@JohnO - I sense we are much closer to understanding one another now, which pleases me, so will take that as a win for both of us and park it for now. IMHO managing perceptions, reactions, tone, language and messages is as important in politics as it is in business and that is as much a sign of a strong leader in carrying people with you as showing the way.
Perhaps we can pick this up and discuss in more detail at the next PB meet in the pub, as fellow party members. I have Tories who are to the Left of you who I count amongst my closest friends!
And, yes, we do have a barney from time to time, but it's just politics..
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.
No it is a sensible policy, the books should be running a surplus during "normal times" and a the points were things go "tits up" a deficit will be permitted.
So the two of you have made a mistake. Not those of us who are right.
As the more sensible righties have said (DavidL and TSE) it's simply a political gesture. It has no economic benefit to the country.
Well that depends doesn't it?
If it is actually implemented as intended then it will bring profound economic benefit to the country. It will bring our debt under control while allowing truly cyclical spending and avoid a repeat of the disaster of the last few years.
However the reason its said to be a gesture is because no Parliament can bind its successors. Which isn't entirely true (they sort of can via international treaties) and so a future government could just reverse this law and spend as it pleases. However in order to do that the future government of the day would have to actively vote through Parliament the fact they wanted to break this rule and why and then when things went tits up they should be held to account for the fact they deliberately broke this rule.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
That sounds like an excellent idea!
There's an old airfield at Westcott, but good luck fighting a prolonged campaign with the National Trust, owners of nearby Waddesdon Manor, and the Rothschilds.
Slight correction with apologies. It is not EU citizenship it is the right to permanent settlement in the EU. This means you can travel freely to any other EU country and have permanent residence there as well. Effectively it is the same thing. You have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU. It doesn't only apply to Germany but to all EU countries. Obviously Germany is the one causing the most concern at the moment.
In order to obtain long-term resident status, non-EU nationals must prove that they have, for themselves and their family (if dependent): * stable resources sufficient to live without recourse to the social assistance system of the EU country concerned; * sickness insurance. EU countries may require non-EU nationals to comply with further integration conditions (such as sufficient knowledge of a national language of the EU country concerned). EU countries may refuse to grant long-term resident status on grounds of public policy or public security.
Reads to me like Germany's requirements on language etc would still apply but after 5 years and it isn't a simple case of being "just stay here for five years". That gives long term resident status within Germany and isn't the same as granting automatic free movement within the rest of the EU:
A long-term resident may exercise the right of residence, for a period exceeding three months, in an EU country other than the one which granted him/her the status, subject to compliance with certain conditions, including: * exercise of an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity; * pursuit of studies or vocational training; * other purposes. However, an EU country may limit the number of residence permits if, at the time of the adoption of this directive, limitations for the admission of non-EU nationals are already set out in existing national law. At the same time, for reasons of labour market policy, EU countries may give preference to Union citizens.
This reads to me that we would still treat them as non-EU citizens and we can still restrict residency permits.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
That sounds like an excellent idea!
There's an old airfield at Westcott, but good luck fighting a prolonged campaign with the National Trust, owners of nearby Waddesdon Manor, and the Rothschilds.
That's why we need better compulsory purchase schemes. Part of a country's competitive edge is the speed at which it can develop new infrastructure.
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.
No it is a sensible policy, the books should be running a surplus during "normal times" and a the points were things go "tits up" a deficit will be permitted.
So the two of you have made a mistake. Not those of us who are right.
As the more sensible righties have said (DavidL and TSE) it's simply a political gesture. It has no economic benefit to the country.
Well that depends doesn't it?
If it is actually implemented as intended then it will bring profound economic benefit to the country. It will bring our debt under control while allowing truly cyclical spending and avoid a repeat of the disaster of the last few years.
However the reason its said to be a gesture is because no Parliament can bind its successors. Which isn't entirely true (they sort of can via international treaties) and so a future government could just reverse this law and spend as it pleases. However in order to do that the future government of the day would have to actively vote through Parliament the fact they wanted to break this rule and why and then when things went tits up they should be held to account for the fact they deliberately broke this rule.
just bollocks
Why? I typed a thoughtful response to you, I'd appreciate one back if you think I'm wrong.
What's remarkable in that video given how relatively recent most of the shots are, of the ~10 or so MPs pictured in that video only 2 are still MPs and both of them are backbenchers now. The rest are no longer MPs, as many are dead as are still MPs.
And yet of those featured - all of whom predicted disaster if we didn't join the Euro - many of them are taking a leading role in the BDE campaign. Mandelson, Danny Alexander and Roland Rudd are all board members, Branson is the poster boy for industry, Heseltine and Clarke are leading supporters giving intervies to anyone who will listen. They really do need some new blood.
And the choice of Rose - the man who only 6 months ago said that all the claims about job losses and companies leaving was just scaremongering - is just ridiculous. In his speech yesterday he actually repeated almost every claim he had derided only a few months ago.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
That sounds like an excellent idea!
There's an old airfield at Westcott, but good luck fighting a prolonged campaign with the National Trust, owners of nearby Waddesdon Manor, and the Rothschilds.
That's why we need better compulsory purchase schemes. Part of a country's competitive edge is the speed at which it can develop new infrastructure.
Britain's NIMBY problem isn't particularly about it being too hard to buy land you don't own, it's that it's too easy to get the government to stop people building on land that they do own.
Back on topic, I would certainly vote against this ludicrous piece of legislation. It's a throwback to an idea Newt Gingrich had in the mid 90s which was to force profligate US Governments (Democratic) to run a surplus. He of course had no idea the huge deficits the George W Bush administration (backed by GOP majorities in the House and Senate) would run post 2001 up to 2006.
Clearly they were not, as Osborne would call them, "normal times". It's ironic for a Party that preaches about how they want people to have control over their lives and money they won't allow the institution of Government itself the same freedom. There's nothing wrong or evil about running a deficit - of course, there's a need for fiscal responsibility and we clearly didn't see that in the post-1999 Labour Government as I've argued on here many times before but this piece of political posturing neglects how often Conservative Governments ran deficits too.
The Osborne of 2015 was forged in the humiliation of 2012 when his well-touted proposal to remove the 50p tax rate (which I believe had been more or less informally "promised") was squashed by Cameron, Clegg and Alexander. Since then, Osborne has worked to take over the Conservative Party and the Government.
He has overseen the evisceration of the Liberal Democrats but needs Cameron as his front man so Cameron remains primus inter pares and delivered the majority in May but it's clearly Osborne running the show. Hammond is in a non-job, May and Johnson are marginalised and the junior ministries are stuffed full of Osborne's acolytes.
Cameron's usefulness will be to get through an EU Referendum that keeps the UK very much in the European Union and to anoint Osborne as his chosen successor. Osborne, like Brown before him, however, knows he is deeply disliked at an almost primal level outside Conservative ranks and knows his only chance of re-election is to emasculate the Opposition (something which the Opposition is helping him to do in spades).
Even now, the politics of economic policy dominate the economics. Creating a trap for the Opposition is the primary objective, not what's best for the economy. This is absurd - the Living Wage is a product not of conservatism but of Blairite Social Democracy. It is state-sponsored interference and simply to introduce it as a way of parking the tanks on Corbyn's lawns is cheap politics and lousy economics. It's no wonder business is starting to have "doubts" about Osborne.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
Boris Island is perfect for people...........living in France. For the rest of us, it will have to be Heathrow or Gatwick [ less desirable but no other option ] and Stansted.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
OT..Just been watching the debate in the HOC on this subject...I wonder what the reaction of China would be if one of its citizens working in Saudi was sentenced to several hundred lashes for having some alcohol in his car boot..If the full sentence were to be carried it is reckoned to almost certainly result in death..
Slight correction with apologies. It is not EU citizenship it is the right to permanent settlement in the EU. This means you can travel freely to any other EU country and have permanent residence there as well. Effectively it is the same thing. You have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU. It doesn't only apply to Germany but to all EU countries. Obviously Germany is the one causing the most concern at the moment.
In order to obtain long-term resident status, non-EU nationals must prove that they have, for themselves and their family (if dependent): * stable resources sufficient to live without recourse to the social assistance system of the EU country concerned; * sickness insurance. EU countries may require non-EU nationals to comply with further integration conditions (such as sufficient knowledge of a national language of the EU country concerned). EU countries may refuse to grant long-term resident status on grounds of public policy or public security.
Reads to me like Germany's requirements on language etc would still apply but after 5 years and it isn't a simple case of being "just stay here for five years". That gives long term resident status within Germany and isn't the same as granting automatic free movement within the rest of the EU:
A long-term resident may exercise the right of residence, for a period exceeding three months, in an EU country other than the one which granted him/her the status, subject to compliance with certain conditions, including: * exercise of an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity; * pursuit of studies or vocational training; * other purposes. However, an EU country may limit the number of residence permits if, at the time of the adoption of this directive, limitations for the admission of non-EU nationals are already set out in existing national law. At the same time, for reasons of labour market policy, EU countries may give preference to Union citizens.
This reads to me that we would still treat them as non-EU citizens and we can still restrict residency permits.
From the same document
"The second EU country may refuse applications for residence only where there is an actual threat to public policy, public security or public health."
OT..Just been watching the debate in the HOC on this subject...I wonder what the reaction of China would be if one of its citizens working in Saudi was sentenced to several hundred lashes for having some alcohol in his car boot..If the full sentence were to be carried it is reckoned to almost certainly result in death..
In Saudi, sentences like that are carried out in phases (say 10-12 each time). A medic is present and judges when enough is enough. The victim is then given time to recover before the next dose.
As you say, getting them all at once would effectively be a death sentence. The psychological effect of a dozen whippings, with time to think between them, must be devastating. Probably worse than the physical effect in most cases.
This reads to me that we would still treat them as non-EU citizens and we can still restrict residency permits.
It's as clear as mud, and the directive appears to contradict itself.
We need an immigration lawyer to tell us how it is incorporated into UK law, and how it actually works in practice.
Is this yet another case of you preferring your own biased view over actual regulations? I am not surprised you want to stay in the EU. You think like the French - just ignore any laws you don't like.
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.
No it is a sensible policy, the books should be running a surplus during "normal times" and a the points were things go "tits up" a deficit will be permitted.
So the two of you have made a mistake. Not those of us who are right.
As the more sensible righties have said (DavidL and TSE) it's simply a political gesture. It has no economic benefit to the country.
Well that depends doesn't it?
If it is actually implemented as intended then it will bring profound economic benefit to the country. It will bring our debt under control while allowing truly cyclical spending and avoid a repeat of the disaster of the last few years.
However the reason its said to be a gesture is because no Parliament can bind its successors. Which isn't entirely true (they sort of can via international treaties) and so a future government could just reverse this law and spend as it pleases. However in order to do that the future government of the day would have to actively vote through Parliament the fact they wanted to break this rule and why and then when things went tits up they should be held to account for the fact they deliberately broke this rule.
just bollocks
Why? I typed a thoughtful response to you, I'd appreciate one back if you think I'm wrong.
Your comments seem to make sense and be a good analysis. The law commits to a modest minimum surplus when we have trend growth. It does not commit to perpetual surplus at all points of the economic cycle. We are currently trying to get rid of an insane structural deficit. The last thing we want is to return to that. As you say it is not set in stone but will have to be formally repealed and explained away. Unfortunately some people have tied themselves to the rotten mast of denigrating Osborne. They find themselves stuck in a fantasy world of theit own making.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
That sounds like an excellent idea!
There's an old airfield at Westcott, but good luck fighting a prolonged campaign with the National Trust, owners of nearby Waddesdon Manor, and the Rothschilds.
That's why we need better compulsory purchase schemes. Part of a country's competitive edge is the speed at which it can develop new infrastructure.
I've given my solution to this before: have a system whereby projects of massive national significance: Heathrow Terminal 5 and above - have a different planning process. Instead of the laborious process that saw the T5 inquiry take four years and cost over £80 million, have initial planning and put the plans to a simple 'accept/reject' national referendum.
If the majority of people agree, the plans go through. In contrast, the AV referendum cost £75 million and a fraction of the time.
It would speed up projects, cost less, and allow us to build the infrastructure we need.
"The second EU country may refuse applications for residence only where there is an actual threat to public policy, public security or public health."
A bit of Googling suggests that the UK has an opt-out from this directive:
State Secretary van Justitie v Mangat Singh [2012] EUECJ C-502/10 (18 October 2012)
As explained in recitals 25 and 26 of its preamble, Directive 2003/109/EC (“the directive”), concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, does not apply to the UK, Ireland and Denmark.
On security of residence and free movement within the EU, the key measure is the Long-term Residents Directive. The UK has not opted in to any of these immigration directives.
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.
No it is a sensible policy who are right.
As the more sensible righties have said (DavidL and TSE) it's simply a political gesture. It has no economic benefit to the country.
Well that depends doesn't it?
this rule.
just bollocks
Why? I typed a thoughtful response to you, I'd appreciate one back if you think I'm wrong.
Oh well if I must - the problem with being older is you appreciate your time much more.
This is simply Osborne playing politcal games, efrfective ones yes, but ones which do nothing for our economy.
Firstly this is a set of rules which GO himself hasn't kept for the last 6 years and which he has no chance of keeping for the next 3 or 4. So will he send himself to prison ? Can't see it myself.
Secondly as you can see on this thread there are so many caveats and let outs ( if it's a recession, what is spending etc. ) that the whole thing is stuffed full of holes.
Thirdly it's madness to set binding rules even one's stuffed with holes -since each set of of economic problems need different solutions, there may well come a time when a deficit is the right answer. The economy is doing well but - a big bank keels over or we are funding a war or a major inestment programme is required or there is a dip in tax receipts as sometimes happens. In that event are we going to shove up taxes or stop child benefit to meet a rule plucked out of Osborne's fundament ?
Fourthly in any case if Labour get back in to power they'll simply change the law as is their right, they'll justify it it "becasue it's the right thing to do",there'll be a bit of a hoohah for a week or so and then the story will change.So in effect he's only limiting a cosnervative CoE' room for manoeuvre ie shooting himself in the foot but can't quite see it.
This is stupid politics and one of the reasons Osborne annoys me, if he'd spend his time getting on with structural reforms to the economy we'd all be better off. But he's Brown's bastard son I'm afraid.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
That sounds like an excellent idea!
There's an old airfield at Westcott, but good luck fighting a prolonged campaign with the National Trust, owners of nearby Waddesdon Manor, and the Rothschilds.
That's why we need better compulsory purchase schemes. Part of a country's competitive edge is the speed at which it can develop new infrastructure.
Why not redevelop Upper Heyford?
Slap bang next to the M40, and already linked in to the GPSS pipeline system.
The Gov'ts plan to balance the budget (Aside from being a huge trap that Labour has fallen into) appears to me to be looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
To my mind productive capital expenditure (Boris Island, Heathrow 3, Crossrail, HS1,2, Motorways) is a completely different kettle of fish to current expenditure (Pay, pensions, tax credits) - there is also non productive capital expenditure to consider (Hospitals; schools).
I'd rather see a commitment from the Gov't that current/non productive capital expenditure will not cross over a certain % of the whole pot; and have the whole lot wrapped up in a formula linked to gilt rates, inflation, growth, estimated point of the economic cycle)
Obtuse and difficult to understand it may well be but I doubt the correct formula for the economy is simply to move into the red. Of course proper fiscal discipline particularly on current expenditure may well have that effect... but in of itself it shouldn't be the goal.
Then again we all saw what Gordon Brown did with his "Golden rules" much as I have proposed above, and his "end to boom and bust". The straitjacket is needed by Gov'ts most likely not to want it and vote for it's end is the issue.
This reads to me that we would still treat them as non-EU citizens and we can still restrict residency permits.
It's as clear as mud, and the directive appears to contradict itself.
We need an immigration lawyer to tell us how it is incorporated into UK law, and how it actually works in practice.
Is this yet another case of you preferring your own biased view over actual regulations? I am not surprised you want to stay in the EU. You think like the French - just ignore any laws you don't like.
LOL! I read the directive, say it contradicts itself, suggest we should find out more from someone who knows how it works in UK law, and get a personal attack from you!
You are incapable of holding a rational discussion on this topic.
As it happens, I have found the answer, in my post of a few moments ago.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
I think that's right. However 'quantifiable proposed returns' (e.g. in the form of BCRs) are rather nebulous beasts at best.
Looking at the area I'm most interested in, it's easy to argue that there was short-termist under-investment in roads, rail and air. Building the M25 to just three or four lanes is a classic example. It becomes a case of "what is the minimum we can get away with doing" rather than "what will we need in twenty, thirty or more years.
Which is why, if it is done well and gets buy-in from everyone involved, the new Infrastructure Commission might be very useful.
But New Labour's record on 'proper' investment (as you describe above) was very poor IMO.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
Boris Island is perfect for people...........living in France. For the rest of us, it will have to be Heathrow or Gatwick [ less desirable but no other option ] and Stansted.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
That sounds like an excellent idea!
There's an old airfield at Westcott, but good luck fighting a prolonged campaign with the National Trust, owners of nearby Waddesdon Manor, and the Rothschilds.
That's why we need better compulsory purchase schemes. Part of a country's competitive edge is the speed at which it can develop new infrastructure.
I've given my solution to this before: have a system whereby projects of massive national significance: Heathrow Terminal 5 and above - have a different planning process. Instead of the laborious process that saw the T5 inquiry take four years and cost over £80 million, have initial planning and put the plans to a simple 'accept/reject' national referendum.
If the majority of people agree, the plans go through. In contrast, the AV referendum cost £75 million and a fraction of the time.
It would speed up projects, cost less, and allow us to build the infrastructure we need.
That's fair enough. However, I don't see the need for referenda for that kind of project. We need governments that govern. They can justify themselves at the ballot box.
This reads to me that we would still treat them as non-EU citizens and we can still restrict residency permits.
It's as clear as mud, and the directive appears to contradict itself.
We need an immigration lawyer to tell us how it is incorporated into UK law, and how it actually works in practice.
Is this yet another case of you preferring your own biased view over actual regulations? I am not surprised you want to stay in the EU. You think like the French - just ignore any laws you don't like.
LOL! I read the directive, say it contradicts itself, suggest we should find out more from someone who knows how it works in UK law, and get a personal attack from you!
You are incapable of holding a rational discussion on this topic.
As it happens, I have found the answer, in my post of a few moments ago.
You are correct. I apologise.
Now apologise for being wrong about the EEA status and the veto which you were spouting off your ignorant rubbish about yesterday.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
That sounds like an excellent idea!
There's an old airfield at Westcott, but good luck fighting a prolonged campaign with the National Trust, owners of nearby Waddesdon Manor, and the Rothschilds.
That's why we need better compulsory purchase schemes. Part of a country's competitive edge is the speed at which it can develop new infrastructure.
I've given my solution to this before: have a system whereby projects of massive national significance: Heathrow Terminal 5 and above - have a different planning process. Instead of the laborious process that saw the T5 inquiry take four years and cost over £80 million, have initial planning and put the plans to a simple 'accept/reject' national referendum.
If the majority of people agree, the plans go through. In contrast, the AV referendum cost £75 million and a fraction of the time.
It would speed up projects, cost less, and allow us to build the infrastructure we need.
Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.
Compulsory purchase now, according to someone on here, is less than 100% of the pre-project blight market value. So offer 150% and the problem goes away.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
That sounds like an excellent idea!
There's an old airfield at Westcott, but good luck fighting a prolonged campaign with the National Trust, owners of nearby Waddesdon Manor, and the Rothschilds.
That's why we need better compulsory purchase schemes. Part of a country's competitive edge is the speed at which it can develop new infrastructure.
If the majority of people agree, the plans go through. In contrast, the AV referendum cost £75 million and a fraction of the time.
It would speed up projects, cost less, and allow us to build the infrastructure we need.
Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.
Compulsory purchase now, according to someone on here, is less than 100% of the pre-project blight market value. So offer 150% and the problem goes away.
Simples.
It was Charles, and it is an excellent idea. If we're going to have mass immigration (and while I'm vehemently against it, we have do deal with the world as it is), this is one particular problem that _can_ be solved by throwing money at it.
I have real reservations about the idea of this being a law rather than a policy but I disagree with your reasoning. The fact that tory governments have overspent in the past actually helps to make the case for the rule rather than the reverse.
The fact is that elected politicians of all stripes want to deliver a buoyant economy at election times and focus on that narrow window instead of the longer term good of the country. To a certain extent Osborne himself did that from 2012 onwards when he considerably slowed the rate of deficit reduction in recognition that the economy was not exactly roaring (it was in fact doing somewhat better than official statistics of the time indicated but that is another matter).
I don't think anyone serious has any problem with a countercyclical budget with deficits and additional spending when the economy is in recession. Many on the left, however, have a major problem with the quid pro quo of surpluses during boom periods. The temptation of politicians to bribe us with our own money is strong and it is never hard to find a real need for a new hospital, school, road, bridge, railway, airport, etc etc
At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.
Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.
Compulsory purchase now, according to someone on here, is less than 100% of the pre-project blight market value. So offer 150% and the problem goes away.
Simples.
Whilst I agree with both of you that compulsory purchase prices for such schemes should be increased, it would not solve the problem in total.
For as well as the people whose properties need to be purchased, others complain:
*) Locals whose properties are not to be purchased. Their objections can be reasonable: e.g. noise foootprints (ISTR there is compensation for this in HS2), diverted rights of way, views, local traffic (both during construction and afterwards), etc, etc. There are also many who are genuine NIMBYs.
*) Pressure groups. For instance one of the biggest objectors to a Severn Barrage are the RSPB, despite getting their own way on many projects of their liking with merely a squeak.
As an example of the former, I heard of one farmer who objected to HS1 because his land would be split into two. The alternative route they gave him was along a busy road that he could not safely take stock down. His objection was reasonable, and an alternative was devised at some cost to the project.
Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.
Compulsory purchase now, according to someone on here, is less than 100% of the pre-project blight market value. So offer 150% and the problem goes away.
Simples.
Whilst I agree with both of you that compulsory purchase prices for such schemes should be increased, it would not solve the problem in total.
For as well as the people whose properties need to be purchased, others complain:
*) Locals whose properties are not to be purchased. Their objections can be reasonable: e.g. noise foootprints (ISTR there is compensation for this in HS2), diverted rights of way, views, local traffic (both during construction and afterwards), etc, etc. There are also many who are genuine NIMBYs.
*) Pressure groups. For instance one of the biggest objectors to a Severn Barrage are the RSPB, despite getting their own way on many projects of their liking with merely a squeak.
As an example of the former, I heard of one farmer who objected to HS1 because his land would be split into two. The alternative route they gave him was along a busy road that he could not safely take stock down. His objection was reasonable, and an alternative was devised at some cost to the project.
Comments
* stable resources sufficient to live without recourse to the social assistance system of the EU country concerned;
* sickness insurance.
EU countries may require non-EU nationals to comply with further integration conditions (such as sufficient knowledge of a national language of the EU country concerned).
EU countries may refuse to grant long-term resident status on grounds of public policy or public security.
Reads to me like Germany's requirements on language etc would still apply but after 5 years and it isn't a simple case of being "just stay here for five years". That gives long term resident status within Germany and isn't the same as granting automatic free movement within the rest of the EU:
A long-term resident may exercise the right of residence, for a period exceeding three months, in an EU country other than the one which granted him/her the status, subject to compliance with certain conditions, including:
* exercise of an economic activity in an employed or self-employed capacity;
* pursuit of studies or vocational training;
* other purposes.
However, an EU country may limit the number of residence permits if, at the time of the adoption of this directive, limitations for the admission of non-EU nationals are already set out in existing national law. At the same time, for reasons of labour market policy, EU countries may give preference to Union citizens.
This reads to me that we would still treat them as non-EU citizens and we can still restrict residency permits.
We need an immigration lawyer to tell us how it is incorporated into UK law, and how it actually works in practice.
And the choice of Rose - the man who only 6 months ago said that all the claims about job losses and companies leaving was just scaremongering - is just ridiculous. In his speech yesterday he actually repeated almost every claim he had derided only a few months ago.
Back on topic, I would certainly vote against this ludicrous piece of legislation. It's a throwback to an idea Newt Gingrich had in the mid 90s which was to force profligate US Governments (Democratic) to run a surplus. He of course had no idea the huge deficits the George W Bush administration (backed by GOP majorities in the House and Senate) would run post 2001 up to 2006.
Clearly they were not, as Osborne would call them, "normal times". It's ironic for a Party that preaches about how they want people to have control over their lives and money they won't allow the institution of Government itself the same freedom. There's nothing wrong or evil about running a deficit - of course, there's a need for fiscal responsibility and we clearly didn't see that in the post-1999 Labour Government as I've argued on here many times before but this piece of political posturing neglects how often Conservative Governments ran deficits too.
The Osborne of 2015 was forged in the humiliation of 2012 when his well-touted proposal to remove the 50p tax rate (which I believe had been more or less informally "promised") was squashed by Cameron, Clegg and Alexander. Since then, Osborne has worked to take over the Conservative Party and the Government.
He has overseen the evisceration of the Liberal Democrats but needs Cameron as his front man so Cameron remains primus inter pares and delivered the majority in May but it's clearly Osborne running the show. Hammond is in a non-job, May and Johnson are marginalised and the junior ministries are stuffed full of Osborne's acolytes.
Cameron's usefulness will be to get through an EU Referendum that keeps the UK very much in the European Union and to anoint Osborne as his chosen successor. Osborne, like Brown before him, however, knows he is deeply disliked at an almost primal level outside Conservative ranks and knows his only chance of re-election is to emasculate the Opposition (something which the Opposition is helping him to do in spades).
Even now, the politics of economic policy dominate the economics. Creating a trap for the Opposition is the primary objective, not what's best for the economy. This is absurd - the Living Wage is a product not of conservatism but of Blairite Social Democracy. It is state-sponsored interference and simply to introduce it as a way of parking the tanks on Corbyn's lawns is cheap politics and lousy economics. It's no wonder business is starting to have "doubts" about Osborne.
Expand it out of recognition.
Put HS2 through it.
Job done
"The second EU country may refuse applications for residence only where there is an actual threat to public policy, public security or public health."
As you say, getting them all at once would effectively be a death sentence. The psychological effect of a dozen whippings, with time to think between them, must be devastating. Probably worse than the physical effect in most cases.
Unfortunately some people have tied themselves to the rotten mast of denigrating Osborne. They find themselves stuck in a fantasy world of theit own making.
If the majority of people agree, the plans go through. In contrast, the AV referendum cost £75 million and a fraction of the time.
It would speed up projects, cost less, and allow us to build the infrastructure we need.
State Secretary van Justitie v Mangat Singh [2012] EUECJ C-502/10 (18 October 2012)
As explained in recitals 25 and 26 of its preamble, Directive 2003/109/EC (“the directive”), concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, does not apply to the UK, Ireland and Denmark.
https://asadakhan.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/cjeu-the-concept-of-a-formally-limited-residence-permit/
On security of residence and free movement within the EU, the key measure is the Long-term Residents Directive. The UK has not opted in to any of these immigration directives.
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/policy-primers/uk-common-european-asylum-system-and-eu-immigration-law
This is simply Osborne playing politcal games, efrfective ones yes, but ones which do nothing for our economy.
Firstly this is a set of rules which GO himself hasn't kept for the last 6 years and which he has no chance of keeping for the next 3 or 4. So will he send himself to prison ? Can't see it myself.
Secondly as you can see on this thread there are so many caveats and let outs ( if it's a recession, what is spending etc. ) that the whole thing is stuffed full of holes.
Thirdly it's madness to set binding rules even one's stuffed with holes -since each set of of economic problems need different solutions, there may well come a time when a deficit is the right answer. The economy is doing well but - a big bank keels over or we are funding a war or a major inestment programme is required or there is a dip in tax receipts as sometimes happens. In that event are we going to shove up taxes or stop child benefit to meet a rule plucked out of Osborne's fundament ?
Fourthly in any case if Labour get back in to power they'll simply change the law as is their right, they'll justify it it "becasue it's the right thing to do",there'll be a bit of a hoohah for a week or so and then the story will change.So in effect he's only limiting a cosnervative CoE' room for manoeuvre ie shooting himself in the foot but can't quite see it.
This is stupid politics and one of the reasons Osborne annoys me, if he'd spend his time getting on with structural reforms to the economy we'd all be better off. But he's Brown's bastard son I'm afraid.
Slap bang next to the M40, and already linked in to the GPSS pipeline system.
To my mind productive capital expenditure (Boris Island, Heathrow 3, Crossrail, HS1,2, Motorways) is a completely different kettle of fish to current expenditure (Pay, pensions, tax credits) - there is also non productive capital expenditure to consider (Hospitals; schools).
I'd rather see a commitment from the Gov't that current/non productive capital expenditure will not cross over a certain % of the whole pot; and have the whole lot wrapped up in a formula linked to gilt rates, inflation, growth, estimated point of the economic cycle)
Obtuse and difficult to understand it may well be but I doubt the correct formula for the economy is simply to move into the red. Of course proper fiscal discipline particularly on current expenditure may well have that effect... but in of itself it shouldn't be the goal.
Then again we all saw what Gordon Brown did with his "Golden rules" much as I have proposed above, and his "end to boom and bust". The straitjacket is needed by Gov'ts most likely not to want it and vote for it's end is the issue.
You are incapable of holding a rational discussion on this topic.
As it happens, I have found the answer, in my post of a few moments ago.
Now apologise for being wrong about the EEA status and the veto which you were spouting off your ignorant rubbish about yesterday.
Compulsory purchase now, according to someone on here, is less than 100% of the pre-project blight market value. So offer 150% and the problem goes away.
Simples.
I have real reservations about the idea of this being a law rather than a policy but I disagree with your reasoning. The fact that tory governments have overspent in the past actually helps to make the case for the rule rather than the reverse.
The fact is that elected politicians of all stripes want to deliver a buoyant economy at election times and focus on that narrow window instead of the longer term good of the country. To a certain extent Osborne himself did that from 2012 onwards when he considerably slowed the rate of deficit reduction in recognition that the economy was not exactly roaring (it was in fact doing somewhat better than official statistics of the time indicated but that is another matter).
I don't think anyone serious has any problem with a countercyclical budget with deficits and additional spending when the economy is in recession. Many on the left, however, have a major problem with the quid pro quo of surpluses during boom periods. The temptation of politicians to bribe us with our own money is strong and it is never hard to find a real need for a new hospital, school, road, bridge, railway, airport, etc etc
At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.
For as well as the people whose properties need to be purchased, others complain:
*) Locals whose properties are not to be purchased. Their objections can be reasonable: e.g. noise foootprints (ISTR there is compensation for this in HS2), diverted rights of way, views, local traffic (both during construction and afterwards), etc, etc. There are also many who are genuine NIMBYs.
*) Pressure groups. For instance one of the biggest objectors to a Severn Barrage are the RSPB, despite getting their own way on many projects of their liking with merely a squeak.
As an example of the former, I heard of one farmer who objected to HS1 because his land would be split into two. The alternative route they gave him was along a busy road that he could not safely take stock down. His objection was reasonable, and an alternative was devised at some cost to the project.