Mr. Pulpstar, will you be blogging more when the contest (in the US) starts kicking off properly?
'twas a short but interesting piece.
Mr. Doethur, I suspect the single moment at university I got most credit with others was when I spoke first during some group work to ask if anyone knew what 'discursive' meant [it was a critical word in the task we had]. Nobody had a clue, and seemed relieved someone else had admitted ignorance first.
Just pretending you understand something can be very tempting, but it leads you into foolish dead ends.
Just read Hansard on last night's vote in the Lords on timing of voter registration - which will have a large impact on new boundaries and therefore on the result of the 2020 election.
I quote:
"5.28 pm
Division on Lord Kennedy’s Amendment
Contents 267; Not-Contents 257.
Lord Kennedy’s Amendment agreed.
As a result of a technical problem, the voting list was unavailable for Division No. 1, and will be published online as soon as it is available.
5.45 pm
Division on Lord Tyler’s Motion, as amended.
Contents 246; Not-Contents 257.
Lord Tyler’s Motion, as amended, disagreed.
As a result of a technical problem, the voting list was unavailable for Division No 2, and will be published online as soon as it is available. "
This is most peculiar. There are only 17 minutes between the two divisions. In fact the 2nd division followed immediately after the first. Yet 19 names disappeared off the Content list. They had just voted for the amendment to made to the original motion but failed to vote for it immediately after. But all the Non-Contents voted. And now there is a technical problem.
If the technical problem is a serious miscount, how embarrassing will that be? It obviously isn't a TECHNICAL problem. What technical problem would prevent a list of names being printed in Hansard. A faulty keyboard?.. No - there is something peculiar here. Or am I being paranoid?
@PickardJE: Volkswagen posts a third-quarter loss of E3.5 bn (or E1.6bn after-tax loss)
I think that's only going to be the start, and it will surely finish with VW either being wound up or asset-stripped and sold off. Which is rather sad in many ways - I've done 100,000 miles in Skodas in the last ten years and they are superb cars.
That being said, the wound is entirely self-inflicted so they deserve no actual sympathy.
The EU referendum already has the feel of deja vu. The PM and most of the media pretending to get a good deal for the UK while hiding the real facts. Just like forty years ago, when I took a great deal of interest.
This time I'm bored. It worked once so they're repeating the trick. And assuming the young are gullible.
Those making the same tired arguments for remaining in the EU refuse to take on board any criticism of their arguments. The 3 million jobs lie has been repeatedly discredited yet still gets used time and time again. It was only the other day when the author of the report where the lie originated from confronted Will Straw and demanded he stop using it.
'Cameron is either incrediblly dishonest or has a poor grasp of Norway's relationship with the EU'
He is just spinning the same Foreign Office line that Richard N posts on here every week. It is indeed utterly disingenuous.
The FO and their fellow travellers in the political parties and elsewhere in the bureaucracy are simply terrified of no longer being, as they see it, 'at the top table' i.e. attending summits and issuing communiques and looking terribly important. All their other arguments are a smokescreen.
Cameron is 100% in this group I'm afraid. His mind on the EU is completely closed.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
Just read Hansard on last night's vote in the Lords on timing of voter registration - which will have a large impact on new boundaries and therefore on the result of the 2020 election.
I quote:
"5.28 pm
Division on Lord Kennedy’s Amendment
Contents 267; Not-Contents 257.
Lord Kennedy’s Amendment agreed.
As a result of a technical problem, the voting list was unavailable for Division No. 1, and will be published online as soon as it is available.
5.45 pm
Division on Lord Tyler’s Motion, as amended.
Contents 246; Not-Contents 257.
Lord Tyler’s Motion, as amended, disagreed.
As a result of a technical problem, the voting list was unavailable for Division No 2, and will be published online as soon as it is available. "
This is most peculiar. There are only 17 minutes between the two divisions. In fact the 2nd division followed immediately after the first. Yet 19 names disappeared off the Content list. They had just voted for the amendment to made to the original motion but failed to vote for it immediately after. But all the Non-Contents voted. And now there is a technical problem.
If the technical problem is a serious miscount, how embarrassing will that be? It obviously isn't a TECHNICAL problem. What technical problem would prevent a list of names being printed in Hansard. A faulty keyboard?.. No - there is something peculiar here. Or am I being paranoid?
Definitely peculiarly. Is the Tory Chief Whip in the Lords Francis Urquhart?
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
Leavers are unhappy that he's making arguments for the EU and against the EEA before he's even gone to the EU with his formal negotiation demands, yet alone got a deal.
If Maggie was still with us she'd have had JC and all his friends hanged high, hanged higher and hanged once again, just to be sure!
In fairness to Thatcher, although she supported the death penalty, I've not heard of her calling for the execution of any opposition politicians - not even of Arthur Scargill, whom she publicly accused of high treason and attempted insurrection. Corbyn's magazine, on the other hand...
It is hard to imagine just how frustrated the Norwegian counterparts of our FO and senior politicians must be.
Given their predilection for issuing lectures to the rest of the world on various topics, being unable to join in the pious intonations and dreary debates in the EU must be heart rending.
Mr. Royale, not only that, if you enter negotiation making plain you want to be In, where's the bargaining power for the UK or the incentive for Brussels to give anything away?
Even if I were an Inner, I'd be annoyed because his stance now weakens the deal he'll get and make it a little harder for In to win [though I still expect it to do so comfortably].
'Cameron is either incrediblly dishonest or has a poor grasp of Norway's relationship with the EU'
He is just spinning the same Foreign Office line that Richard N posts on here every week. It is indeed utterly disingenuous.
The FO and their fellow travellers in the political parties and elsewhere in the bureaucracy are simply terrified of no longer being, as they see it, 'at the top table' i.e. attending summits and issuing communiques and looking terribly important. All their other arguments are a smokescreen.
Cameron is 100% in this group I'm afraid. His mind on the EU is completely closed.
Correct.
The way I see it the tories are split 50/50 and although the labour party is pro EU I'm not convinced most of its voters are. I foresee an opportunity for labour voters to give Cameron a bloody nose and boot him out of office, which is effectively what they'll be doing.
Unusually good piece on Radio Leicester this morning.
21 000 people in Leics could be lifted out of poverty by giving up smoking. Vox pops from people buying ciggies on the Saffron Lane estate often spending £70-100 per week on an early death.
Don't know if its true but I was told that cigs are so expensive now (a packet of B and H I am told is now circa TEN POUNDS ) that the fag co's are introducing smaller size packs...
I was a 20+ a day smoker and I save 200 a month plus since I gave up. Worst life decision I ever made was to take that first puff.
I mentioned a few days ago visitors to food banks could still light up before and afterwards. They had money to spend on ciggies so WTF were they at a food bank collecting free food.
You only had to watch programmes like Benefits St and Skint (two different parts of the country) to see everyone smoking and drinking from cans of beer. I am not stereotyping here it was there right in front of you and it was constant all day long The issue is I could never afford to smoke at the prices as they were even then which was close to 9 quid a pack. ( not that I would even want to)
My point is They were basically burning mine and many others hard earned cash. Poverty in some households is not being able to afford a lighter to ignite your next ciggie. Despite the bleating of the left. My view is you are caught smoking then benefits are cut and no food banks to bale you out.
More than happy to help and give a leg up to anyone genuine down on their luck and needing welfare to get by while they get back on track. . However, If you can afford to smoke and drink you don't need the help of those of all of the rest of us grafting day in and day out to support your life style choice while they sit around and bemoan their lot.
If only you were the UK's dictator, why, it would be paradise on earth.
Yeah easy response and completely avoids all the points made. No dictatorship about it, Why should they take welfare and then set light to it. As I said more than happy to help anyone and I do in many different ways at help centres soup runs etc but there are many just taking the Mickey. You pay if you want to but I am not here to support the lifestyles of white Dee and co.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
Leavers are unhappy that he's making arguments for the EU and against the EEA before he's even gone to the EU with his formal negotiation demands, yet alone got a deal.
What happened to 'ruling nothing out'?
He seems to be ruling quite a bit out.
Advocating Prime Ministerial purdah seems a bit extreme. He's entitled to his views. He's never made any secret of his default preference for staying in the EU.
At what points do you accept that the Prime Minister could properly argue for the benefits of EU membership? Or is it the case that you just don't like him doing this, full stop?
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Mr. Royale, not only that, if you enter negotiation making plain you want to be In, where's the bargaining power for the UK or the incentive for Brussels to give anything away?
Even if I were an Inner, I'd be annoyed because his stance now weakens the deal he'll get and make it a little harder for In to win [though I still expect it to do so comfortably].
That can cut both ways Mr Dancer. If he can't get a deal that's satisfactory, when he clearly desperately wants to, and changes his mind in order to recommend leave, how damaging would that be for the EU? Every Eurosceptic party in Europe would immediately run with the line, 'Even the EU's friends say that it's so bad that their country had to leave!'
On the whole I think Cameron knows full well he's not going to get much anyway, so it doesn't matter much what stance he takes. But with him hanging pro-EU flags out of every porthole to try and sweeten the negotiations, the EU leaders should be wary of disappointing him.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
I know the past is a foreign country, but looking back to the fifties and life on a council estate with five siblings, there was a major factor factor in having enough food. We managed on a labourer's wage plus my mother doing cleaning jobs because they hardly ever drank alcohol.
There were families in real poverty because the father (and there were fathers then) drank heavily. We wore hand-me-downs and didn't take holidays but we generally ate well.
They do things differently now; the poverty is just as real but it has different causes. Some families were just as disorganised but they lacked a safety net.
The diagnosis is easy but the cure is much more difficult. When you live from hand-to-mouth, cigarettes and alcohol seem more attractive in the short term. People are people.
That is one reason that religious organisations are useful - they don't judge, or rather, they try not to.
Left wingers assume people are potentially angels thwarted by the baby-eaters. The cure ... kill the baby-eaters. For the religious, all people are potentially angels but all are sinners in the meantime.
That Ben Carson, I had him in the back of my taxi once ...
If UK collected more Corporation Tax the need to cut welfare would lessen.
Sadly companies like Osborne and Little with a turnover since 2008 of 200m have creatively manage to pay nothing, ZERO, actually claiming a Corporation Tax refund. The Baronet running it gets about 600k a year.
If you wonder why the books of the country do not balance start with the Chancellor and his family and work your way down.
It IS legal. Fair enough. Whether it should be is a moot point.
Imagine if companies paid a fairer share? Even a 0.5% revenue tax would turn it around.
If I was Labour I would promote this farce in the MSM at every opportunity and Osborne would not even be a Dinky car toy let alone a VW.
I hold no brief for Osborne, but if the Company hasn't paid CT, it's because the Company hasn't made a profit over that period.
Unusually good piece on Radio Leicester this morning.
21 000 people in Leics could be lifted out of poverty by giving up smoking. Vox pops from people buying ciggies on the Saffron Lane estate often spending £70-100 per week on an early death.
Don't know if its true but I was told that cigs are so expensive now (a packet of B and H I am told is now circa TEN POUNDS ) that the fag co's are introducing smaller size packs...
I was a 20+ a day smoker and I save 200 a month plus since I gave up. Worst life decision I ever made was to take that first puff.
I mentioned a few days ago visitors to food banks could still light up before and afterwards. They had money to spend on ciggies so WTF were they at a food bank collecting free food.
You only had to watch programmes like Benefits St and Skint (two different parts of the country) to see everyone smoking and drinking from cans of beer. I am not stereotyping here it was there right in front of you and it was constant all day long The issue is I could never afford to smoke at the prices as they were even then which was close to 9 quid a pack. ( not that I would even want to)
My point is They were basically burning mine and many others hard earned cash. Poverty in some households is not being able to afford a lighter to ignite your next ciggie. Despite the bleating of the left. My view is you are caught smoking then benefits are cut and no food banks to bale you out.
More than happy to help and give a leg up to anyone genuine down on their luck and needing welfare to get by while they get back on track. . However, If you can afford to smoke and drink you don't need the help of those of all of the rest of us grafting day in and day out to support your life style choice while they sit around and bemoan their lot.
If only you were the UK's dictator, why, it would be paradise on earth.
Yeah easy response and completely avoids all the points made. No dictatorship about it, Why should they take welfare and then set light to it. As I said more than happy to help anyone and I do in many different ways at help centres soup runs etc but there are many just taking the Mickey. You pay if you want to but I am not here to support the lifestyles of white Dee and co.
Do the soup centres impose the rules you want to? And if not, why do you go on volunteering for them?
Mr. Royale, not only that, if you enter negotiation making plain you want to be In, where's the bargaining power for the UK or the incentive for Brussels to give anything away?
Even if I were an Inner, I'd be annoyed because his stance now weakens the deal he'll get and make it a little harder for In to win [though I still expect it to do so comfortably].
That can cut both ways Mr Dancer. If he can't get a deal that's satisfactory, when he clearly desperately wants to, and changes his mind in order to recommend leave, how damaging would that be for the EU? Every Eurosceptic party in Europe would immediately run with the line, 'Even the EU's friends say that it's so bad that their country had to leave!'
On the whole I think Cameron knows full well he's not going to get much anyway, so it doesn't matter much what stance he takes. But with him hanging pro-EU flags out of every porthole to try and sweeten the negotiations, the EU leaders should be wary of disappointing him.
We will more than likely be offered something similar what we currently have. It will be rebranded associate membership.
If UK collected more Corporation Tax the need to cut welfare would lessen.
Sadly companies like Osborne and Little with a turnover since 2008 of 200m have creatively manage to pay nothing, ZERO, actually claiming a Corporation Tax refund. The Baronet running it gets about 600k a year.
If you wonder why the books of the country do not balance start with the Chancellor and his family and work your way down.
It IS legal. Fair enough. Whether it should be is a moot point.
Imagine if companies paid a fairer share? Even a 0.5% revenue tax would turn it around.
If I was Labour I would promote this farce in the MSM at every opportunity and Osborne would not even be a Dinky car toy let alone a VW.
It was ever thus with the Tories, they live to line theirs and their chums pockets. For sure they are skillful at that.
I don't think he can. Remember it's just the last in a long string of incompetences which he was fortunate to get away with. Yesrterday he looked like a rabbit caught in headlights and the humiliation of watching Boris speak up for him...
OT I heard Tim Farron speak from Lesbos. Very impressive. Those looking for a left of centre home slightly less dishevelled than Corbyn's Labour Party should take note
'if you enter negotiation making plain you want to be In, where's the bargaining power for the UK or the incentive for Brussels to give anything away'
Yes but you are assuming he actually wants to achieve something substantial. He doesn't. The FO view has already been published some years ago, in a laughably complacent and dishonest document that concluded that the status quo was fine. That remains their position.
The 'renegotiation' process is being handled by essentially the same set of people who put forward that view. All that is wanted here is some cosmetic fluff to disguise the continuation of the current relationship.
They think they are being terribly clever. We shall see whether that is the case.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
It's Cameron's disingenuous posturing that irks me, he is going through the pathetic charade of renegotiation and keeping options open when in reality he wants IN at any price.
I've heard labour politicians say they'll vote IN regardless and while I disagree I respect that stance. Cameron is trying to take us for fools and it will backfire.
Moses..entirely agree re the smoking and drinking when they are on benefits..why should I and many others pay for that ..
Back to vouchers. And for leftie pensioners, too - everybody knows they never grafted, not one day in their lives.
If Maggie was still with us she'd have had JC and all his friends hanged high, hanged higher and hanged once again, just to be sure!
Ha! so having avoided the points made you then swerve the argument onto pensioners. Who the hell said anything about pensioners! Seriously? I mean seriously?
Pensioners have no place in this argument other than the fact many are still paying tax still which then in part is distributed to these claimants so that's your connection if you even really desperately want one. You are though a typical leftie. You can't address the point so cloud the argument, muddy the waters and then call the person a dictator.
You really are a numpty and not worth debating with.
Moses..entirely agree re the smoking and drinking when they are on benefits..why should I and many others pay for that ..
Back to vouchers. And for leftie pensioners, too - everybody knows they never grafted, not one day in their lives.
If Maggie was still with us she'd have had JC and all his friends hanged high, hanged higher and hanged once again, just to be sure!
Ha! so having avoided the points made you then swerve the argument onto pensioners. Who the hell said anything about pensioners! Seriously? I mean seriously?
Pensioners have no place in this argument other than the fact many are still paying tax still which then in part is distributed to these claimants so that's your connection if you even really desperately want one. You are though a typical leftie. You can't address the point so cloud the argument, muddy the waters and then call the person a dictator.
You really are a numpty and not worth debating with.
Well, I feel joy. I only began the discussion to lead you into personal abuse.
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all likelihood David Cameron will discreetly try to assist his friend by timing his own resignation for the most helpful moment. If George Osborne wants the job, he is almost certainly going to be in the last two. The market has overreacted.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour party rejecting Healey for Foot. I mean its possible but it would come with a terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all likelihood David Cameron will discreetly try to assist his friend by timing his own resignation for the most helpful moment. If George Osborne wants the job, he is almost certainly going to be in the last two. The market has overreacted.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour party rejecting Healey for Foot. I mean its possible but it would come with a terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
Morning all,
Your last point may be true, but never underestimate the lure of being PM and getting your photo on the staircase at No. 10. Osborne will give his right arm for it IMHO, and why not. Whether others will be able to stop him is another matter.
As to Javid. I just don't get it, other than the back-story. I'll not be betting on him.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
Leavers are unhappy that he's making arguments for the EU and against the EEA before he's even gone to the EU with his formal negotiation demands, yet alone got a deal.
What happened to 'ruling nothing out'?
He seems to be ruling quite a bit out.
Advocating Prime Ministerial purdah seems a bit extreme. He's entitled to his views. He's never made any secret of his default preference for staying in the EU.
At what points do you accept that the Prime Minister could properly argue for the benefits of EU membership? Or is it the case that you just don't like him doing this, full stop?
Hold on.. he's said that the current terms of EU membership are unacceptable and only a renegotiated relationship will do. If he doesn't get it then he rules nothing out.
If he's saying that actually he prefers to stay in the EU anyway, then that makes a sham of his publicly declared position and he's just going through the motions.
There's nothing hysterical about that, except to die-hard EUphiles.
To answer your question, I think the PM should declare he is reserving judgement and maintaining an open mind *until* his deal is secured, saying on what terms he thinks the EU is good (with strong caveats linked to his deal) if necessary.
He's not a private citizen here. He's entitled to hold whatever views he really does in private but publicly he is our PM and has been elected to advance our interests - he should carefully judge what he says in public to support that.
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all likelihood David Cameron will discreetly try to assist his friend by timing his own resignation for the most helpful moment. If George Osborne wants the job, he is almost certainly going to be in the last two. The market has overreacted.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour party rejecting Healey for Foot. I mean its possible but it would come with a terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
As long as dishonest and duplicitous tactics don't take hold over the EU referendum, by 2025 we should have been in power for 15 years. Virtually any government looks tired and stale at that point. We will need new faces, new thinkers, and new ideas to win a fourth term.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
Outbreaks of hysteria? No. Correcting a man who repeatedly claims that Norway is a fax democracy? Yes. It is an inconvenient truth for those in favour of remaining in the EU, but it is the truth nonetheless.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
Which hardline BOOers have had an outbreak of hysteria?
Frankly, the people that accuse others of "hysteria" or "banging on" or being "swivel-eyed" tend to be the ones that are most zealously ideological themselves. Typically, people resort to insults when they do not have good counter arguments.
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all likelihood David Cameron will discreetly try to assist his friend by timing his own resignation for the most helpful moment. If George Osborne wants the job, he is almost certainly going to be in the last two. The market has overreacted.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour party rejecting Healey for Foot. I mean its possible but it would come with a terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
Which hardline BOOers have had an outbreak of hysteria?
Frankly, the people that accuse others of "hysteria" or "banging on" or being "swivel-eyed" tend to be the ones that are most zealously ideological themselves. Typically, people resort to insults when they do not have good counter arguments.
"Banging on" and "swivel eyed" are copyright D Cameron.
If UK collected more Corporation Tax the need to cut welfare would lessen.
Sadly companies like Osborne and Little with a turnover since 2008 of 200m have creatively manage to pay nothing, ZERO, actually claiming a Corporation Tax refund. The Baronet running it gets about 600k a year.
If you wonder why the books of the country do not balance start with the Chancellor and his family and work your way down.
It IS legal. Fair enough. Whether it should be is a moot point.
Imagine if companies paid a fairer share? Even a 0.5% revenue tax would turn it around.
If I was Labour I would promote this farce in the MSM at every opportunity and Osborne would not even be a Dinky car toy let alone a VW.
I hold no brief for Osborne, but if the Company hasn't paid CT, it's because the Company hasn't made a profit over that period.
Gross profit £10.4m Salaries £6.3m Directors Emoluments £1.26m Pre tax profit £229k Tax (£435k) Post tax profit £664k
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
Leavers are unhappy that he's making arguments for the EU and against the EEA before he's even gone to the EU with his formal negotiation demands, yet alone got a deal.
What happened to 'ruling nothing out'?
He seems to be ruling quite a bit out.
Advocating Prime Ministerial purdah seems a bit extreme. He's entitled to his views. He's never made any secret of his default preference for staying in the EU.
At what points do you accept that the Prime Minister could properly argue for the benefits of EU membership? Or is it the case that you just don't like him doing this, full stop?
Hold on.. he's said that the current terms of EU membership are unacceptable and only a renegotiated relationship will do. If he doesn't get it then he rules nothing out.
If he's saying that actually he prefers to stay in the EU anyway, then that makes a sham of his publicly declared position and he's just going through the motions.
There's nothing hysterical about that, except to die-hard EUphiles.
To answer your question, I think the PM should declare he is reserving judgement and maintaining an open mind *until* his deal is secured, saying on what terms he thinks the EU is good (with strong caveats linked to his deal) if necessary.
He's not a private citizen here. He's entitled to hold whatever views he really does in private but publicly he is our PM and has been elected to advance our interests - he should carefully judge what he says in public to support that.
Do you think that's unreasonable?
That David Cameron he would prefer Britain to stay in the EU if it can is not news to at least one well-known BOOer (who is notably less hysterical than most):
You want our foremost politician, who coincidentally is known to hold views on a subject that you strongly disagree with, not to express those views on that subject. I can see why you might hold that position. But yes, I think it's entirely unreasonable.
This debate about our lukewarm membership of the EU versus the EEA is very revealing, and is the reason why I don’t think the rift in the Conservative Party is as wide as it was in the past. The positions are not as polarised as they were twenty years ago. Firstly, the EU has grown so large that even the BOO people realise we need to come to some accommodation: membership of the EEA or a very similar trade agreement. Those wanting to remain in the EU don’t want to join the eurozone, don’t want to join Schengen and have ruled out ever-closer political union. The two choices are not that far apart. All parties accept that no major future changes can take place without another referendum. In or out of the EU I suspect we will still be arguing about access to markets, movement of labour and the decline of Europe relative to Asia and America. The extremes have already left the party. Those who think we should be fully paid-up members of the eurozone are few and far between in the country yet alone the party; and those believing we can still enjoy complete sovereignty over our own affairs are in UKIP or living a dream.
@helenpidd: Middlesbrough fans' chant to Cameron: "You shagged a pig, you made it squeal, get off your arse and Save our Steel" https://t.co/x6fSXTcr8G
Yes the comparisons between GO and VW are perfectly valid- one is ridden with approvals avoiding corruption and union scandals, the other had his democratically earned mandate voted down by a bunch of LD luvvies who were justly turfed out en mass by the British public in May.
For those of us who enjoy the hospitality industries in the UK leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.I can't remember when I was last served by an English waiter or waitress (thank God).
Now that a referendum has been granted, what EU opponents need to do is concentrate on taking control of the debate away from Cameron and the FO/CBI unholy alliance.
We know they are not on our side. But they are also not as influential or clever as they think they are.
The key thing is to get the public engaged and interested. If we don't (and this is what the FO & Co. are hoping for) then they will default to the status quo I think. If there is a genuine upsurge of interest, the referendum is eminently winnable as the pro-EU side's arguments are transparently self-serving and intellectually empty.
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all likelihood David Cameron will discreetly try to assist his friend by timing his own resignation for the most helpful moment. If George Osborne wants the job, he is almost certainly going to be in the last two. The market has overreacted.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour party rejecting Healey for Foot. I mean its possible but it would come with a terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
Morning all,
Your last point may be true, but never underestimate the lure of being PM and getting your photo on the staircase at No. 10. Osborne will give his right arm for it IMHO, and why not. Whether others will be able to stop him is another matter.
As to Javid. I just don't get it, other than the back-story. I'll not be betting on him.
I'm increasingly interested in Gove.
I want to believe in May, but doubt she is sincere. Truss/Soubry/Morgan are all soaking wet. Hammond is dull. Boris I trust even less.
My real problem is that most of the cabinet is alike in views and outlook. Jeremy Hunt is possible but a bit of an unknown to me.
I may - when I can be arsed - flick through all the junior ministers and the 2010/2015 intake for inspiration - Jesse Norman, Justine Greening, Priti Patel are interesting - but that's as far as my thinking takes me for now.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with David Cameron making arguments to stay in the EU, if those are his views. But if he's serious about a renegotiation, he should be waiting until that is done before making them. And he should be honest in the arguments he makes. That is not too much to ask to anyone reasonable.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with David Cameron making arguments to stay in the EU, if those are his views. But if he's serious about a renegotiation, he should be waiting until that is done before making them. And he should be honest in the arguments he makes. That is not too much to ask to anyone reasonable.
Its almost like he doesn't want the next 2 years dominated by EU referendum chat.
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all likelihood David Cameron will discreetly try to assist his friend by timing his own resignation for the most helpful moment. If George Osborne wants the job, he is almost certainly going to be in the last two. The market has overreacted.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour party rejecting Healey for Foot. I mean its possible but it would come with a terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
As long as dishonest and duplicitous tactics don't take hold over the EU referendum, by 2025 we should have been in power for 15 years. Virtually any government looks tired and stale at that point. We will need new faces, new thinkers, and new ideas to win a fourth term.
I agree, but we're picking the leader for the third term. If he or she is fresh enough, then that could see a Conservative government through the 2020s as well.
Yes the comparisons between GO and VW are perfectly valid- one is ridden with approvals avoiding corruption and union scandals, the other had his democratically earned mandate voted down by a bunch of LD luvvies who were justly turfed out en mass by the British public in May.
Filled with mistakes, but I'll just point out the easy one: it's 'en masse'.
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all d.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
Morning all,
Your last point may be true, but never underestimate the lure of being PM and getting your photo on the staircase at No. 10. Osborne will give his right arm for it IMHO, and why not. Whether others will be able to stop him is another matter.
As to Javid. I just don't get it, other than the back-story. I'll not be betting on him.
I'm increasingly interested in Gove.
I want to believe in May, but doubt she is sincere. Truss/Soubry/Morgan are all soaking wet. Hammond is dull. Boris I trust even less.
My real problem is that most of the cabinet is alike in views and outlook. Jeremy Hunt is possible but a bit of an unknown to me.
I may - when I can be arsed - flick through all the junior ministers and the 2010/2015 intake for inspiration - Jesse Norman, Justine Greening, Priti Patel are interesting - but that's as far as my thinking takes me for now.
I assume that Osborne and little reclaims tax due to reclaiming pretty much all available Annual investment allowance up to £500,000. Add in some non taxable items in the p&l, and the tax figure makes sense.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
Which hardline BOOers have had an outbreak of hysteria?
Frankly, the people that accuse others of "hysteria" or "banging on" or being "swivel-eyed" tend to be the ones that are most zealously ideological themselves. Typically, people resort to insults when they do not have good counter arguments.
Antifrank is one of the best tipsters and writers here - extremely intelligent, excellent tips and courteous.
However, he totally loses it on the following subjects: the EU, immigration and UKIP. But that's ok, I lose it on foxhunting.
@helenpidd: Middlesbrough fans' chant to Cameron: "You shagged a pig, you made it squeal, get off your arse and Save our Steel" https://t.co/x6fSXTcr8G
I am sceptical about the increasing minimum wage though. It is likely to stress some organisations to the wall financially, especially in social care, and also to push up immigration.
Bluntly, if a company can't make a reasonable profit while paying its staff a decent wage it shouldn't be in business.
We may need to decide that, as a country, we want to pay more for social care; we probably have to cut out some of the pointless regulations, especially around property costs, to reduce the operating costs of the social care providers; and providers may need to accept a lower return.
These are all acceptable trade offs.
Running a business that only survives because of a supply of cheap labour is not acceptanle
For those of us who enjoy the hospitality industries in the UK leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.I can't remember when I was last served by an English waiter or waitress (thank God).
Showing your true colours, Roger.
Or perhaps the English staff simply don't want to serve you?
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all likelihood David Cameron will discreetly try to assist his friend by timing his own resignation for the most helpful moment. If George Osborne wants the job, he is almost certainly going to be in the last two. The market has overreacted.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour party rejecting Healey for Foot. I mean its possible but it would come with a terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
If UK collected more Corporation Tax the need to cut welfare would lessen.
Sadly companies like Osborne and Little with a turnover since 2008 of 200m have creatively manage to pay nothing, ZERO, actually claiming a Corporation Tax refund. The Baronet running it gets about 600k a year.
If you wonder why the books of the country do not balance start with the Chancellor and his family and work your way down.
It IS legal. Fair enough. Whether it should be is a moot point.
Imagine if companies paid a fairer share? Even a 0.5% revenue tax would turn it around.
If I was Labour I would promote this farce in the MSM at every opportunity and Osborne would not even be a Dinky car toy let alone a VW.
I hold no brief for Osborne, but if the Company hasn't paid CT, it's because the Company hasn't made a profit over that period.
Gross profit £10.4m Salaries £6.3m Directors Emoluments £1.26m Pre tax profit £229k Tax (£435k) Post tax profit £664k
Cash in bank at £500k at 31 Mar 14
But, the company must have made a loss at some point, that enables it to recover CT. A profit of £229k over six years is tiny, and there must have been some years of heavy losses.
For those of us who enjoy the hospitality industries in the UK leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.I can't remember when I was last served by an English waiter or waitress (thank God).
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
Which hardline BOOers have had an outbreak of hysteria?
Frankly, the people that accuse others of "hysteria" or "banging on" or being "swivel-eyed" tend to be the ones that are most zealously ideological themselves. Typically, people resort to insults when they do not have good counter arguments.
Antifrank is one of the best tipsters and writers here - extremely intelligent, excellent tips and courteous.
However, he totally loses it on the following subjects: the EU, immigration and UKIP. But that's ok, I lose it on foxhunting.
None of us are perfect.
Anyone who disagrees is 'hysterical', an 'arsehole' or a caveman/dinosaur (can't remember the exact put down used)... Shame
We're a few years off from the change of Conservative leadership: two at a minimum. So short term ups and downs aren't that important. George Osborne's problems with tax credits wouldn't matter at all if they didn't reinforce the previously held view of him.
Meanwhile, he continues to have a huge support base in the Parliamentary party and in all d.
Your third sentence is the problem for GO.
If he wants it, he will probably make the last two. But he has to win the membership vote too and, of that, I'm not so sure.
The Tory membership not selecting Osborne would be at least as ridiculous as the Labour terrible price.
That depends who they selected instead. The Conservatives have quite a few entirely viable candidates.
I'm still not at all sure that George Osborne will ultimately run. If he can carry on doing what he's doing now, he'd probably prefer to see a protege in Number 10. So look closely at his political friends. The successor to David Cameron may be one of those.
Yes, Javid being the obvious one.
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
Morning all,
Your last point may be true, but never underestimate the lure of being PM and getting your photo on the staircase at No. 10. Osborne will give his right arm for it IMHO, and why not. Whether others will be able to stop him is another matter.
As to Javid. I just don't get it, other than the back-story. I'll not be betting on him.
I'm increasingly interested in Gove.
I want to believe in May, but doubt she is sincere. Truss/Soubry/Morgan are all soaking wet. Hammond is dull. Boris I trust even less.
My real problem is that most of the cabinet is alike in views and outlook. Jeremy Hunt is possible but a bit of an unknown to me.
I may - when I can be arsed - flick through all the junior ministers and the 2010/2015 intake for inspiration - Jesse Norman, Justine Greening, Priti Patel are interesting - but that's as far as my thinking takes me for now.
I like Gove but I think he's just too abrasive.
My choice to replace Cameron is Johnny Mercer
Great tip. I love Mercer but surely far too soon?
If he gets ministerial experience under his belt in the next 2-3 years then maybe.
If UK collected more Corporation Tax the need to cut welfare would lessen.
Sadly companies like Osborne and Little with a turnover since 2008 of 200m have creatively manage to pay nothing, ZERO, actually claiming a Corporation Tax refund. The Baronet running it gets about 600k a year.
If you wonder why the books of the country do not balance start with the Chancellor and his family and work your way down.
It IS legal. Fair enough. Whether it should be is a moot point.
Imagine if companies paid a fairer share? Even a 0.5% revenue tax would turn it around.
If I was Labour I would promote this farce in the MSM at every opportunity and Osborne would not even be a Dinky car toy let alone a VW.
I hold no brief for Osborne, but if the Company hasn't paid CT, it's because the Company hasn't made a profit over that period.
Gross profit £10.4m Salaries £6.3m Directors Emoluments £1.26m Pre tax profit £229k Tax (£435k) Post tax profit £664k
Cash in bank at £500k at 31 Mar 14
But, the company must have made a loss at some point, that enables it to recover CT. A profit of £229k over six years is tiny, and there must have been some years of heavy losses.
I'm not sure, I'm too tight to pay for duedil's full service
Pulpstar, more tax would have been paid on the salaries and directors' emoluments than if the money had remained in the company as profit subject to corporation tax. No doubt, if HMRC are not satisfied that there was a tax loss, they are well capable of making the case to the company. At least, that has always been my experience.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
Leavers are unhappy that he's making arguments for the EU and against the EEA before he's even gone to the EU with his formal negotiation demands, yet alone got a deal.
What happened to 'ruling nothing out'?
He seems to be ruling quite a bit out.
Advocating Prime Ministerial purdah seems a bit extreme. He's entitled to his views. He's never made any secret of his default preference for staying in the EU.
At what points do you accept that the Prime Minister could properly argue for the benefits of EU membership? Or is it the case that you just don't like him doing this, full stop?
Hold on.. he's said that the current terms of EU membership are unacceptable and only a renegotiated relationship will do. If he doesn't get it then he rules nothing out.
If he's saying that actually he prefers to stay in the EU anyway, then that makes a sham of his publicly declared position and he's just going through the motions.
There's nothing hysterical about that, except to die-hard EUphiles.
To answer your question, I think the PM should declare he is reserving judgement and maintaining an open mind *until* his deal is secured, saying on what terms he thinks the EU is good (with strong caveats linked to his deal) if necessary.
He's not a private citizen here. He's entitled to hold whatever views he really does in private but publicly he is our PM and has been elected to advance our interests - he should carefully judge what he says in public to support that.
Do you think that's unreasonable?
That David Cameron he would prefer Britain to stay in the EU if it can is not news to at least one well-known BOOer (who is notably less hysterical than most):
You want our foremost politician, who coincidentally is known to hold views on a subject that you strongly disagree with, not to express those views on that subject. I can see why you might hold that position. But yes, I think it's entirely unreasonable.
*Sigh* totally missing the point.
No point engaging with you further on this matter if you are going to be so ludicrous.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
Which hardline BOOers have had an outbreak of hysteria?
Frankly, the people that accuse others of "hysteria" or "banging on" or being "swivel-eyed" tend to be the ones that are most zealously ideological themselves. Typically, people resort to insults when they do not have good counter arguments.
Antifrank is one of the best tipsters and writers here - extremely intelligent, excellent tips and courteous.
However, he totally loses it on the following subjects: the EU, immigration and UKIP. But that's ok, I lose it on foxhunting.
None of us are perfect.
On the subject of the EU I'm on the fence. When I come into contact with committed Remainders, I incline to Leave. When, as this morning, the Leavers are in the ascendancy, I gain a renewed appreciation of the EU.
David Cameron is well within his rights to point out that Norwegian politicians consider Norway's relations with the EU have downsides. If Leavers are going to be so brittle about every inconvenient argument, we will run out of Valium in the next two years.
I am sure Dave will mention that only 15% of Norwegians want to join the EU...
Others are welcome to make their own arguments. The wanton outbreaks of hysteria from the hardline BOOers every time the Prime Minister expresses his own views on the EU do them no credit at all.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
Which hardline BOOers have had an outbreak of hysteria?
Frankly, the people that accuse others of "hysteria" or "banging on" or being "swivel-eyed" tend to be the ones that are most zealously ideological themselves. Typically, people resort to insults when they do not have good counter arguments.
Antifrank is one of the best tipsters and writers here - extremely intelligent, excellent tips and courteous.
However, he totally loses it on the following subjects: the EU, immigration and UKIP. But that's ok, I lose it on foxhunting.
None of us are perfect.
You've been a regular on here longer than I have, but I find there are four individuals on here that tend to insult people regularly, and antifrank is one of them. It doesn't set a good impression.
If UK collected more Corporation Tax the need to cut welfare would lessen.
Sadly companies like Osborne and Little with a turnover since 2008 of 200m have creatively manage to pay nothing, ZERO, actually claiming a Corporation Tax refund. The Baronet running it gets about 600k a year.
If you wonder why the books of the country do not balance start with the Chancellor and his family and work your way down.
It IS legal. Fair enough. Whether it should be is a moot point.
Imagine if companies paid a fairer share? Even a 0.5% revenue tax would turn it around.
If I was Labour I would promote this farce in the MSM at every opportunity and Osborne would not even be a Dinky car toy let alone a VW.
I hold no brief for Osborne, but if the Company hasn't paid CT, it's because the Company hasn't made a profit over that period.
Gross profit £10.4m Salaries £6.3m Directors Emoluments £1.26m Pre tax profit £229k Tax (£435k) Post tax profit £664k
Cash in bank at £500k at 31 Mar 14
But, the company must have made a loss at some point, that enables it to recover CT. A profit of £229k over six years is tiny, and there must have been some years of heavy losses.
I'm not sure, I'm too tight to pay for duedil's full service
You can carry a loss back 12 months or forward into another tax year as I understand it:
But a bit irrelevant surely? Osborne, as in George, must have put his shares into some kind of sleep mode or blind trust or whatever as he is a minister.
No point engaging with you further on this matter if you are going to be so ludicrous.
You don't think it's appropriate for David Cameron to express his views now because it's "too soon". Once the referendum campaign is in full swing you'll no doubt think it's inappropriate for him to express his views because "he should be above the campaign".
Can you pin down for me the five minutes when you believe that he is entitled to express his opinions? Or does he need to wait until after the referendum campaign is over now?
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
What you are saying is that you want to move beyond New Labour Conservatism.
Sounds eerily familiar. I note that Boris Johnson also has a younger brother.
No. I think there were lessons to learn in the 2000s about how the Conservatives came across to people, and that they welcomed all support.
I don't think all the right ones were heeded: the main one being we are seen as the party of the rich, and we've only belatedly realised that it was diversity in the social background of candidates we needed not their physical appearance.
I think it was stupid to eviscerate our own membership just to make a point. That identity politics is absurd and that liberal attitudes to immigration are a serious mistake.
I will be looking for someone who puts Britain, its society and the national interest first in its Conservatism, and doesn't make it all about the money.
For those of us who enjoy the hospitality industries in the UK leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.I can't remember when I was last served by an English waiter or waitress (thank God).
Mr. Antifrank, surprised you're content to let the views of others, and your dislike of such, sway your opinion that way.
You can't divorce the arguments from the people making them. As things stand, if we leave the EU, we are electing to be led by inward-looking grouchy hysterical maniacs. If we stay in the EU, we are electing to be led by arrogant disingenuous faceless bureaucrats. The vote is as much about identity as the economy.
Neither of those identities are appealing to me and contact with each reinforces the appeal of the other.
For those of us who enjoy the hospitality industries in the UK leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.I can't remember when I was last served by an English waiter or waitress (thank God).
It's very clear the hospitality and retail sector has a very strong vested interest in staying in the EU, as it benefits from cheap European labour. This is why I think it was a mistake to put a big retail guy to head the Remain campaign.
No point engaging with you further on this matter if you are going to be so ludicrous.
You don't think it's appropriate for David Cameron to express his views now because it's "too soon". Once the referendum campaign is in full swing you'll no doubt think it's inappropriate for him to express his views because "he should be above the campaign".
Can you pin down for me the five minutes when you believe that he is entitled to express his opinions? Or does he need to wait until after the referendum campaign is over now?
Just a quick point - but wasn't he going to renegotiate our relationship... and then take a view ?
Mr. Antifrank, surprised you're content to let the views of others, and your dislike of such, sway your opinion that way.
You can't divorce the arguments from the people making them. As things stand, if we leave the EU, we are electing to be led by inward-looking grouchy hysterical maniacs. If we stay in the EU, we are electing to be led by arrogant disingenuous faceless bureaucrats. The vote is as much about identity as the economy.
Neither of those identities are appealing to me and contact with each reinforces the appeal of the other.
The politicians we elect in the UK will be very similar whether we are In or Out of the EU. I fully expect us to have a mainstream Conservative Prime Minister in 2020, whatever happens.
No point engaging with you further on this matter if you are going to be so ludicrous.
You don't think it's appropriate for David Cameron to express his views now because it's "too soon". Once the referendum campaign is in full swing you'll no doubt think it's inappropriate for him to express his views because "he should be above the campaign".
Can you pin down for me the five minutes when you believe that he is entitled to express his opinions? Or does he need to wait until after the referendum campaign is over now?
Nonsense. I supported Cameron's initial position and wanted him (and still do want him) to succeed but it's clear where he's going now. And I am very disappointed about it. IIRC, Socrates said much the same thing.
I've already said downthread how I think Cameron can express his views and give leadership, without compromising his own renegotiation.
I'm afraid I have to work now. I'm sure we can pick this up again later, hopefully once you've calmed down and had a good think.
No point engaging with you further on this matter if you are going to be so ludicrous.
You don't think it's appropriate for David Cameron to express his views now because it's "too soon". Once the referendum campaign is in full swing you'll no doubt think it's inappropriate for him to express his views because "he should be above the campaign".
Can you pin down for me the five minutes when you believe that he is entitled to express his opinions? Or does he need to wait until after the referendum campaign is over now?
Just a quick point - but wasn't he going to renegotiate our relationship... and then take a view ?
Have the 'renegotiations' started ?
He certainly was. I don't think he's ever disavowed his previously stated view that as a default he would prefer to stay in the EU though. Why should he not express his reasons for that view?
For those of us who enjoy the hospitality industries in the UK leaving the EU would be a catastrophe.I can't remember when I was last served by an English waiter or waitress (thank God).
A truly vile comment.
Indeed.
Still, Roger's comment reminds us that should you wish to film a commercial for toilet paper, it's always best to choose a decent foreign Director, rather than a horrible bigoted English one, who hasn't noticed that everyone is spitting in his tea.
Comments
'twas a short but interesting piece.
Mr. Doethur, I suspect the single moment at university I got most credit with others was when I spoke first during some group work to ask if anyone knew what 'discursive' meant [it was a critical word in the task we had]. Nobody had a clue, and seemed relieved someone else had admitted ignorance first.
Just pretending you understand something can be very tempting, but it leads you into foolish dead ends.
Like believing Caesar was superior to Hannibal.
I quote:
"5.28 pm
Division on Lord Kennedy’s Amendment
Contents 267; Not-Contents 257.
Lord Kennedy’s Amendment agreed.
As a result of a technical problem, the voting list was unavailable for Division No. 1, and will be published online as soon as it is available.
5.45 pm
Division on Lord Tyler’s Motion, as amended.
Contents 246; Not-Contents 257.
Lord Tyler’s Motion, as amended, disagreed.
As a result of a technical problem, the voting list was unavailable for Division No 2, and will be published online as soon as it is available. "
This is most peculiar. There are only 17 minutes between the two divisions. In fact the 2nd division followed immediately after the first. Yet 19 names disappeared off the Content list. They had just voted for the amendment to made to the original motion but failed to vote for it immediately after. But all the Non-Contents voted. And now there is a technical problem.
If the technical problem is a serious miscount, how embarrassing will that be? It obviously isn't a TECHNICAL problem. What technical problem would prevent a list of names being printed in Hansard. A faulty keyboard?.. No - there is something peculiar here. Or am I being paranoid?
titter
;-)
He is just spinning the same Foreign Office line that Richard N posts on here every week. It is indeed utterly disingenuous.
The FO and their fellow travellers in the political parties and elsewhere in the bureaucracy are simply terrified of no longer being, as they see it, 'at the top table' i.e. attending summits and issuing communiques and looking terribly important. All their other arguments are a smokescreen.
Cameron is 100% in this group I'm afraid. His mind on the EU is completely closed.
Never bought the view that Cameron would campaign for anything other than In.
If Maggie was still with us she'd have had JC and all his friends hanged high, hanged higher and hanged once again, just to be sure!
What happened to 'ruling nothing out'?
He seems to be ruling quite a bit out.
Given their predilection for issuing lectures to the rest of the world on various topics, being unable to join in the pious intonations and dreary debates in the EU must be heart rending.
Even if I were an Inner, I'd be annoyed because his stance now weakens the deal he'll get and make it a little harder for In to win [though I still expect it to do so comfortably].
The way I see it the tories are split 50/50 and although the labour party is pro EU I'm not convinced most of its voters are. I foresee an opportunity for labour voters to give Cameron a bloody nose and boot him out of office, which is effectively what they'll be doing.
You pay if you want to but I am not here to support the lifestyles of white Dee and co.
At what points do you accept that the Prime Minister could properly argue for the benefits of EU membership? Or is it the case that you just don't like him doing this, full stop?
On the whole I think Cameron knows full well he's not going to get much anyway, so it doesn't matter much what stance he takes. But with him hanging pro-EU flags out of every porthole to try and sweeten the negotiations, the EU leaders should be wary of disappointing him.
Personally, I can't see a huge amount of relevance to the UK of Norway's position either way. Its circumstances are too different from our own.
I know the past is a foreign country, but looking back to the fifties and life on a council estate with five siblings, there was a major factor factor in having enough food. We managed on a labourer's wage plus my mother doing cleaning jobs because they hardly ever drank alcohol.
There were families in real poverty because the father (and there were fathers then) drank heavily. We wore hand-me-downs and didn't take holidays but we generally ate well.
They do things differently now; the poverty is just as real but it has different causes. Some families were just as disorganised but they lacked a safety net.
The diagnosis is easy but the cure is much more difficult. When you live from hand-to-mouth, cigarettes and alcohol seem more attractive in the short term. People are people.
That is one reason that religious organisations are useful - they don't judge, or rather, they try not to.
Left wingers assume people are potentially angels thwarted by the baby-eaters. The cure ... kill the baby-eaters. For the religious, all people are potentially angels but all are sinners in the meantime.
That Ben Carson, I had him in the back of my taxi once ...
OT I heard Tim Farron speak from Lesbos. Very impressive. Those looking for a left of centre home slightly less dishevelled than Corbyn's Labour Party should take note
Yes but you are assuming he actually wants to achieve something substantial. He doesn't. The FO view has already been published some years ago, in a laughably complacent and dishonest document that concluded that the status quo was fine. That remains their position.
The 'renegotiation' process is being handled by essentially the same set of people who put forward that view. All that is wanted here is some cosmetic fluff to disguise the continuation of the current relationship.
They think they are being terribly clever. We shall see whether that is the case.
I've heard labour politicians say they'll vote IN regardless and while I disagree I respect that stance. Cameron is trying to take us for fools and it will backfire.
Pensioners have no place in this argument other than the fact many are still paying tax still which then in part is distributed to these claimants so that's your connection if you even really desperately want one. You are though a typical leftie. You can't address the point so cloud the argument, muddy the waters and then call the person a dictator.
You really are a numpty and not worth debating with.
I genuinely think I couldn't do it inside 24 hours.
I'm fortunate that I live and work near two fine cinemas, one of them being a Cineworld
Osborne has serious flaws as a frontman. He really struggles to connect.
Also I don't think he's ever got over his obsession with The Project and takes too many of his lessons from New Labour.
We are beyond that now and as we move into the 2020s we need a fresh vision of Conservatism.
Your last point may be true, but never underestimate the lure of being PM and getting your photo on the staircase at No. 10. Osborne will give his right arm for it IMHO, and why not. Whether others will be able to stop him is another matter.
As to Javid. I just don't get it, other than the back-story. I'll not be betting on him.
If he's saying that actually he prefers to stay in the EU anyway, then that makes a sham of his publicly declared position and he's just going through the motions.
There's nothing hysterical about that, except to die-hard EUphiles.
To answer your question, I think the PM should declare he is reserving judgement and maintaining an open mind *until* his deal is secured, saying on what terms he thinks the EU is good (with strong caveats linked to his deal) if necessary.
He's not a private citizen here. He's entitled to hold whatever views he really does in private but publicly he is our PM and has been elected to advance our interests - he should carefully judge what he says in public to support that.
Do you think that's unreasonable?
Frankly, the people that accuse others of "hysteria" or "banging on" or being "swivel-eyed" tend to be the ones that are most zealously ideological themselves. Typically, people resort to insults when they do not have good counter arguments.
Having a humble-ish back story and a Muslim? Sorry, I'd rather a competent candidate than a collection of identity politics boxes ticked
I doubt he's as bad as Warsi, but she's a recent example of the idiocy of promoting people who tick the 'right' demographic boxes.
Salaries £6.3m
Directors Emoluments £1.26m
Pre tax profit £229k
Tax (£435k)
Post tax profit £664k
Cash in bank at £500k at 31 Mar 14
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100264175/david-cameron-wants-to-stay-in-the-eu-on-something-like-the-current-terms-but-hes-our-only-chance-of-a-referendum/
He has made no secret of that.
You want our foremost politician, who coincidentally is known to hold views on a subject that you strongly disagree with, not to express those views on that subject. I can see why you might hold that position. But yes, I think it's entirely unreasonable.
LabourConservatism.Sounds eerily familiar. I note that Boris Johnson also has a younger brother.
The extremes have already left the party. Those who think we should be fully paid-up members of the eurozone are few and far between in the country yet alone the party; and those believing we can still enjoy complete sovereignty over our own affairs are in UKIP or living a dream.
Hmm. All parties also committed to a referendum on Lisbon. Labour reneged (and I think the Lib Dems may have had a three line whip abstention).
I don't believe Labour or the Lib Dems would hold such a referendum, and have doubts as to whether the Conservatives would either.
@helenpidd: Middlesbrough fans' chant to Cameron: "You shagged a pig, you made it squeal,
get off your arse and Save our Steel" https://t.co/x6fSXTcr8G
We know they are not on our side. But they are also not as influential or clever as they think they are.
The key thing is to get the public engaged and interested. If we don't (and this is what the FO & Co. are hoping for) then they will default to the status quo I think. If there is a genuine upsurge of interest, the referendum is eminently winnable as the pro-EU side's arguments are transparently self-serving and intellectually empty.
I want to believe in May, but doubt she is sincere. Truss/Soubry/Morgan are all soaking wet. Hammond is dull. Boris I trust even less.
My real problem is that most of the cabinet is alike in views and outlook. Jeremy Hunt is possible but a bit of an unknown to me.
I may - when I can be arsed - flick through all the junior ministers and the 2010/2015 intake for inspiration - Jesse Norman, Justine Greening, Priti Patel are interesting - but that's as far as my thinking takes me for now.
Mr. Roger, sometimes I think you're a double agent for Out
My choice to replace Cameron is Johnny Mercer
However, he totally loses it on the following subjects: the EU, immigration and UKIP. But that's ok, I lose it on foxhunting.
None of us are perfect.
Very funny though.
We may need to decide that, as a country, we want to pay more for social care; we probably have to cut out some of the pointless regulations, especially around property costs, to reduce the operating costs of the social care providers; and providers may need to accept a lower return.
These are all acceptable trade offs.
Running a business that only survives because of a supply of cheap labour is not acceptanle
Or perhaps the English staff simply don't want to serve you?
If he gets ministerial experience under his belt in the next 2-3 years then maybe.
Who is offering odds on him?
Edited extra bit: and, as I've mentioned, Justine Greening/Priti Patel will be the next Conservative leader.
No doubt, if HMRC are not satisfied that there was a tax loss, they are well capable of making the case to the company. At least, that has always been my experience.
No point engaging with you further on this matter if you are going to be so ludicrous.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-calculating-and-claiming-a-loss
But a bit irrelevant surely? Osborne, as in George, must have put his shares into some kind of sleep mode or blind trust or whatever as he is a minister.
Can you pin down for me the five minutes when you believe that he is entitled to express his opinions? Or does he need to wait until after the referendum campaign is over now?
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3279714/George-Osborne-s-family-furnishings-business-Osborne-Little-hit-strong-pound.html
I don't think all the right ones were heeded: the main one being we are seen as the party of the rich, and we've only belatedly realised that it was diversity in the social background of candidates we needed not their physical appearance.
I think it was stupid to eviscerate our own membership just to make a point. That identity politics is absurd and that liberal attitudes to immigration are a serious mistake.
I will be looking for someone who puts Britain, its society and the national interest first in its Conservatism, and doesn't make it all about the money.
Dave became Tory leader four years after becoming an MP, so Mercer can follow that trajectory is possible.
Neither of those identities are appealing to me and contact with each reinforces the appeal of the other.
Have the 'renegotiations' started ?
I've already said downthread how I think Cameron can express his views and give leadership, without compromising his own renegotiation.
I'm afraid I have to work now. I'm sure we can pick this up again later, hopefully once you've calmed down and had a good think.
A vote for Out is not a vote for Farage to be PM. Indeed, it'll serve to marginalise UKIP as their raison d'etre will be removed.
Still, Roger's comment reminds us that should you wish to film a commercial for toilet paper, it's always best to choose a decent foreign Director, rather than a horrible bigoted English one, who hasn't noticed that everyone is spitting in his tea.