
They're already being penalised with a ludicrously high tax rate, that was introduced by G Brown and is a cap on aspiration for them.
The key is to keep reforming the situation so that someone working full time does not need to be on an 80% tax rate. These reforms are a major step to do that, to get it easier to be lifted away from that cap.
You're criticising Osborne for a problem he's trying to fix.
Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage
To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
The worker.
Under tax credits the worker has a marginal tax rate of 80% which is a cap on income. Under the living wage the worker has a marginal tax rate of 32% which is so much better for them.
Is the Living Wage mandatory? Just asking.
It must be if you think about it. It will be taken into account when calculating any benefits and an employer will be in breach of the law if he does not pay it.
So the difference between that and the Minimum Wage is?
It's just renaming the minimum wage.
If you've heard the term living wage before it refers to a different thing calculated by a non government body.
To be fair the Low Pay Commission - which recommends the actual National Minimum Wage - is also independent of government
I assume the Low Pay Commission is now redundant as Osborne now determines the National Minimum Wage aka the National Living Wage.
The budget states that the Low Pay Commission will be in charge of setting the rate of the living wage.
So if they use the same criteria they will get the same answer. The new living wage will be the same as the old minimum wage? But Osborne announced a figure for the new living wage. I genuinely don't get it.
Obviously the criteria have changed. I think there is a view to getting it to a certain percentage of the median income by a certain date.
The budget states that the Low Pay Commission will be in charge of setting the rate of the living wage.
So if they use the same criteria they will get the same answer. The new living wage will be the same as the old minimum wage? But Osborne announced a figure for the new living wage. I genuinely don't get it.
I've already answered this above, the new rate is at a new age bracket. There is a significant difference in unemployment rates between the <25 age groups and >25 age groups. To increase minimum wage for 21-24 year olds would cause major unemployment (there is already a lot of unemployment in this group). But from 25+ the data is we're approaching full employment so there is room to move here.
Here's a question for you numb heads - what is the real purpose behind the living wage
To give cover to wean huge numbers of people off tax credits.
Almost...it's to pass on the burden of financing tax credits from the Government to the population as a whole
The benefit being to provoke a behavioural response on the part of the employer. That may mean increased unemployment but it should also drive productivity.
Think about who benefits from the policy? Is it the worker...the consumer...the Government...the employer?
There is very little limit to which a minimum wage can be pushed. It has no visible effect on the economy, although ideally there is probably a reasonable argument for trades agreements (as in Australia or Denmark) than a universal minimum wage. But even there, the general wage rate dictates the minimum wage for all sectors and in all instances it is artificial and not market led.
People have said the national minimum wage has had no effect on the economy, but what exactly would be the mechanism for discerning whether it had if it had? So far as I can see, when something closes here and relocates to a foreign country, that's surely due to a higher cost base here. Just because the company doesn't issue a statement, or perhaps even think, that the minimum wage is a factor, I'm not sure that means it isn't one.
If you look at countries with similar GDP/head, then there is a correlation between:
Minimum Wage + Social Contributions
and
The Level of Employment
Labour is a commodity like any other, and demand for it is price elastic. If the minimum price for a worker is greater than the economic output they create, then they will not be employed.
[EDIT: disclaimer to add, this analysis doesn't work for politicians. They seem to get paid despite creating negative economic value.]
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing.
The same edition of Briefing, for December 1984, carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.”
Bit difficult to see how Corbyn and McDonnell can credibly explain this one away.
They have not been able to credibly explain anything away so far.
It is completely astonishing to me that Corbyn leads the Labour Party, given some of his views he really shouldn't even be a member of a supposedly mainstream democratic political party. Can you imagine a General Election, with this sort of story being run every day?
As I recall it was Tony Benn's father who was made a Viscount, in the era before life peerages, in thanks for political services rendered. The Wedgewood-Benn's were not blue blooded aristocrats.
My favourite teenage politico has to have been Emily Benn.
I know young Ms Benn. She does do stuff other than politics and is a very nice and thoughtful person.
I'm sure she is and that she does.
That background most resembles a cross between the Milibands and Charlie Gilmour, though perhaps more sensible than the latter.
Massively connected / privileged, and many millions cascading down the generations.
Who were the last 3 members of the family who worked in normal jobs outside the political or public sectors?
I've always wondered about the transmogrification of the first Viscount Stansgate into Anthony Wedgwood-Benn, then Tony Wedgwood-Benn then Tony Benn. Did this voluntary travel down the escalator of class signify a growing realisation of the virtue of humility and a better understanding of the problems facing the hoi poloi?
Tony Benn was not the first Viscount Stansgate but the second. He succeeded his father in 1960. During his life he was (via Wiki) :
Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq. (1925 – 12 January 1942) The Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn (12 January 1942 – 30 November 1950) The Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, MP (30 November 1950 – 17 November 1960) The Rt Hon. the Viscount Stansgate (17 November 1960 – 31 July 1963) Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq. (31 July – 20 August 1963) Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Esq., MP (20 August 1963 – 1964) The Rt Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, MP (1964 – October 1973) The Rt Hon. Tony Benn, MP (October 1973 – 9 June 1983) The Rt Hon. Tony Benn (9 June 1983 – 1 March 1984) The Rt Hon. Tony Benn, MP (1 March 1984 – 7 June 2001) The Rt Hon. Tony Benn (7 June 2001 – 14 March 2014)
Benn's elder brother Michael would have inherited the title but died on active service during WWII. In 2014 Tony Benn's eldest son Stephen succeeded to the title as the third Viscount. His younger brother is former Labour cabinet minister Hilary.
The Benn's are also in remainder to the Benn baronetcy of The Old Knoll in Surrey.
Most blue bloodied aristocrats become so through patronage
According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing.
The same edition of Briefing, for December 1984, carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.”
Bit difficult to see how Corbyn and McDonnell can credibly explain this one away.
They have not been able to credibly explain anything away so far.
It is completely astonishing to me that Corbyn leads the Labour Party, given some of his views he really shouldn't even be a member of a supposedly mainstream democratic political party.
Can you imagine a General Election, with this sort of story being run every day?
My head says that sensible members of the Labour Party will get rid of Corbyn long before, but then again I would never have believed that Corbyn would succeed Miliband if someone had predicted it back in May.
It really is extraordinary what the Labour Party is doing.
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
So long as the minimum wages are comprised of a rational wage rate and are increased at a rational and incremental basis.
That's the best way to do it.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
It's a very complicated area. Yes, there is a practical limit but it is completely unrelated to the current arguments in the UK over whether it should be £7.50 or £9.
The reality of minimum wages is that paying a McDonalds employee £15 an hour (as happens in Denmark) only adds about 20p to the cost of a Big Mac, the majority of costs are swallowed outside of the consumer price.
The very real factor that any service industry that requires people, on site, cannot cut back when minimum wage increases. Any customer facing service industry is almost immune to job losses. Of course there are industries where external economic factors play an impact hence why trades agreements might be a better idea. But it's almost into the realm of semantics. In the UK a £15 minimum wage would have no detrimental impact outside of a very small amount of transitory unemployment.
And of course the knock on effect of a very high minimum wage is that price differential means ALL wages are increased. This could, of course be inflationary. But fortunately we live in a Globalised World where an individual national government does not have much control over inflation.
That 20p is just the direct additional cost for Macdonald's employment costs it doesn't include the additional costs that would be incurred by the manufacturer of the bun, the burger meat.... That simple figure just ignores cascade effects...
No, 20p is the price differential including all components of the chain. A Big Mac in Denmark is 20p more than in the UK. Fortunately for us, this measure is recorded
Looks like my info is out of date and the price differential is 8p these days. Salaries in Denmark are about 20% higher than in the UK while Big Macs are 3% higher.
Sounds like a good deal.
8p? Did you even try looking at the data table in that link you provided?
It's a very complicated area. Yes, there is a practical limit but it is completely unrelated to the current arguments in the UK over whether it should be £7.50 or £9.
The reality of minimum wages is that paying a McDonalds employee £15 an hour (as happens in Denmark) only adds about 20p to the cost of a Big Mac, the majority of costs are swallowed outside of the consumer price.
The very real factor that any service industry that requires people, on site, cannot cut back when minimum wage increases. Any customer facing service industry is almost immune to job losses. Of course there are industries where external economic factors play an impact hence why trades agreements might be a better idea. But it's almost into the realm of semantics. In the UK a £15 minimum wage would have no detrimental impact outside of a very small amount of transitory unemployment.
And of course the knock on effect of a very high minimum wage is that price differential means ALL wages are increased. This could, of course be inflationary. But fortunately we live in a Globalised World where an individual national government does not have much control over inflation.
That 20p is just the direct additional cost for Macdonald's employment costs it doesn't include the additional costs that would be incurred by the manufacturer of the bun, the burger meat.... That simple figure just ignores cascade effects...
No, 20p is the price differential including all components of the chain. A Big Mac in Denmark is 20p more than in the UK. Fortunately for us, this measure is recorded
Looks like my info is out of date and the price differential is 8p these days. Salaries in Denmark are about 20% higher than in the UK while Big Macs are 3% higher.
Sounds like a good deal.
So you are using purchase price parity as the basis of your theory. I think your typical economist would suggest that was an interesting methodology...
It's a very complicated area. Yes, there is a practical limit but it is completely unrelated to the current arguments in the UK over whether it should be £7.50 or £9.
The reality of minimum wages is that paying a McDonalds employee £15 an hour (as happens in Denmark) only adds about 20p to the cost of a Big Mac, the majority of costs are swallowed outside of the consumer price.
The very real factor that any service industry that requires people, on site, cannot cut back when minimum wage increases. Any customer facing service industry is almost immune to job losses. Of course there are industries where external economic factors play an impact hence why trades agreements might be a better idea. But it's almost into the realm of semantics. In the UK a £15 minimum wage would have no detrimental impact outside of a very small amount of transitory unemployment.
And of course the knock on effect of a very high minimum wage is that price differential means ALL wages are increased. This could, of course be inflationary. But fortunately we live in a Globalised World where an individual national government does not have much control over inflation.
That 20p is just the direct additional cost for Macdonald's employment costs it doesn't include the additional costs that would be incurred by the manufacturer of the bun, the burger meat.... That simple figure just ignores cascade effects...
No, 20p is the price differential including all components of the chain. A Big Mac in Denmark is 20p more than in the UK. Fortunately for us, this measure is recorded
Looks like my info is out of date and the price differential is 8p these days. Salaries in Denmark are about 20% higher than in the UK while Big Macs are 3% higher.
Sounds like a good deal.
8p? Did you even try looking at the data table in that link you provided?
I'd like to know the exchange rate where 57 cents is equivalent to 8 pence. It is 37 pence.
You're right, I misread the graph. In any case 11% is fine when wages are 20% higher. Also the GB price appears wrong, I pay £2.59 for a big mac** and somehow doubt London is that much dearer.
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
So long as the minimum wages are comprised of a rational wage rate and are increased at a rational and incremental basis.
That's the best way to do it.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
Selling a Big Mac is something Macdonalds will never stop doing everywhere they can. By definition it can't be off-shored because it serves the local market. Virtually everything else can.
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
The Tories proposal is part of a package of changes and not in isolation.
I do not know if it is true but the perception is that employees are paying less in the knowledge that tax credits beef up low pay. What needs to underpin the govts actions on this is a rise in tax allowances as well as higher basic pay linked to a withdrawal of tax credits. This reduction in tax allowances and other tax issues like lower corporation tax can be done credibly if we continue to drive down on spending. But if we want to be wealthy enough to afford the govt spending we need then we need to grow our economy and its wider tax base.
It's a very complicated area. Yes, there is a practical limit but it is completely unrelated to the current arguments in the UK over whether it should be £7.50 or £9.
The reality of minimum wages is that paying a McDonalds employee £15 an hour (as happens in Denmark) only adds about 20p to the cost of a Big Mac, the majority of costs are swallowed outside of the consumer price.
The very real factor that any service industry that requires people, on site, cannot cut back when minimum wage increases. Any customer facing service industry is almost immune to job losses. Of course there are industries where external economic factors play an impact hence why trades agreements might be a better idea. But it's almost into the realm of semantics. In the UK a £15 minimum wage would have no detrimental impact outside of a very small amount of transitory unemployment.
And of course the knock on effect of a very high minimum wage is that price differential means ALL wages are increased. This could, of course be inflationary. But fortunately we live in a Globalised World where an individual national government does not have much control over inflation.
That 20p is just the direct additional cost for Macdonald's employment costs it doesn't include the additional costs that would be incurred by the manufacturer of the bun, the burger meat.... That simple figure just ignores cascade effects...
No, 20p is the price differential including all components of the chain. A Big Mac in Denmark is 20p more than in the UK. Fortunately for us, this measure is recorded
Looks like my info is out of date and the price differential is 8p these days. Salaries in Denmark are about 20% higher than in the UK while Big Macs are 3% higher.
Sounds like a good deal.
8p? Did you even try looking at the data table in that link you provided?
I'd like to know the exchange rate where 57 cents is equivalent to 8 pence. It is 37 pence.
You're right, I misread the graph. In any case 11% is fine when wages are 20% higher. Also the GB price appears wrong, I pay £2.59 for a big mac** and somehow doubt London is that much dearer.
** I will check tomorrow but I'm pretty sure.
12.6% not 11% and if your figure is wrong so might the Danish one. I think it's about right for a burger alone (not a meal).
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
So long as the minimum wages are comprised of a rational wage rate and are increased at a rational and incremental basis.
That's the best way to do it.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
Selling a Big Mac is something Macdonalds will never stop doing everywhere they can. By definition it can't be off-shored because it serves the local market. Virtually everything else can.
100% of the population is not busy selling Big Macs. Other jobs can be offshored.
Plus McDonald's as a company may not stop selling it but many branches of McDonald's could either close down or hire less people (more than 1 person works per branch) or even future branches might not open.
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
So long as the minimum wages are comprised of a rational wage rate and are increased at a rational and incremental basis.
That's the best way to do it.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
Selling a Big Mac is something Macdonalds will never stop doing everywhere they can. By definition it can't be off-shored because it serves the local market. Virtually everything else can.
100% of the population is not busy selling Big Macs. Other jobs can be offshored.
Plus McDonald's as a company may not stop selling it but many branches of McDonald's could either close down or hire less people (more than 1 person works per branch) or even future branches might not open.
My experience when I was working in a high-wage economy (Norway) was that at Macdonalds "fast food" became "slow food" by employing fewer staff.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
I thought most of the sceptics here keep saying that the problem isn't just what we have now but that there will be ever closer union towards a superstate. If that is being ruled out then that deal with that concern.
Personally I think its completely meaningless as I never felt we were doomed to ever closer union, we could always veto closer union like we did joining the Euro. But if people here don't have confidence we can do that then ...
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
So long as the minimum wages are comprised of a rational wage rate and are increased at a rational and incremental basis.
That's the best way to do it.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
Selling a Big Mac is something Macdonalds will never stop doing everywhere they can. By definition it can't be off-shored because it serves the local market. Virtually everything else can.
100% of the population is not busy selling Big Macs. Other jobs can be offshored.
Plus McDonald's as a company may not stop selling it but many branches of McDonald's could either close down or hire less people (more than 1 person works per branch) or even future branches might not open.
Bloggs Burgers could set up in competition with a better business model. Anything might happen and be based on the real world not fanciful wishful thinking. What usually happens in these issues - and no matter from which side you argue - is something unexpected.
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
So long as the minimum wages are comprised of a rational wage rate and are increased at a rational and incremental basis.
That's the best way to do it.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
Selling a Big Mac is something Macdonalds will never stop doing everywhere they can. By definition it can't be off-shored because it serves the local market. Virtually everything else can.
100% of the population is not busy selling Big Macs. Other jobs can be offshored.
Plus McDonald's as a company may not stop selling it but many branches of McDonald's could either close down or hire less people (more than 1 person works per branch) or even future branches might not open.
Bloggs Burgers could set up in competition with a better business model. Anything might happen and be based on the real world not fanciful wishful thinking. What usually happens in these issues - and no matter from which side you argue - is something unexpected.
Exactly. Anyone who suggests that if you make one particular change then nothing else changes is completely ignorant of reality. Business is changing all the time, the world is changing all the time and any major change (like a proposed doubling of the minimum wage by Dair) would have a dramatic change on the economy and businesses. With unexpected consequences too.
@PickardJE: "It mocked Tebbit, the trade secretary who was dug out of the rubble...saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.” https://t.co/kaDVA7zt97
Corbyn needs to realise that in the great scheme of things HMQ will not be too bothered about the colour of his revolving bow tie or the water that spouts out of his pink carnation. And if he has trouble kneeling she will I am sure be simply grateful that it is not because he has had his kneecaps shot off.
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
So long as the minimum wages are comprised of a rational wage rate and are increased at a rational and incremental basis.
That's the best way to do it.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
Selling a Big Mac is something Macdonalds will never stop doing everywhere they can. By definition it can't be off-shored because it serves the local market. Virtually everything else can.
100% of the population is not busy selling Big Macs. Other jobs can be offshored.
Plus McDonald's as a company may not stop selling it but many branches of McDonald's could either close down or hire less people (more than 1 person works per branch) or even future branches might not open.
Denmark has 15 McDonalds per million population, the UK has 19 McDonalds per million population.
This really doesn't indicate that paying staff approx twice what they do in the UK stops them opening branches.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
I thought most of the sceptics here keep saying that the problem isn't just what we have now but that there will be ever closer union towards a superstate. If that is being ruled out then that deal with that concern.
Personally I think its completely meaningless as I never felt we were doomed to ever closer union, we could always veto closer union like we did joining the Euro. But if people here don't have confidence we can do that then ...
Actually, I read those four demands and thought that - far from being not much - they are fairly fundamental changes to the EU with potentially far reaching consequences.
First, the UK would have its current status protected, thus shielding us from ever closer union,
Second a mechanism for minorities to red card new and existing directives would fundamentally change the balance of power between the Commission and member states in areas governed by EU directives.
Third, the explicit mechanisms to protect non-Euro members' interests and to underscore their currencies would enable the 9 to relax vis a vis further integration in the EZ.
If Cameron got all this, and particularly if the red card mechanism really worked, that would turn me from a leaver to a stayer.
Huge portions of the labour market are highly Price Inelastic. That's why minimum wages work in every place they are used.
So long as the minimum wages are comprised of a rational wage rate and are increased at a rational and incremental basis.
That's the best way to do it.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
Selling a Big Mac is something Macdonalds will never stop doing everywhere they can. By definition it can't be off-shored because it serves the local market. Virtually everything else can.
100% of the population is not busy selling Big Macs. Other jobs can be offshored.
Plus McDonald's as a company may not stop selling it but many branches of McDonald's could either close down or hire less people (more than 1 person works per branch) or even future branches might not open.
Denmark has 15 McDonalds per million population, the UK has 19 McDonalds per million population.
This really doesn't indicate that paying staff approx twice what they do in the UK stops them opening branches.
The UK has 26.66% extra branches per million population than Denmark does but that really doesn't indicate anything?
Though that doesn't say anything about other factors like how many work at each branch etc
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
Not part of ever closer union... ever. Euro not to be the sole currency, EU a multi currency union National parliaments ability to stop unwanted directives and to scrap existing EU laws An entirely new structure for the EU itself, the eurozone to be unable to 'dominate' the other members, with specific protection for the city.
????? Which part of 'entirely new structure' do you regard as not asking for much??
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
What you both don't seem to realise is that PB Tories are infallible (always right, always learn, etc.).
@PickardJE: "It mocked Tebbit, the trade secretary who was dug out of the rubble...saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.” https://t.co/kaDVA7zt97
Corbyn needs to realise that in the great scheme of things HMQ will not be too bothered about the colour of his revolving bow tie or the water that spouts out of his pink carnation. And if he has trouble kneeling she will I am sure be simply grateful that it is not because he has had his kneecaps shot off.
He's a despicable shit. not fit to be a MP nevermind PM.
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
What you both don't seem to realise is that PB Tories are infallible (always right, always learn, etc.).
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
What you both don't seem to realise is that PB Tories are infallible (always right, always learn, etc.).
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
The Tories rightly or wrongly (who knows) have come round to the idea of the minimum wage... they did that some time ago in fact. They are now taking another step.... raising income tax thresholds, lowering corporation tax, introducing a so called living wage for older workers and cutting in work tax credits. There are also other benefit cuts as well, like limiting child benefits to 2 children and also a benefits cap. I think there is enough to keep people interested without thinking they are copying labour.
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
Don't get me wrong if there was a dramatic rise in minimum wage alone in isolation from everything else I'd oppose that.
What swings me is that this is a part of a balanced package whereby: the government cuts business costs (corporation tax) while insisting the money goes on wages (via living wage) while cutting spending on tax credits then the package is overall rather balanced (nobody gaining or losing that much) but it ends a ludicrous merry-go-round that happens at the moment.
We go from low wages, high taxes and high benefits to high wages, low taxes and low benefits with an overall level of balance. Plus the biggest issue by far for me as an employer is it means that those who work will once off tax credits have a marginal tax rate of 32% rather than 80%.
I have frequently been able to offer extra hours to employees only to be told they "can't work more than 16 hours" as they will lose their benefits if they do. This system is broken and really gets under my skin, it caps wages for the poorest rather than helps them - it hinders business to lose opportunity and it is a ludicrous tax Peter to pay Peter system for the government. Everyone loses currently.
@PickardJE: "It mocked Tebbit, the trade secretary who was dug out of the rubble...saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.” https://t.co/kaDVA7zt97
Corbyn needs to realise that in the great scheme of things HMQ will not be too bothered about the colour of his revolving bow tie or the water that spouts out of his pink carnation. And if he has trouble kneeling she will I am sure be simply grateful that it is not because he has had his kneecaps shot off.
He's a despicable shit. not fit to be a MP nevermind PM.
Well yes, but I'm sure her majesty, unlike Corbyn, has learned to grow into the job and knows how to make allowances.
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
The Tories rightly or wrongly (who knows) have come round to the idea of the minimum wage... they did that some time ago in fact. They are now taking another step.... raising income tax thresholds, lowering corporation tax, introducing a so called living wage for older workers and cutting in work tax credits. There are also other benefit cuts as well, like limiting child benefits to 2 children and also a benefits cap. I think there is enough to keep people interested without thinking they are copying labour.
If you say so, I don't know this issue well enough to say or glean amusement from it - but parties do copy each other from time to time, and it is definitely funny seeing people who reacted too strongly in condemning an opponent policy which their side then adopts.
I confess sometimes I forget what stance I took on a past issue, or that I took a stance, and so am not sure if my views have changed on them or not, so I have some sympathy for politicians themselves who may not realize how far their own views have come on some issues as the decades of their careers progress, as the minor movements add up over time, and lead to some funny comparisons.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
Why on earth do they do this. It really creates problems when there is no need.
The Sunday Express reports police have been told not to wear a Union Jack badge in support of the families of officers killed in the line of duty. It says a senior officer at the Metropolitan Police has forbidden officers from wearing "the emotive 'thin blue line' badge", for fear it could "cause offence in some communities".
Why on earth do they do this. It really creates problems when there is no need.
The Sunday Express reports police have been told not to wear a Union Jack badge in support of the families of officers killed in the line of duty. It says a senior officer at the Metropolitan Police has forbidden officers from wearing "the emotive 'thin blue line' badge", for fear it could "cause offence in some communities".
Sky news
Ridiculous. The "communities" in question probably don't mind at all, it's just bureaucrats with nothing better to do.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
If this is all he gets, I suspect we're gone.
Don't be silly. Gone where? The EEA, where we would have less protection and influence? But really you should wait. There will be proposals. There is a referendum, yipee! You will have your vote. And I for one am not taken in by NPXXMP's usual waffle or his perception.
Is there a factory somewhere stamping out boneheaded senior policement with no sense of sane judgement?
They did a this self same thing in 2009:
> Hundreds of officers had threatened to defy the order and an online petition calling on Gordon Brown to intervene attracted more than 3,000 signatures.
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
The Tories rightly or wrongly (who knows) have come round to the idea of the minimum wage... they did that some time ago in fact. They are now taking another step.... raising income tax thresholds, lowering corporation tax, introducing a so called living wage for older workers and cutting in work tax credits. There are also other benefit cuts as well, like limiting child benefits to 2 children and also a benefits cap. I think there is enough to keep people interested without thinking they are copying labour.
If you say so, I don't know this issue well enough to say or glean amusement from it - but parties do copy each other from time to time, and it is definitely funny seeing people who reacted too strongly in condemning an opponent policy which their side then adopts.
I confess sometimes I forget what stance I took on a past issue, or that I took a stance, and so am not sure if my views have changed on them or not, so I have some sympathy for politicians themselves who may not realize how far their own views have come on some issues as the decades of their careers progress, as the minor movements add up over time, and lead to some funny comparisons.
What would be the sense in ignoring a good idea/ policy simply because it isn't yours? "I thought of it first" is from the playground; "its my ball and I'm taking it home". History is full of those who exploit other's ideas profiting most from them.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
Not part of ever closer union... ever. Euro not to be the sole currency, EU a multi currency union National parliaments ability to stop unwanted directives and to scrap existing EU laws An entirely new structure for the EU itself, the eurozone to be unable to 'dominate' the other members, with specific protection for the city.
????? Which part of 'entirely new structure' do you regard as not asking for much??
Just off the top of my head and not including wider EU reform: 1. The ability to sign our own FTAs. 2. Opt out from the CAP. 3. Opt out from the CFP. 4. Supremacy of UK law over EU law. 5. Repatriation of social policy. 6. Repatriation of employment law.
None of these really matter if we are going to be held back by an unreformed EU.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
The Tories on here are pathetic, when labour were arguing for a living wage they attacked Miliband now all of a sudden it's a good idea.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
You're looking at it all wrong - the times when people have to defend something that they previously dismissed because their party now supports it, are among the most amusing times in politics. I can't say I kept track of who said what on this particular issue, or if there are nuances between the party positions that make distinguishing the party positions reasonable, but in general it can make for barrels of laughs.
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
The Tories rightly or wrongly (who knows) have come round to the idea of the minimum wage... they did that some time ago in fact. They are now taking another step.... raising income tax thresholds, lowering corporation tax, introducing a so called living wage for older workers and cutting in work tax credits. There are also other benefit cuts as well, like limiting child benefits to 2 children and also a benefits cap. I think there is enough to keep people interested without thinking they are copying labour.
If you say so, I don't know this issue well enough to say or glean amusement from it - but parties do copy each s progress, as the minor movements add up over time, and lead to some funny comparisons.
What would be the sense in ignoring a good idea/ policy simply because it isn't yours? "I thought of it first" is from the playground; "its my ball and I'm taking it home". History is full of those who exploit other's ideas profiting most from them.
Nothing wrong with taking the ideas of others, of course, it's very sensible to do that - the amusement is when one side announces an idea, the most partisan supporters of their opponents trash the idea because it comes from those they oppose, and they then do verbal and written contortions to explain how it is a good idea now it is coming from their own side. Politicians don't (usually) dismiss an opponent's ideas in so fierce a fashion that adopting their own version is impossible to defend, but someone on the internet might claim an idea is akin to a Nazi policy, then be forced to explain how their own side doing it is not like Nazi policy. How could that not be hilarious?
I don't see what is wrong in asking police officers to stick to the uniform regulations and not to adorn their uniform with ANY non-standard items.
There are plenty of other ways for individuals to show their support for various causes and campaigns - but the point of a uniform is that it is uniform.
I can understand the desire to make a public display of support in this way - but have it as a car sticker or encourage friends and families to wear the badge. Or just wear it when you are off-duty.
But I expect a police officer to be wearing their uniform as set out in regulations. They knew that when they signed on. It is not unreasonable to expect them to abide by some very simple rules.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
Not part of ever closer union... ever. Euro not to be the sole currency, EU a multi currency union National parliaments ability to stop unwanted directives and to scrap existing EU laws An entirely new structure for the EU itself, the eurozone to be unable to 'dominate' the other members, with specific protection for the city.
????? Which part of 'entirely new structure' do you regard as not asking for much??
Just off the top of my head and not including wider EU reform: 1. The ability to sign our own FTAs. 2. Opt out from the CAP. 3. Opt out from the CFP. 4. Supremacy of UK law over EU law. 5. Repatriation of social policy. 6. Repatriation of employment law.
None of these really matter if we are going to be held back by an unreformed EU.
1 and 4 are completely impossible. 2 would realistically be impossible (3 probably would but I know less on it).
5 and 6 could be possible but the problem is that any opt out on those that we negotiate on those (like we actually had in 92) could be easily reversed by Labour if they returned to power just gifting those powers back to Europe.
We need to change stuff that we can agree with Europe that will be of sustainable benefit to the UK.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
If this is all he gets, I suspect we're gone.
Don't be silly. Gone where? The EEA, where we would have less protection and influence? But really you should wait. There will be proposals. There is a referendum, yipee! You will have your vote. And I for one am not taken in by NPXXMP's usual waffle or his perception.
Gone where? The comment is vernacular for LEAVE. The referendum won't ask "where to?" My post was an observation. As an example of silliness your's is much more appropriate.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
Cam is going to recommend out - put money on it.
OK £10 says he doesn't. I win £10 from you if he backs in, I pay you £10 if he backs out, bet void if he makes no recommendation Do you agree to the bet?
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
Cam is going to recommend out - put money on it.
If he is obsessed about his legacy, leading a Leave campaign and winning would arguably make him the greatest non-war time prime minister/Tory leader. That would be some legacy.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
Cam is going to recommend out - put money on it.
OK £10 says he doesn't. I win £10 from you if he backs in, I pay you £10 if he backs out, bet void if he makes no recommendation Do you agree to the bet?
Yes. He hasn't backed a losing cause yet. Well apart from the LDs..
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
Cam is going to recommend out - put money on it.
If he is obsessed about his legacy, leading a Leave campaign and winning would arguably make him the greatest non-war time prime minister/Tory leader. That would be some legacy.
What about leading a Leave campaign and losing? There seems to be an assumption that whichever Cameron backs will win, he could lose either way around.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
Cam is going to recommend out - put money on it.
OK £10 says he doesn't. I win £10 from you if he backs in, I pay you £10 if he backs out, bet void if he makes no recommendation Do you agree to the bet?
Yes. He hasn't backed a losing cause yet. Well apart from the LDs..
OK its a bet. Do you want to exchange details with anyone?
Him backing the LDs was not a losing cause for him or the Tories. Cameron was like a black widow with the Lib Dems, he mated with them for five years and once that was done consumed them.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
Cam is going to recommend out - put money on it.
If he is obsessed about his legacy, leading a Leave campaign and winning would arguably make him the greatest non-war time prime minister/Tory leader. That would be some legacy.
What about leading a Leave campaign and losing? There seems to be an assumption that whichever Cameron backs will win, he could lose either way around.
Obviously nothing is guaranteed but if he didn't achieve a great deal from the renegotiation and was honest with the electorate through recommending the UK leave the EU I think that will help.
The recent polling from ICM seems to suggest more people will vote to leave should the renegotiation not go well.
I don't see what is wrong in asking police officers to stick to the uniform regulations and not to adorn their uniform with ANY non-standard items.
There are plenty of other ways for individuals to show their support for various causes and campaigns - but the point of a uniform is that it is uniform.
I can understand the desire to make a public display of support in this way - but have it as a car sticker or encourage friends and families to wear the badge. Or just wear it when you are off-duty.
But I expect a police officer to be wearing their uniform as set out in regulations. They knew that when they signed on. It is not unreasonable to expect them to abide by some very simple rules.
That would be fine if it were the policy, however it is usual for police to be allowed to wear eg charity wristbands or gay pride type symbols on duty on the appropriate day in the appropriate place.
In banning this one for no clearly rational or afaik evidenced reason they are being inconsistent in their application of their policy.
And as I point out they did it before and then backed down, which suggests that this is actually not a problem, and appear not to have sorted out the underlying cause of the bad decision last time.
You can argue for a different policy, but the issue is with poor decisions implementing the existing policy.
Why on earth do they do this. It really creates problems when there is no need.
The Sunday Express reports police have been told not to wear a Union Jack badge in support of the families of officers killed in the line of duty. It says a senior officer at the Metropolitan Police has forbidden officers from wearing "the emotive 'thin blue line' badge", for fear it could "cause offence in some communities".
Sky news
I would be interested in knowing which communities might take offence?
I don't see what is wrong in asking police officers to stick to the uniform regulations and not to adorn their uniform with ANY non-standard items.
There are plenty of other ways for individuals to show their support for various causes and campaigns - but the point of a uniform is that it is uniform.
I can understand the desire to make a public display of support in this way - but have it as a car sticker or encourage friends and families to wear the badge. Or just wear it when you are off-duty.
But I expect a police officer to be wearing their uniform as set out in regulations. They knew that when they signed on. It is not unreasonable to expect them to abide by some very simple rules.
That would be fine if it were the policy, however it is usual for police to be allowed to wear eg charity wristbands or gay pride type symbols on duty on the appropriate day in the appropriate place.
In banning this one for no clearly rational or afaik evidenced reason they are being inconsistent in their application of their policy.
And as I point out they did it before and then backed down, which suggests that this is actually not a problem, and appear not to have sorted out the underlying cause of the bad decision last time.
You can argue for a different policy, but the issue is with poor decisions implementing the existing policy.
Indeed however The uniform aspect is not the specified reason for the ban which is the reason they should have given to resolve the issue. They chose another reason simply so a chief constable could virtue signal
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
"But government figures say there is not enough time to deliver treaty changes before the referendum is held, by the end of 2017."
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
What happens on the EU immigration crisis will determine how the UK votes. There may not be an EU to stay in.
Cam is going to recommend out - put money on it.
OK £10 says he doesn't. I win £10 from you if he backs in, I pay you £10 if he backs out, bet void if he makes no recommendation Do you agree to the bet?
Yes. He hasn't backed a losing cause yet. Well apart from the LDs..
OK its a bet. Do you want to exchange details with anyone?
Him backing the LDs was not a losing cause for him or the Tories. Cameron was like a black widow with the Lib Dems, he mated with them for five years and once that was done consumed them.
Yep if required - hopefully my reputation for paying up on stupid bets is excellent round here.
Why on earth do they do this. It really creates problems when there is no need.
The Sunday Express reports police have been told not to wear a Union Jack badge in support of the families of officers killed in the line of duty. It says a senior officer at the Metropolitan Police has forbidden officers from wearing "the emotive 'thin blue line' badge", for fear it could "cause offence in some communities".
Sky news
I would be interested in knowing which communities might take offence?
Probably the usual and I doubt very much if they really give a fishes tit one way or the other.
Is there a factory somewhere stamping out boneheaded senior policement with no sense of sane judgement?
They did a this self same thing in 2009:
> Hundreds of officers had threatened to defy the order and an online petition calling on Gordon Brown to intervene attracted more than 3,000 signatures.
Police should have absolutely no political stance. It should be drilled in to them that they have no allegiance to a flag or a monarch or a party or an ideology or any aspect of political life. Police should do one thing ONLY, to uphold the law as it is laid out at the time they serve.
Dave doesn't appear to be asking for much. A once in a generation chance to alter our relationship with the EU and this is all he asks for....
Not part of ever closer union... ever. Euro not to be the sole currency, EU a multi currency union National parliaments ability to stop unwanted directives and to scrap existing EU laws An entirely new structure for the EU itself, the eurozone to be unable to 'dominate' the other members, with specific protection for the city.
????? Which part of 'entirely new structure' do you regard as not asking for much??
Just off the top of my head and not including wider EU reform: 1. The ability to sign our own FTAs. 2. Opt out from the CAP. 3. Opt out from the CFP. 4. Supremacy of UK law over EU law. 5. Repatriation of social policy. 6. Repatriation of employment law.
None of these really matter if we are going to be held back by an unreformed EU.
The irony is that most of those apply if you are in EEA. Unless you want a tariff based trade agreement with the EU, you are signing up to all of that. Plus Shengen.
Tony Blair, John Major, Gordon Brown & Karren Brady to lead 'Keep Britain in the EU' Farewell my Continental friends https://t.co/Igi25yOk0w
If they get rid of the three Bs, then John Major could be a very successful Remain leader.
TBH I'm quite encouraged by the incompetence of Remain so far. Lord Rose? A Lord? Hahahha. with Scotland currently 80:20 for Remain, it would be perfect to watch England walk into economic oblivion and trigger a Yes vote in Scotland.
Tony Blair, John Major, Gordon Brown & Karren Brady to lead 'Keep Britain in the EU' Farewell my Continental friends https://t.co/Igi25yOk0w
If they get rid of the three Bs, then John Major could be a very successful Remain leader.
TBH I'm quite encouraged by the incompetence of Remain so far. Lord Rose? A Lord? Hahahha. with Scotland currently 80:20 for Remain, it would be perfect to watch England walk into economic oblivion and trigger a Yes vote in Scotland.
Even in an August yougov which had it 50%-40% to remain across the UK, Scotland was only 60%-30% to stay, not 80%-20%. In any case, as the UK is forecast to be the largest economy in the EU in a few decades arguably the EU needs the UK more than the reverse, Interestingly yougov also shows that SNP voters are the third most likely voters to want to leave after UKIP voters and then Tory voters http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/yllngwksjn/EuropeResults_18-Sep-2015_formatted.pdf
Tony Blair, John Major, Gordon Brown & Karren Brady to lead 'Keep Britain in the EU' Farewell my Continental friends https://t.co/Igi25yOk0w
If they get rid of the three Bs, then John Major could be a very successful Remain leader.
TBH I'm quite encouraged by the incompetence of Remain so far. Lord Rose? A Lord? Hahahha. with Scotland currently 80:20 for Remain, it would be perfect to watch England walk into economic oblivion and trigger a Yes vote in Scotland.
I think involving Brown and Blair would strongly increase the possibility of a Leave win. They are both toxic for various reasons.
Brady getting involved will see her having to absent herself from The Apprentice - and I quite like her on there.
Major is a voice that many will listen to - but he has never had to necessary charisma to inspire during what will be a very bruising campaign. Fine as an elder statesman figure - but not a figurehead for the entire campaign.
Another right wing journalist in the Murdoch press:
When he hounded a dying man to his grave, Watson sank lower than the News of the World reporters he and Hacked Off once fought. However invasive and prurient their scoops, they were at least true. Unless convincing witnesses come forward, you will not be able to say the same about Watson’s “exposé”.
Comments
Whereas currently people are taxed by the existing tax credit system so much that they'll turn down an opportunity to boost their income. That is an absurd situation which is why it is great it is being transformed for the better.
Two people working full time on minimum wage should be paying a 32% tax rate not a tax rate in the 70s to 80s%
Statistical significance of correlation?
Link to data?
London Labour Briefing evolved into Labour Left Briefing and is now Labour Briefing. I subscribed a decade or so ago (but not in 1984). It was an interesting read and fairly moderate in most things.
https://labourbriefing1.wordpress.com/
It is completely astonishing to me that Corbyn leads the Labour Party, given some of his views he really shouldn't even be a member of a supposedly mainstream democratic political party. Blair got too up himself, Brown was never suitable for the job, Miliband was hopeless, but they weren't scum like Corbyn and McDonnell.
The key is to keep reforming the situation so that someone working full time does not need to be on an 80% tax rate. These reforms are a major step to do that, to get it easier to be lifted away from that cap.
You're criticising Osborne for a problem he's trying to fix.
My head says that sensible members of the Labour Party will get rid of Corbyn long before, but then again I would never have believed that Corbyn would succeed Miliband if someone had predicted it back in May.
It really is extraordinary what the Labour Party is doing.
And where New Labour failed.
The minimum wage rate should have been pushed every year until a detectable adverse reaction was found. It wasn't, in fact it started to fall off from general prices and wages quite quickly as Blair bottled it thanks to his party's Red Tory leanings. They needed and wanted to protect Rents.
Britain dollar_price: $4.51
Denmark dollar_price: $5.08
Difference: $0.57
I'd like to know the exchange rate where 57 cents is equivalent to 8 pence. It is 37 pence.
Power for powers sake so you can shout yah boo on the Internet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html
You'll be defending help to buy next, govt giving people other people's money to buy a house with.
** I will check tomorrow but I'm pretty sure.
What needs to underpin the govts actions on this is a rise in tax allowances as well as higher basic pay linked to a withdrawal of tax credits. This reduction in tax allowances and other tax issues like lower corporation tax can be done credibly if we continue to drive down on spending.
But if we want to be wealthy enough to afford the govt spending we need then we need to grow our economy and its wider tax base.
Cousin marriages (second-degree or closer) in the world
- http://t.co/TUWpflWqk7
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11924603/David-Camerons-four-key-demands-to-remain-in-the-EU-revealed.html
@PickardJE: "It mocked Tebbit, the trade secretary who was dug out of the rubble...saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.” https://t.co/kaDVA7zt97
Plus McDonald's as a company may not stop selling it but many branches of McDonald's could either close down or hire less people (more than 1 person works per branch) or even future branches might not open.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267799/Scadal-hit-charity-Kids-Company-facing-new-questions-giving-hundreds-thousands-pounds-tax-free-employees.html
Personally I think its completely meaningless as I never felt we were doomed to ever closer union, we could always veto closer union like we did joining the Euro. But if people here don't have confidence we can do that then ...
How @jeremycorbyn can turn terror law on @David_Cameron. @NigelNelson in @thesundaypeople http://t.co/2UbZOHpn6h http://t.co/HqSPgTHabX
It certainly is an issue unique to one party, although obviously since the Tories are the only ones who are able to implement things they might not have supported previously, they're much more likely to force some of their supporters into awkward u-turns on things that will actually affect people right now. Though the Corbyn shift in direction has given some similar opportunities.
This really doesn't indicate that paying staff approx twice what they do in the UK stops them opening branches.
First, the UK would have its current status protected, thus shielding us from ever closer union,
Second a mechanism for minorities to red card new and existing directives would fundamentally change the balance of power between the Commission and member states in areas governed by EU directives.
Third, the explicit mechanisms to protect non-Euro members' interests and to underscore their currencies would enable the 9 to relax vis a vis further integration in the EZ.
If Cameron got all this, and particularly if the red card mechanism really worked, that would turn me from a leaver to a stayer.
Though that doesn't say anything about other factors like how many work at each branch etc
Euro not to be the sole currency, EU a multi currency union
National parliaments ability to stop unwanted directives and to scrap existing EU laws
An entirely new structure for the EU itself, the eurozone to be unable to 'dominate' the other members, with specific protection for the city.
?????
Which part of 'entirely new structure' do you regard as not asking for much??
I'll get my coat....
What swings me is that this is a part of a balanced package whereby: the government cuts business costs (corporation tax) while insisting the money goes on wages (via living wage) while cutting spending on tax credits then the package is overall rather balanced (nobody gaining or losing that much) but it ends a ludicrous merry-go-round that happens at the moment.
We go from low wages, high taxes and high benefits to high wages, low taxes and low benefits with an overall level of balance. Plus the biggest issue by far for me as an employer is it means that those who work will once off tax credits have a marginal tax rate of 32% rather than 80%.
I have frequently been able to offer extra hours to employees only to be told they "can't work more than 16 hours" as they will lose their benefits if they do. This system is broken and really gets under my skin, it caps wages for the poorest rather than helps them - it hinders business to lose opportunity and it is a ludicrous tax Peter to pay Peter system for the government. Everyone loses currently.
I confess sometimes I forget what stance I took on a past issue, or that I took a stance, and so am not sure if my views have changed on them or not, so I have some sympathy for politicians themselves who may not realize how far their own views have come on some issues as the decades of their careers progress, as the minor movements add up over time, and lead to some funny comparisons.
Finally an admission of reality. I would think he can get most of those 4 points, shrug. The first two are just statements of (non-)intent - he could have them tomorrow. The third is not feasible before 2017, but they'll be willing to say they'll work on some such arrangement if a large block of countries wanted to change their minds on some power. The fourth is primarily the protection for the City which I've always thought is the concrete thing they'd be OK with - there isn't time for some total redesign, but I'm sure they'd be happy to state that they won't impose rules on the City by QMV.
There will no doubt be some ceremonial duelling, but in the end, if that's the total package, it looks achievable. The absence of anything on free movement makes it saleable to Europe and the absence of a roll-back on employment rights will avoid Labour hostility.
The Sunday Express reports police have been told not to wear a Union Jack badge in support of the families of officers killed in the line of duty. It says a senior officer at the Metropolitan Police has forbidden officers from wearing "the emotive 'thin blue line' badge", for fear it could "cause offence in some communities".
Sky news
But really you should wait. There will be proposals. There is a referendum, yipee! You will have your vote.
And I for one am not taken in by NPXXMP's usual waffle or his perception.
They did a this self same thing in 2009:
> Hundreds of officers had threatened to defy the order and an online petition calling on Gordon Brown to intervene attracted more than 3,000 signatures.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202882/Banned-police-Union-Flag-badge-backs-troops.html#ixzz3oD0BJHzk
1. The ability to sign our own FTAs.
2. Opt out from the CAP.
3. Opt out from the CFP.
4. Supremacy of UK law over EU law.
5. Repatriation of social policy.
6. Repatriation of employment law.
None of these really matter if we are going to be held back by an unreformed EU.
Good night all.
There are plenty of other ways for individuals to show their support for various causes and campaigns - but the point of a uniform is that it is uniform.
I can understand the desire to make a public display of support in this way - but have it as a car sticker or encourage friends and families to wear the badge. Or just wear it when you are off-duty.
But I expect a police officer to be wearing their uniform as set out in regulations. They knew that when they signed on. It is not unreasonable to expect them to abide by some very simple rules.
5 and 6 could be possible but the problem is that any opt out on those that we negotiate on those (like we actually had in 92) could be easily reversed by Labour if they returned to power just gifting those powers back to Europe.
We need to change stuff that we can agree with Europe that will be of sustainable benefit to the UK.
Him backing the LDs was not a losing cause for him or the Tories. Cameron was like a black widow with the Lib Dems, he mated with them for five years and once that was done consumed them.
The recent polling from ICM seems to suggest more people will vote to leave should the renegotiation not go well.
In banning this one for no clearly rational or afaik evidenced reason they are being inconsistent in their application of their policy.
And as I point out they did it before and then backed down, which suggests that this is actually not a problem, and appear not to have sorted out the underlying cause of the bad decision last time.
You can argue for a different policy, but the issue is with poor decisions implementing the existing policy.
Nothing more.
TBH I'm quite encouraged by the incompetence of Remain so far. Lord Rose? A Lord? Hahahha. with Scotland currently 80:20 for Remain, it would be perfect to watch England walk into economic oblivion and trigger a Yes vote in Scotland.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/yllngwksjn/EuropeResults_18-Sep-2015_formatted.pdf
Brady getting involved will see her having to absent herself from The Apprentice - and I quite like her on there.
Major is a voice that many will listen to - but he has never had to necessary charisma to inspire during what will be a very bruising campaign. Fine as an elder statesman figure - but not a figurehead for the entire campaign.
When he hounded a dying man to his grave, Watson sank lower than the News of the World reporters he and Hacked Off once fought. However invasive and prurient their scoops, they were at least true. Unless convincing witnesses come forward, you will not be able to say the same about Watson’s “exposé”.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/deserved-downfall-tom-watson-leon-brittan