That will need to include exposing any renegotiated terms as a sham of course. There are a lot of voters who may still be inclined to take the PM's word that real changes have been made.
For the latter reason, they need to get the tone right. It is highly counterproductive of the Leave side to use words like 'sham' and accuse Cameron of being dishonest. Instead they should turn the argument round: "The Prime Minister has done everything possible to try to secure the reforms which the EU needs, but it is clear that he has made little progress. The EU is clearly set on a course which is not in Britain's interest, and so we are better off out".
Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
Thank you Mr Nabavi for pointing out the truth to everyone about the reality of jointing the EEA as an alternative to the EU. That is, effectively no difference. Outers, or Leavers, are simply deluding themselves into thinking the EU can be wished away. The EEA may be a better alternative in extremis to full membership or even some sort of associate membership, of the EU but it will make little difference to us. If outers want to come out and say they wish to leave and not join the EEA or remain in the single market they should be honest and say so. And explain how in the real world the UK economy would continue to work.there would of course be new betting opportunities - 'spot the country our car industry would decant to'.
I didn't see PMQs but it seems to be suggested that Cameron was not answering the question of whether people would be better or worse off when the WTC reforms come into effect.
Surely the answer to that is that some will be better off because of wage increases and tax relief and more will be worse off unless they change their hours of work, something that the additional free child care should help with?
"It is almost as if they believe they have already lost and are looking for excuses about how unfair it all was."
Were you not around forty years ago? It seems like only yesterday. I was fully in favour of Europe at the time but I had the good grace to be embarrassed by the one-sided, so-called debate. It was worthy of communism at its best.
The portents are slightly different this time, but I'd be surprised if it's a totally fair discussion. The BBC, the Labour party, the middle class, the poshos, and some of the Tories versus the dregs of humanity. Even the lefty comedians will indulge in group-think.
"It is almost as if they believe they have already lost and are looking for excuses about how unfair it all was."
Were you not around forty years ago? It seems like only yesterday. I was fully in favour of Europe at the time but I had the good grace to be embarrassed by the one-sided, so-called debate. It was worthy of communism at its best.
The portents are slightly different this time, but I'd be surprised if it's a totally fair discussion. The BBC, the Labour party, the middle class, the poshos, and some of the Tories versus the dregs of humanity. Even the lefty comedians will indulge in group-think.
Democracy - don't you love it?
Yes I was although I was too young to vote, about 14. I was in favour at the time but I agree with those who argue that we are dealing with a very different beast now.
It is really up to those wanting out to make their case. Richard Nabavi's post at 12.32 shows the way forward. Our PM has done his best but the EU is not interested in our concerns and has other priorities so we should be good neighbours rather than members. This carping about whether he is really trying or not is totally counterproductive.
On topic, I don't really see the problem. The main thing between Osborne and power is Conservative voters, and a reputation for making the poor poorer isn't going to be devastating when trying to get their votes.
In any case, his changes will be the new normal by the time that election comes around; Most likely even Labour will be playing them down, as the cost of reversing them goes beyond what can be paid for by the normal minor opposition levy on untelegenic people or whatever.
You really don't understand Conservative party voters.
That will need to include exposing any renegotiated terms as a sham of course. There are a lot of voters who may still be inclined to take the PM's word that real changes have been made.
For the latter reason, they need to get the tone right. It is highly counterproductive of the Leave side to use words like 'sham' and accuse Cameron of being dishonest. Instead they should turn the argument round: "The Prime Minister has done everything possible to try to secure the reforms which the EU needs, but it is clear that he has made little progress. The EU is clearly set on a course which is not in Britain's interest, and so we are better off out".
I hope Cameron pretends hard that he is trying his best to get some useless concession from the EU.
He will have my support regardless to stay IN. Go on, Cam ! You can do it.
It's really no good moaning about Labour governments giving up the UK's right of veto. The Conservatives have done exactly the same thing in the past, crucially surrendering it over important areas via the Single European Act and Maastricht.
This is true (although of course John Major did secure vital opt-outs in Maastricht, most notably on the Euro), but the Lisbon Treaty was the most important; it was the Lisbon Treaty which was a comprehensive reorganisation of EU governance. It was therefore the best opportunity to get things right, and we would have had a lot of leverage.
That opportunity was lost, thanks to Blair and Brown, leaving us faced with the unenviable choice of either trying to claw things back retrospectively, or leaving and trying to renegotiate from the outside. Both are positions of unnecessary weakness, compared with our position before Lisbon.
I agree with you, so why are you so willing to vote to Remain regardless?
On topic, I don't really see the problem. The main thing between Osborne and power is Conservative voters, and a reputation for making the poor poorer isn't going to be devastating when trying to get their votes.
In any case, his changes will be the new normal by the time that election comes around; Most likely even Labour will be playing them down, as the cost of reversing them goes beyond what can be paid for by the normal minor opposition levy on untelegenic people or whatever.
Correct. Large savings and cuts have already taken place in tax credits over the last 5 years with happy co-operation from the libdems. Brown's unaffordable largess needs to be cut. If a government cannot be taking its unpopular decision s at the beginning of its term it never will. This latest measure will reduce the numbers of families with children receiving tax credits from 6 out of 10 to 5. It was 9 out of 10 in 2010.
Yougov leader ratings. Good news for Cameron and Farage. Not good news for Corbyn. Horrible news for Farron.
I doubt more than a 5th of the country knows who Tim Farron is – can’t believe how quiet he’s been since his election to party leader.
I'm not sure it's entirely his fault. The issue for the LDs is that they used to be one of the big 3, which meant regular coverage on the news. Now they are 4th on seats (behind SNP) and 4th on votes (behind UKIP), which effectively means they have been relegated to the 2nd tier of parties. Worse could be to come if they lose major party status in Scotland with Ofcom.
The challenge for the LDs is finding one or two issues where they can distinguish themselves from all the other parties (particularly Lab and the Greens).
I agree entirely Mr Vale2. - Barring the odd scandal, it’s very hard for a small party leader to be heard above the braying of the bigger boys.
"It is almost as if they believe they have already lost and are looking for excuses about how unfair it all was."
Were you not around forty years ago? It seems like only yesterday. I was fully in favour of Europe at the time but I had the good grace to be embarrassed by the one-sided, so-called debate. It was worthy of communism at its best.
The portents are slightly different this time, but I'd be surprised if it's a totally fair discussion. The BBC, the Labour party, the middle class, the poshos, and some of the Tories versus the dregs of humanity. Even the lefty comedians will indulge in group-think.
Democracy - don't you love it?
Yes I was although I was too young to vote, about 14. I was in favour at the time but I agree with those who argue that we are dealing with a very different beast now.
It is really up to those wanting out to make their case. Richard Nabavi's post at 12.32 shows the way forward. Our PM has done his best but the EU is not interested in our concerns and has other priorities so we should be good neighbours rather than members. This carping about whether he is really trying or not is totally counterproductive.
The criticism is over the PMs tactics to achieve the renegotiation he wants.
Personally, I think if Cameron hadn't had to do it he wouldn't have bothered but that's by the by.
A problem he [GO] has got with the tax credits move is that he could get stuck with the tag of wanting to make the poor poorer.
This is plainly a ridiculous statement. What percentage of the electorate (excluding green eyed loony lefties who would never vote for him) would believe that any politician had a policy of making the poor poorer? It denies humanity and doesn't win votes.
We are a democracy and like all democracies one with different quirks and wrinkles. However, the one thing that all democracies have in common is a primary voting process. This guarantees that politicians striving for power will prioritise the winning of votes as an objective. Corbyn has a two tier power strategy, first the Labour party, then the country.
If there is one thing that GO isn't, it's stupid. He has always known that WTC reform is not a vote winner. It will largely appeal to core Tory voters. This is why he's in a hurry to get it done quickly. That, and to give reform a chance of having demonstrably "worked" when 2020 comes around. But it’s still a risk and a risk that he’s taken which might be interpreted as part of a Tories first power strategy, mimicking Corbyn. I don’t buy this. It’s not a percentage play. Front runners have traditionally tended to do badly in Leadership Election Stakes – Burnham being the most recent example. I think most would agree that GO fancies himself as a shrewd political player. Taking a risk he doesn’t need to take early in the race is not a move he would make.
All of this leads me to conclude that there is a significant possibility that GO might not be too fussed about becoming leader. It also suggests that GO might be a radical, reforming Chancellor whose interest is in restructuring the economy in line with his political views. The next few weeks will probably decide how accurate my reading of the situation is. If I’m anywhere near right then GO will rank very highly in my estimation.
If you actually want to make a difference domestically then in many ways being CoE is more useful than being PM and getting bogged down in a lot of foreign entanglements.
Politicians can rarely resist strutting the world stage as PM though.
Cameron has just said a third of his cabinet are women. Are a third of his MP's or does he have a problem with men?
About 21% of Conservative MPs are women. I believe a substantially higher propertion of 2015 entry MPs were women however and the third is designed to ensure that positions open up for their promotion (i.e. a lead they can follow), and, of course, to encourage new female candidates and correspondingly the view of the party held by voters.
Looking at the YouGov leadership ratings, pretty much 1/3 of DKs have gone to thinking Corbyn is doing badly. None of the DKs have moved to thinking he is doing well.
It's really no good moaning about Labour governments giving up the UK's right of veto. The Conservatives have done exactly the same thing in the past, crucially surrendering it over important areas via the Single European Act and Maastricht.
This is true (although of course John Major did secure vital opt-outs in Maastricht, most notably on the Euro), but the Lisbon Treaty was the most important; it was the Lisbon Treaty which was a comprehensive reorganisation of EU governance. It was therefore the best opportunity to get things right, and we would have had a lot of leverage.
That opportunity was lost, thanks to Blair and Brown, leaving us faced with the unenviable choice of either trying to claw things back retrospectively, or leaving and trying to renegotiate from the outside. Both are positions of unnecessary weakness, compared with our position before Lisbon.
I agree with you, so why are you so willing to vote to Remain regardless?
It's not a question of being willing to vote Remain 'regardless', but of weighing up the pros and cons, given where we start from. That in turn means trying to figure out what Leave would mean, which is why I keep banging on about the Leave side needing to be both more specific and more realistic. Whatever we do, the EU is not going away, so concerns about Eurozone hegemony and its effect on the City have to be addressed whether we leave or not; if we leave, we'd have zero influence on the EU's position on those, of course.
At the moment I'm leaning Remain, mainly because no-one has yet convinced me that there is a coherent vision on the Leave side. Instead we get insults and nonsensical arguments, such as the suggestion that we could 'control our borders' and yet have unrestricted access to the Single Market.
"It is almost as if they believe they have already lost and are looking for excuses about how unfair it all was."
Were you not around forty years ago? It seems like only yesterday. I was fully in favour of Europe at the time but I had the good grace to be embarrassed by the one-sided, so-called debate. It was worthy of communism at its best.
The portents are slightly different this time, but I'd be surprised if it's a totally fair discussion. The BBC, the Labour party, the middle class, the poshos, and some of the Tories versus the dregs of humanity. Even the lefty comedians will indulge in group-think.
Democracy - don't you love it?
Yes I was although I was too young to vote, about 14. I was in favour at the time but I agree with those who argue that we are dealing with a very different beast now.
It is really up to those wanting out to make their case. Richard Nabavi's post at 12.32 shows the way forward. Our PM has done his best but the EU is not interested in our concerns and has other priorities so we should be good neighbours rather than members. This carping about whether he is really trying or not is totally counterproductive.
The criticism is over the PMs tactics to achieve the renegotiation he wants.
Personally, I think if Cameron hadn't had to do it he wouldn't have bothered but that's by the by.
The eurozone and its ever closer union make it inevitable, but that is by the by as well I suppose. Both of which will continue to exist and influence is no matter what else happens.
A problem he [GO] has got with the tax credits move is that he could get stuck with the tag of wanting to make the poor poorer.
This is plainly a ridiculous statement. What percentage of the electorate (excluding green eyed loony lefties who would never vote for him) would believe that any politician had a policy of making the poor poorer? It denies humanity and doesn't win votes.
We are a democracy and like all democracies one with different quirks and wrinkles. However, the one thing that all democracies have in common is a primary voting process. This guarantees that politicians striving for power will prioritise the winning of votes as an objective. Corbyn has a two tier power strategy, first the Labour party, then the country.
If there is one thing that GO isn't, it's stupid. He has always known that WTC reform is not a vote winner. It will largely appeal to core Tory voters. This is why he's in a hurry to get it done quickly. That, and to give reform a chance of having demonstrably "worked" when 2020 comes around. But it’s still a risk and a risk that he’s taken which might be interpreted as part of a Tories first power strategy, mimicking Corbyn. I don’t buy this. It’s not a percentage play. Front runners have traditionally tended to do badly in Leadership Election Stakes – Burnham being the most recent example. I think most would agree that GO fancies himself as a shrewd political player. Taking a risk he doesn’t need to take early in the race is not a move he would make.
All of this leads me to conclude that there is a significant possibility that GO might not be too fussed about becoming leader. It also suggests that GO might be a radical, reforming Chancellor whose interest is in restructuring the economy in line with his political views. The next few weeks will probably decide how accurate my reading of the situation is. If I’m anywhere near right then GO will rank very highly in my estimation.
If you actually want to make a difference domestically then in many ways being CoE is more useful than being PM and getting bogged down in a lot of foreign entanglements.
Politicians can rarely resist strutting the world stage as PM though.
A cynic would say that the aim is for people to feel better off in 2020 when the election comes.
And that people have short term memories. Hence cutting things earlier while doing harm now is a good idea if you want the impact of the living wage wage increases reflected in the election results. After all there is little point keeping tax credits going if the end result is people are no better off.
Has the nonce-finder general been too busy to buy a poppy?
I see the poppy police are at work.
I note that this week generally the Labour politicians have been wearing them though often not the other parties. I suspect that there has been an email to that effect.
Thank you Mr Nabavi for pointing out the truth to everyone about the reality of jointing the EEA as an alternative to the EU. That is, effectively no difference. Outers, or Leavers, are simply deluding themselves into thinking the EU can be wished away. The EEA may be a better alternative in extremis to full membership or even some sort of associate membership, of the EU but it will make little difference to us. If outers want to come out and say they wish to leave and not join the EEA or remain in the single market they should be honest and say so. And explain how in the real world the UK economy would continue to work.there would of course be new betting opportunities - 'spot the country our car industry would decant to'.
If the EU wants to put a 10% tax on our cars I'm sure that the Germans would be unhappy if we reciprocated. We have leverage.
We now have the result of the 1st vote in Lords re Individual Voter Registration - on Lab amendment to LD motion (ie before main vote on LD motion). The Govt lost this by 10 votes:
For Lab amendment: Crossbench 18 Lab 158 LD 81 Other 10 TOTAL 267
Against Lab Amendment: Con 206 Crossbench 43 Other 8 TOTAL 257
We can therefore see that, UNBELIEVABLY, 11 Lab + 2 LD Peers went home after the 1st vote. If they had stayed for the main LD motion (voted on literally minutes later), the Govt would have lost.
In total 21 fewer actually voted for the main LD motion - 11 Lab, 2 LD, 4 Crossbench and 4 other.
Meanwhile the vote against remained identical - 2 more Con offset by 2 fewer Crossbench.
This surely has to be one of the worst Parliamentary mess ups ever.
It's really no good moaning about Labour governments giving up the UK's right of veto. The Conservatives have done exactly the same thing in the past, crucially surrendering it over important areas via the Single European Act and Maastricht.
This is true (although of course John Major did secure vital opt-outs in Maastricht, most notably on the Euro), but the Lisbon Treaty was the most important; it was the Lisbon Treaty which was a comprehensive reorganisation of EU governance. It was therefore the best opportunity to get things right, and we would have had a lot of leverage.
That opportunity was lost, thanks to Blair and Brown, leaving us faced with the unenviable choice of either trying to claw things back retrospectively, or leaving and trying to renegotiate from the outside. Both are positions of unnecessary weakness, compared with our position before Lisbon.
I agree with you, so why are you so willing to vote to Remain regardless?
It's not a question of being willing to vote Remain 'regardless', but of weighing up the pros and cons, given where we start from. That in turn means trying to figure out what Leave would mean, which is why I keep banging on about the Leave side needing to be both more specific and more realistic. Whatever we do, the EU is not going away, so concerns about Eurozone hegemony and its effect on the City have to be addressed whether we leave or not; if we leave, we'd have zero influence on the EU's position on those, of course.
At the moment I'm leaning Remain, mainly because no-one has yet convinced me that there is a coherent vision on the Leave side. Instead we get insults and nonsensical arguments, such as the suggestion that we could 'control our borders' and yet have unrestricted access to the Single Market.
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
'John Major did secure vital opt-outs in Maastricht...'
Ah dear old John Major. He was forced to pursue those opt-outs by his own party, as you no doubt well know. Left to himself he would have accepted the euro, in the same way that the economically illiterate fool bought into the ERM.
In reality Major is as much, if not more, to blame for our current unsatisfactory relationship with our European neighbours as Blair or Brown.
Oh and Richard please stop pretending you are somehow open to persuasion on this issue. No-one believes you.
Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Has the nonce-finder general been too busy to buy a poppy?
I see the poppy police are at work.
I note that this week generally the Labour politicians have been wearing them though often not the other parties. I suspect that there has been an email to that effect.
There is nothing more tedious than this annual debate.
FWIW I'm not wearing one yet and will not do so until November. My Christmas decorations will not go up until December.
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Because I've got a very clear idea of what the Remain option will be like, subject obviously to seeing what the renegotiation brings. It's a decision of 'status quo with tweaks' versus a big change (or if it's not a big change, it's not worth the hassle and disruption). Therefore the burden of proof is automatically on the Leave side. That is why I think that, irrespective of my views, the Leave side will lose. They've got a tough sell, and they've been extremely poor so far at figuring out what exactly they are trying to sell.
Thank you Mr Nabavi for pointing out the truth to everyone about the reality of jointing the EEA as an alternative to the EU. That is, effectively no difference. Outers, or Leavers, are simply deluding themselves into thinking the EU can be wished away. The EEA may be a better alternative in extremis to full membership or even some sort of associate membership, of the EU but it will make little difference to us. If outers want to come out and say they wish to leave and not join the EEA or remain in the single market they should be honest and say so. And explain how in the real world the UK economy would continue to work.there would of course be new betting opportunities - 'spot the country our car industry would decant to'.
If the EU wants to put a 10% tax on our cars I'm sure that the Germans would be unhappy if we reciprocated. We have leverage.
If our car industry relocates to Bulgaria there will be no tax on 'our' cars. Clearly new tarrifs would put up prices but since the vast majority of German cars are not exported to the UK but elsewhere then its our industry and consumers that would suffer. The UK would suffer from tarrifs on our EU imports, whereas the EU would just bear the exess costs of any (remaining) UK imports which could be resourced from elsewhere anyway. The reality is we would want and need to be part of the EU single market and movement of labour and so there would be little difference to to status quo.
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.
It must just be a strange coincidence that all the people who are most voluble Leavers are kippers or from the rightwing fringes of the Conservative party then.
I'm intending to vote for Leave now. It would take a pretty remarkable renegotiation to get me to remain, and there's little I agree with UKIP about, but the status quo is bitter and contemptuous on all sides, and getting worse. Remaining seems to be a recipe for continued bitterness on our part and european resentment as we will no doubt continue to be seen as holding them up from where they want to fo, even if the Leave options are hardly clear.
I've witnessed some pretty grim scenes in the food business down the years - appalling conditions in the poultry industry, crazy EU fishing laws, all kinds of greed and folly. Root vegetables may be a touch harder to feel for than chickens or fish. But watching 20 tonnes of freshly dug parsnips consigned to the rubbish heap in a Norfolk farmyard - purely because they didn't look pretty enough - is still one of the most shocking things I've ever seen.
On topic, I don't really see the problem. The main thing between Osborne and power is Conservative voters, and a reputation for making the poor poorer isn't going to be devastating when trying to get their votes.
In any case, his changes will be the new normal by the time that election comes around; Most likely even Labour will be playing them down, as the cost of reversing them goes beyond what can be paid for by the normal minor opposition levy on untelegenic people or whatever.
Correct. Large savings and cuts have already taken place in tax credits over the last 5 years with happy co-operation from the libdems. Brown's unaffordable largess needs to be cut. If a government cannot be taking its unpopular decision s at the beginning of its term it never will. This latest measure will reduce the numbers of families with children receiving tax credits from 6 out of 10 to 5. It was 9 out of 10 in 2010.
Are you making up the figures ?
No. See David Smith in the Sunday Times, or read his own blog. But the fact that you do not know the figures, and think them made up, really speaks volumes. If nothing had been done over the last 5 years then the tax credit bill would be 40 billion next year. Instead it has been stabilised at just under 30bn. That's 10bn of cuts thanks to the Tory/LD coalition. Did you notice?
Has the nonce-finder general been too busy to buy a poppy?
I see the poppy police are at work.
I note that this week generally the Labour politicians have been wearing them though often not the other parties. I suspect that there has been an email to that effect.
Also, the Kindle Police should note that an unhealthy number of instances have been observed lately of people reading books in public places.
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Because I've got a very clear idea of what the Remain option will be like, subject obviously to seeing what the renegotiation brings. It's a decision of 'status quo with tweaks' versus a big change (or if it's not a big change, it's not worth the hassle and disruption). Therefore the burden of proof is automatically on the Leave side. That is why I think that, irrespective of my views, the Leave side will lose. They've got a tough sell, and they've been extremely poor so far at figuring out what exactly they are trying to sell.
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Because I've got a very clear idea of what the Remain option will be like, subject obviously to seeing what the renegotiation brings. It's a decision of 'status quo with tweaks' versus a big change (or if it's not a big change, it's not worth the hassle and disruption). Therefore the burden of proof is automatically on the Leave side. That is why I think that, irrespective of my views, the Leave side will lose. They've got a tough sell, and they've been extremely poor so far at figuring out what exactly they are trying to sell.
And the Remain campaign has started well? It is an absolute shambles, with even the likes of Will Straw admitting the three million jobs thing is a lie.
It also seems to me that those predicting a doomsday scenario if we leave are being funded by the EU, Agra Europe being the latest to be found out. The more this deception is uncovered the more the general public will wonder what else they are lying about.
Leave has a better chance than you think, and your prediction comes across as the arrogance displayed so far by Remain.
Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
I've witnessed some pretty grim scenes in the food business down the years - appalling conditions in the poultry industry, crazy EU fishing laws, all kinds of greed and folly. Root vegetables may be a touch harder to feel for than chickens or fish. But watching 20 tonnes of freshly dug parsnips consigned to the rubbish heap in a Norfolk farmyard - purely because they didn't look pretty enough - is still one of the most shocking things I've ever seen.
I've witnessed some pretty grim scenes in the food business down the years - appalling conditions in the poultry industry, crazy EU fishing laws, all kinds of greed and folly. Root vegetables may be a touch harder to feel for than chickens or fish. But watching 20 tonnes of freshly dug parsnips consigned to the rubbish heap in a Norfolk farmyard - purely because they didn't look pretty enough - is still one of the most shocking things I've ever seen.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
one would suspect, hope even, that Amazon's accountants are able to do somewhat more complicated sums than that.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
one would suspect, hope even, that Amazon's accountants are able to do somewhat more complicated sums than that.
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Because I've got a very clear idea of what the Remain option will be like, subject obviously to seeing what the renegotiation brings. It's a decision of 'status quo with tweaks' versus a big change (or if it's not a big change, it's not worth the hassle and disruption). Therefore the burden of proof is automatically on the Leave side. That is why I think that, irrespective of my views, the Leave side will lose. They've got a tough sell, and they've been extremely poor so far at figuring out what exactly they are trying to sell.
With respect, I think that's a bit naive.
Lol - it's not at all respectful to call someone naive
'John Major did secure vital opt-outs in Maastricht...'
Ah dear old John Major. He was forced to pursue those opt-outs by his own party, as you no doubt well know. Left to himself he would have accepted the euro, in the same way that the economically illiterate fool bought into the ERM.
In reality Major is as much, if not more, to blame for our current unsatisfactory relationship with our European neighbours as Blair or Brown.
Oh and Richard please stop pretending you are somehow open to persuasion on this issue. No-one believes you.
One thing many Tories forget is how many senior figures on their own side supported ERM membership. It wasn't just Major.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
one would suspect, hope even, that Amazon's accountants are able to do somewhat more complicated sums than that.
I don't think x=x in your formulation
facebook, not amazon
Oh, indeed, the second x would be significantly smaller than the first x. I left it at that because it emphasises that even if absolutely no exemptions and offsets were being applied for (I remember too well the strange contention from the Guardian about things like allowing depreciation being a tax subsidy), it would still be hugely better for the Exchequer,
I've witnessed some pretty grim scenes in the food business down the years - appalling conditions in the poultry industry, crazy EU fishing laws, all kinds of greed and folly. Root vegetables may be a touch harder to feel for than chickens or fish. But watching 20 tonnes of freshly dug parsnips consigned to the rubbish heap in a Norfolk farmyard - purely because they didn't look pretty enough - is still one of the most shocking things I've ever seen.
Has nobody ever heard of parsnip soup?
I was driving down the road last week, there was a sign saying "Free Apples", pulled in. A retired elderly man had an orchard, with so many apples he just gives them away. He has several different varieties, some of them actually native to the county.
What struck me, having only a couple of hours bought a pack of eight from a supermarket, was just how different they looked.
The apples from the supermarket were uniform in colour, shape and size. With no imperfections and blemishes.
The ones from the orchard were totally different. It was if they were a different fruit entirely. Out of a box of hundreds of apples, i could count barely half a dozen that would have reached the necessary grade for the supermarket.
Strangely, this supermarket was a discount supermarket. If there is a such a supply of lower grade fruit and veg out there, why isnt it getting into the supply chain? I would gladly buy these less attractive veg for the right price.
Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
'John Major did secure vital opt-outs in Maastricht...'
Ah dear old John Major. He was forced to pursue those opt-outs by his own party, as you no doubt well know. Left to himself he would have accepted the euro, in the same way that the economically illiterate fool bought into the ERM.
In reality Major is as much, if not more, to blame for our current unsatisfactory relationship with our European neighbours as Blair or Brown.
Oh and Richard please stop pretending you are somehow open to persuasion on this issue. No-one believes you.
One thing many Tories forget is how many senior figures on their own side supported ERM membership. It wasn't just Major.
Thatcher claimed that she didnt know Lawson was shadowing the DM, and it was pointed out to her by someone with a chart showing the correlation. Lawson claims otherwise and she was fully aware.
Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
What in the... Why the hell would anyone lend to the Spanish at less than zero. I mean you might consider it to the Swiss if you think WW3 is about to break out and you need a very safe home for your money, but the Spanish Gov't with all it's deficit/property/unemployment issues o_O ?!
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Because I've got a very clear idea of what the Remain option will be like, subject obviously to seeing what the renegotiation brings. It's a decision of 'status quo with tweaks' versus a big change (or if it's not a big change, it's not worth the hassle and disruption). Therefore the burden of proof is automatically on the Leave side. That is why I think that, irrespective of my views, the Leave side will lose. They've got a tough sell, and they've been extremely poor so far at figuring out what exactly they are trying to sell.
With respect, I think that's a bit naive.
No. We know where we are now. Where will we be if we leave? A so called free trade agreement means being in the single market, obeying EU single market rules, contributing to EU budget and free movement of labour. Ask Norway.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
What in the... Why the hell would anyone lend to the Spanish at less than zero. I mean you might consider it to the Swiss if you think WW3 is about to break out and you need a very safe home for your money, but the Spanish Gov't with all it's deficit/property/unemployment issues o_O ?!
To be fair, Spain's government debt-to-GDP is now declining.
Still: I'm not sending them any of my own money.
(As an aside, there are three reason why Eurozone bond yields are so low. 1. inflation expectations for the zone are rock bottom; 2. QE; 3. capital rules for banks and insurance companies that require a certain proportion of assets to be in government bonds... irrespective of price.)
Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Do all Facebook staff pay tax at 40% ?
When you get a huge chunky bonus, it'll certainly mean you'll be paying tax at 40%. Or 50%.
The various English variety apples in my old small orchard looked weird too compared to supermarket perfection. Best tomatoes I ever had would look at home at chernobyl.
EDIT Have you tried the Everyday ranges in Tesco? Some blemishes but still fine.
I've witnessed some pretty grim scenes in the food business down the years - appalling conditions in the poultry industry, crazy EU fishing laws, all kinds of greed and folly. Root vegetables may be a touch harder to feel for than chickens or fish. But watching 20 tonnes of freshly dug parsnips consigned to the rubbish heap in a Norfolk farmyard - purely because they didn't look pretty enough - is still one of the most shocking things I've ever seen.
Has nobody ever heard of parsnip soup?
I was driving down the road last week, there was a sign saying "Free Apples", pulled in. A retired elderly man had an orchard, with so many apples he just gives them away. He has several different varieties, some of them actually native to the county.
What struck me, having only a couple of hours bought a pack of eight from a supermarket, was just how different they looked.
The apples from the supermarket were uniform in colour, shape and size. With no imperfections and blemishes.
The ones from the orchard were totally different. It was if they were a different fruit entirely. Out of a box of hundreds of apples, i could count barely half a dozen that would have reached the necessary grade for the supermarket.
Strangely, this supermarket was a discount supermarket. If there is a such a supply of lower grade fruit and veg out there, why isnt it getting into the supply chain? I would gladly buy these less attractive veg for the right price.
Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
If you're contending that the amount logged as profit at all was the issue, then the howls about the bonuses paid were a distraction at best, and picking on a significant mitigating factor at worst.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
What in the... Why the hell would anyone lend to the Spanish at less than zero. I mean you might consider it to the Swiss if you think WW3 is about to break out and you need a very safe home for your money, but the Spanish Gov't with all it's deficit/property/unemployment issues o_O ?!
Because there are no credit worthy institutions to lend to. Its the return OF your capital not the return ON your capital that's important.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
I have a Board meeting this afternoon. A company I am a director of has a closed pension scheme for a relatively modest number of staff. Although it has been closed for 5 years we paid in £0.5m this year. Despite better than expected investment returns (fortunately Hunchman is not in charge) our deficit doubled.
The reason, of course, is falling bond rates. The money that has been bled out of our private sector over the last 5 years to meet these type of obligations is just mind blowing. No wonder construction and investment have disappointed.
I was joking to one of my fellow directors this morning that perhaps we should vote for a Labour government. The economy might go to hell in a basket but at least the damn pension liabilities would disappear on the back of higher borrowing rates!
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Because I've got a very clear idea of what the Remain option will be like, subject obviously to seeing what the renegotiation brings. It's a decision of 'status quo with tweaks' versus a big change (or if it's not a big change, it's not worth the hassle and disruption). Therefore the burden of proof is automatically on the Leave side. That is why I think that, irrespective of my views, the Leave side will lose. They've got a tough sell, and they've been extremely poor so far at figuring out what exactly they are trying to sell.
With respect, I think that's a bit naive.
No. We know where we are now. Where will we be if we leave? A so called free trade agreement means being in the single market, obeying EU single market rules, contributing to EU budget and free movement of labour. Ask Norway.
Where will we be if we Remain? We already know the EU has signalled its intention to integrate further and that carries the strong risk of the Eurozone voting as a bloc to always outvote the UK. They have repeatedly gone back on their word, not just to the UK but also to other countries like Greece, and we have 40 years of history of ratcheting. Yet alone to mention that the current balance of powers is unsatisfactory, as Richard himself concedes.
We simply don't know what we'll get if we vote to Remain and the onus is on them to explain it as much as it is for Leave to show that the UK is capable of being a successful independent country.
The various English variety apples in my old small orchard looked weird too compared to supermarket perfection. Best tomatoes I ever had would look at home at chernobyl.
EDIT Have you tried the Everyday ranges in Tesco? Some blemishes but still fine.
I've witnessed some pretty grim scenes in the food business down the years - appalling conditions in the poultry industry, crazy EU fishing laws, all kinds of greed and folly. Root vegetables may be a touch harder to feel for than chickens or fish. But watching 20 tonnes of freshly dug parsnips consigned to the rubbish heap in a Norfolk farmyard - purely because they didn't look pretty enough - is still one of the most shocking things I've ever seen.
Has nobody ever heard of parsnip soup?
I was driving down the road last week, there was a sign saying "Free Apples", pulled in. A retired elderly man had an orchard, with so many apples he just gives them away. He has several different varieties, some of them actually native to the county.
What struck me, having only a couple of hours bought a pack of eight from a supermarket, was just how different they looked.
The apples from the supermarket were uniform in colour, shape and size. With no imperfections and blemishes.
The ones from the orchard were totally different. It was if they were a different fruit entirely. Out of a box of hundreds of apples, i could count barely half a dozen that would have reached the necessary grade for the supermarket.
Strangely, this supermarket was a discount supermarket. If there is a such a supply of lower grade fruit and veg out there, why isnt it getting into the supply chain? I would gladly buy these less attractive veg for the right price.
I dont buy fruit and veg from Tescos, the price makes my eyes water. Its either lidl/aldi or Asda. If you charge more then £1.50 for 500g of grapes, i just turn around and shop elsewhere. That is my barometer...... I will just put my shopping down and leave...
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Because I've got a very clear idea of what the Remain option will be like, subject obviously to seeing what the renegotiation brings. It's a decision of 'status quo with tweaks' versus a big change (or if it's not a big change, it's not worth the hassle and disruption). Therefore the burden of proof is automatically on the Leave side. That is why I think that, irrespective of my views, the Leave side will lose. They've got a tough sell, and they've been extremely poor so far at figuring out what exactly they are trying to sell.
With respect, I think that's a bit naive.
Lol - it's not at all respectful to call someone naive
Richard thinks the status quo is what we're voting for and what Remain will mean. I do think that's naive.
I don't think Richard is naive in general nor do I disrespect him (in fact, quite the opposite) but I do think he really has his blinkers on when it comes to the EU.
I'm baffled as to why as he normally talks such sense.
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
I'm in the middle and I truly want to see a good case from both sides. The problem with a business-as-usual approach from the Remain side is that it won't be the status quo at all. It will be an integrating Eurozone acting with a bloc vote, it will be hundreds of thousands third world immigrants with EU passports each year, it will be continued Eurozone crises down the line, and it will be the EU shrinking as a share of the world economy.
If the Remain side is going to be arguing they're the status quo, I'm going to want to see what protections we will have for those things. On the other hand, the Leave side is going to have to show me what the UK outside the EU looks like, what sort of trade agreement we should get with our largest trading partner, what sort of immigration policy we will have, and how EU money will be deployed more effectively.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
Hello. The Telegraph is reporting that the EU's Frans Timmermans is saying its highly likely the UK will get explicit exemption from 'ever closer union', ie what ever sort of EU/Eurozone 'superstate' they chose to evolve.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
I have a Board meeting this afternoon. A company I am a director of has a closed pension scheme for a relatively modest number of staff. Although it has been closed for 5 years we paid in £0.5m this year. Despite better than expected investment returns (fortunately Hunchman is not in charge) our deficit doubled.
The reason, of course, is falling bond rates. The money that has been bled out of our private sector over the last 5 years to meet these type of obligations is just mind blowing. No wonder construction and investment have disappointed.
I was joking to one of my fellow directors this morning that perhaps we should vote for a Labour government. The economy might go to hell in a basket but at least the damn pension liabilities would disappear on the back of higher borrowing rates!
I have a theory.
In a low interest rate environment, you need to have a bigger savings pot to ensure you are able to retire. Low interest rates can, therefore, encourage higher savings rates, and therefore have the opposite effect of what central bankers desire.
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
I'm in the middle and I truly want to see a good case from both sides. The problem with a business-as-usual approach from the Remain side is that it won't be the status quo at all. It will be an integrating Eurozone acting with a bloc vote, it will be hundreds of thousands third world immigrants with EU passports each year, it will be continued Eurozone crises down the line, and it will be the EU shrinking as a share of the world economy.
If the Remain side is going to be arguing they're the status quo, I'm going to want to see what protections we will have for those things. On the other hand, the Leave side is going to have to show me what the UK outside the EU looks like, what sort of trade agreement we should get with our largest trading partner, what sort of immigration policy we will have, and how EU money will be deployed more effectively.
Good luck with getting either of them. But don't hold your breath, it hurts after a while.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
Hello. The Telegraph is reporting that the EU's Frans Timmermans is saying its highly likely the UK will get explicit exemption from 'ever closer union', ie what ever sort of EU/Eurozone 'superstate' they chose to evolve.
So hang around on the edges, keep paying over vast sums of cash and expect to play host to hundreds of thousands of Merkel's invited guests from the Middle East? No thanks.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
What in the... Why the hell would anyone lend to the Spanish at less than zero. I mean you might consider it to the Swiss if you think WW3 is about to break out and you need a very safe home for your money, but the Spanish Gov't with all it's deficit/property/unemployment issues o_O ?!
Because there are no credit worthy institutions to lend to. Its the return OF your capital not the return ON your capital that's important.
Sub zero interest rates mean we have gone from talking about "risk free return" to "return free risk".
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
What in the... Why the hell would anyone lend to the Spanish at less than zero. I mean you might consider it to the Swiss if you think WW3 is about to break out and you need a very safe home for your money, but the Spanish Gov't with all it's deficit/property/unemployment issues o_O ?!
Because there are no credit worthy institutions to lend to. Its the return OF your capital not the return ON your capital that's important.
I appreciate that large institutional investors aren't going to be opening 5,000,000 TSB accounts and clearing say £2k in each one (And nor could they) to get 5% there must surely be better corporate bond options in relatively safe blue chip NYSE/FTSE that will beat 0%. The main reason is surely because they HAVE to as @rcs1000 points out.
Speaking of returns there is 10% in a month from Ratesetter's marketing budget still available ^^;
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
Hello. The Telegraph is reporting that the EU's Frans Timmermans is saying its highly likely the UK will get explicit exemption from 'ever closer union', ie what ever sort of EU/Eurozone 'superstate' they chose to evolve.
The EU’s founding principle is of ‘ever-closer union’ – What ever they may be saying now, I doubt they would keep their word.
The Telegraph is reporting that the EU's Frans Timmermans is saying its highly likely the UK will get explicit exemption from 'ever closer union', ie what ever sort of EU/Eurozone 'superstate' they chose to evolve.
Empty forms of words like that are not going to convince anyone
I appreciate that large institutional investors aren't going to be opening 5,000,000 TSB accounts and clearing say £2k in each one (And nor could they) to get 5% there must surely be better corporate bond options in relatively safe blue chip NYSE/FTSE that will beat 0%. The main reason is surely because they HAVE to as @rcs1000 points out.
These events are perfectly normal. I can remember borrowing billions and billions of Yen at minus rates just cos I didn't work for a Japanese bank back in the early 1990's
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
Hello. The Telegraph is reporting that the EU's Frans Timmermans is saying its highly likely the UK will get explicit exemption from 'ever closer union', ie what ever sort of EU/Eurozone 'superstate' they chose to evolve.
The EU’s founding principle is of ‘ever-closer union’ – What ever they may be saying now, I doubt they would keep their word.
To be meaningful, it would need to be captured in a treaty. (In that, if it is, then it would need our acceptance, in another treaty, to undo what what was done in the first treaty.)
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
I'm in the middle and I truly want to see a good case from both sides. The problem with a business-as-usual approach from the Remain side is that it won't be the status quo at all. It will be an integrating Eurozone acting with a bloc vote, it will be hundreds of thousands third world immigrants with EU passports each year, it will be continued Eurozone crises down the line, and it will be the EU shrinking as a share of the world economy.
If the Remain side is going to be arguing they're the status quo, I'm going to want to see what protections we will have for those things. On the other hand, the Leave side is going to have to show me what the UK outside the EU looks like, what sort of trade agreement we should get with our largest trading partner, what sort of immigration policy we will have, and how EU money will be deployed more effectively.
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
I'm in the middle and I truly want to see a good case from both sides. The problem with a business-as-usual approach from the Remain side is that it won't be the status quo at all. It will be an integrating Eurozone acting with a bloc vote, it will be hundreds of thousands third world immigrants with EU passports each year, it will be continued Eurozone crises down the line, and it will be the EU shrinking as a share of the world economy.
If the Remain side is going to be arguing they're the status quo, I'm going to want to see what protections we will have for those things. On the other hand, the Leave side is going to have to show me what the UK outside the EU looks like, what sort of trade agreement we should get with our largest trading partner, what sort of immigration policy we will have, and how EU money will be deployed more effectively.
I actually agree with all of that. It's also very clear from your posts on here that you're genuinely in the middle and undecided.
“According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto.”
JEO, this is an important matter, so it's important to get it right. That article does NOT say what you think it says.
Yes, there is a theoretical right for the EEA states not to implement a new EU law which covers the areas of the EEA agreement. But what would happen if they exercise that right?
The answer is in the page you linked to, section 6:
If, despite protracted attempts to find a solution within the framework of EEA cooperation, a state finds it necessary to exercise its right of veto, the affected part of the annex to the EEA Agreement to which the new legislation in question belongs is regarded as being provisionally suspended between the EFTA pillar and the EU.
i.e. they lose some (or in extremis all) of the access to the Single Market governed by the EEA agreement. That is why, as the article says, the right of veto has never been exercised.
In addition you need to read this bit:
Cameron is not being dishonest: it is exactly the case that, in practical terms, Norway is bound by EU law in those areas covered by the EEA agreement, and that those areas are very wide.
You've got that absolutely wrong. The "annex" that will be suspended is the additional EU directive that they are talking about integrating into the EEA agreement. The original EEA agreement will still be upheld in full force.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
Hello. The Telegraph is reporting that the EU's Frans Timmermans is saying its highly likely the UK will get explicit exemption from 'ever closer union', ie what ever sort of EU/Eurozone 'superstate' they chose to evolve.
The EU’s founding principle is of ‘ever-closer union’ – What ever they may be saying now, I doubt they would keep their word.
Dialogue of the deaf with you and your ilk then. Read the article and what it says. I was going to add to my comment but did not want to waffle or distract from the point. However... Beyond what is generally said about ever closer union, we have the reality of how the eurozone is inevitably going to be closer integrated. We are not on the eurozone and so how the EU works will need to reflect that we are not in it.
Good news bond investors! You can now lend money to the Spanish government at interest rates of less than... zero.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
What in the... Why the hell would anyone lend to the Spanish at less than zero. I mean you might consider it to the Swiss if you think WW3 is about to break out and you need a very safe home for your money, but the Spanish Gov't with all it's deficit/property/unemployment issues o_O ?!
Because there are no credit worthy institutions to lend to. Its the return OF your capital not the return ON your capital that's important.
I appreciate that large institutional investors aren't going to be opening 5,000,000 TSB accounts and clearing say £2k in each one (And nor could they) to get 5% there must surely be better corporate bond options in relatively safe blue chip NYSE/FTSE that will beat 0%. The main reason is surely because they HAVE to as @rcs1000 points out.
Speaking of returns there is 10% in a month from Ratesetter's marketing budget still available ^^;
That is absolutely right.
Rules on capital adequacy for banks require that certain proportions of assets are invested in certain ways. The goal is to avoid banks or insurance companies owning just subprime mortgage debt the next time we have a crisis.
However, this causes a big problem when - as now - net debt issuance by Eurozone governments is negative. Essentially, there is a shrinking pool of investment grade rated Eurozone (and Swedish and Swiss) government debt, with an increasing number of banks and insurance companies chasing it.
Bizarrely, capital rules are such that it is considered more risky to hold cash (as in, physical notes) than investment grade government bonds.
You've got that absolutely wrong. The "annex" that will be suspended is the additional EU directive that they are talking about integrating into the EEA agreement. The original EEA agreement will still be upheld in full force.
No, I haven't got it wrong.
Use your common sense: is it really plausible that the the EEA countries would have a veto on Single Market rules, when individual EU countries don't? Or that they could have full access to the Single Market whilst choosing which rules to follow?
I appreciate that large institutional investors aren't going to be opening 5,000,000 TSB accounts and clearing say £2k in each one (And nor could they) to get 5% there must surely be better corporate bond options in relatively safe blue chip NYSE/FTSE that will beat 0%. The main reason is surely because they HAVE to as @rcs1000 points out. These events are perfectly normal. I can remember borrowing billions and billions of Yen at minus rates just cos I didn't work for a Japanese bank back in the early 1990's
Well errm of course you're going to want to borrow at as low as possible and with the benefit of hindsight borrowing and then converting to greenbacks at 100:1, then using those dollars say in 97 to buy back at 130 would have earnt you and your institution 30% or so !
But best of luck if you're on the lending side of that investment...
But why aren't you asking Remainers to convince you there's a coherent vision on the Remain side?
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Because I've got a very clear idea of what the Remain option will be like, subject obviously to seeing what the renegotiation brings. It's a decision of 'status quo with tweaks' versus a big change (or if it's not a big change, it's not worth the hassle and disruption). Therefore the burden of proof is automatically on the Leave side. That is why I think that, irrespective of my views, the Leave side will lose. They've got a tough sell, and they've been extremely poor so far at figuring out what exactly they are trying to sell.
With respect, I think that's a bit naive.
No. We know where we are now. Where will we be if we leave? A so called free trade agreement means being in the single market, obeying EU single market rules, contributing to EU budget and free movement of labour. Ask Norway.
Where willwe be if we Remain? We already know the EU has signalled its intention to integrate further and that carries the strong risk of the Eurozone voting as a bloc to always outvote the UK. They have repeatedly gone back on their word, not just to the UK but also to other countries like Greece, and we have 40 years of history of ratcheting. Yet alone to mention that the current balance of powers is unsatisfactory, as Richard himself concedes.
We simply don't know what we'll get if we vote to Remain and the onus is on them to explain it as much as it is for Leave to show that the UK is capable of being a successful independent country.
Leavers are not explaining anything. Not explaining how we would trade with the EU, not explaining how we would keep, never mind imrove, our share of the EU's inward Investment. With respect ... All Leavers offer is speculation, fantasy, wishful thinking. With respect ... Leavers chose not to live in the real world.
You've got that absolutely wrong. The "annex" that will be suspended is the additional EU directive that they are talking about integrating into the EEA agreement. The original EEA agreement will still be upheld in full force.
No, I haven't got it wrong.
Use your common sense: is it really plausible that the the EEA countries would have a veto on Single Market rules, when individual EU countries don't? Or that they could have full access to the Single Market whilst choosing which rules to follow?
You don't need to use a plausibility judgment. Just look at the annexes. Here's one here. Each line is either a list of new EU directives, or excerpts from them in terms of how they affect the broader EEA:
They don't choose which rules to follow. They have to follow the ones in the original document, and the ones they have subsequently agreed to. What they don't have to follow is new directives the EU keeps on adding.
Richard thinks the status quo is what we're voting for and what Remain will mean. I do think that's naive.
I don't think Richard is naive in general nor do I disrespect him (in fact, quite the opposite) but I do think he really has his blinkers on when it comes to the EU.
I'm baffled as to why as he normally talks such sense.
You've misunderstood me. All I'm saying is that we know this beast - we've had 40 years to get to know it. So I do think I've got a very good idea of what the Remain side entails.
The old "fax democracy" line was certainly a good one when it was coined by the leaders of the "In" side in the Norwegian referendum. What we shouldn't do is accept it as an objective judgement on it. Unless we accept, for example, Salmond's lines to take about the Scottish referendum as being objective and neutral judgements to be used by outsiders.
Comments
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
The EEA may be a better alternative in extremis to full membership or even some sort of associate membership, of the EU but it will make little difference to us. If outers want to come out and say they wish to leave and not join the EEA or remain in the single market they should be honest and say so. And explain how in the real world the UK economy would continue to work.there would of course be new betting opportunities - 'spot the country our car industry would decant to'.
Surely the answer to that is that some will be better off because of wage increases and tax relief and more will be worse off unless they change their hours of work, something that the additional free child care should help with?
Stay classy and magnanimous Dave
Edit: It seemed distasteful as Farron was asking questions about vulnerable refugee children
"It is almost as if they believe they have already lost and are looking for excuses about how unfair it all was."
Were you not around forty years ago? It seems like only yesterday. I was fully in favour of Europe at the time but I had the good grace to be embarrassed by the one-sided, so-called debate. It was worthy of communism at its best.
The portents are slightly different this time, but I'd be surprised if it's a totally fair discussion. The BBC, the Labour party, the middle class, the poshos, and some of the Tories versus the dregs of humanity. Even the lefty comedians will indulge in group-think.
Democracy - don't you love it?
It is really up to those wanting out to make their case. Richard Nabavi's post at 12.32 shows the way forward. Our PM has done his best but the EU is not interested in our concerns and has other priorities so we should be good neighbours rather than members. This carping about whether he is really trying or not is totally counterproductive.
He will have my support regardless to stay IN. Go on, Cam ! You can do it.
Personally, I think if Cameron hadn't had to do it he wouldn't have bothered but that's by the by.
Politicians can rarely resist strutting the world stage as PM though.
I suspect you knw that however...
At the moment I'm leaning Remain, mainly because no-one has yet convinced me that there is a coherent vision on the Leave side. Instead we get insults and nonsensical arguments, such as the suggestion that we could 'control our borders' and yet have unrestricted access to the Single Market.
And that people have short term memories. Hence cutting things earlier while doing harm now is a good idea if you want the impact of the living wage wage increases reflected in the election results. After all there is little point keeping tax credits going if the end result is people are no better off.
I note that this week generally the Labour politicians have been wearing them though often not the other parties. I suspect that there has been an email to that effect.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pmqs-jeremy-corbyns-side-eye-evolves-into-an-death-stare-a6711921.html
For Lab amendment:
Crossbench 18
Lab 158
LD 81
Other 10
TOTAL 267
Against Lab Amendment:
Con 206
Crossbench 43
Other 8
TOTAL 257
We can therefore see that, UNBELIEVABLY, 11 Lab + 2 LD Peers went home after the 1st vote. If they had stayed for the main LD motion (voted on literally minutes later), the Govt would have lost.
In total 21 fewer actually voted for the main LD motion - 11 Lab, 2 LD, 4 Crossbench and 4 other.
Meanwhile the vote against remained identical - 2 more Con offset by 2 fewer Crossbench.
This surely has to be one of the worst Parliamentary mess ups ever.
By your own account you seem unhappy with what we currently have, yet you continue to put the entire burden of proof on Leave.
Ah dear old John Major. He was forced to pursue those opt-outs by his own party, as you no doubt well know. Left to himself he would have accepted the euro, in the same way that the economically illiterate fool bought into the ERM.
In reality Major is as much, if not more, to blame for our current unsatisfactory relationship with our European neighbours as Blair or Brown.
Oh and Richard please stop pretending you are somehow open to persuasion on this issue. No-one believes you.
FWIW I'm not wearing one yet and will not do so until November. My Christmas decorations will not go up until December.
The reality is we would want and need to be part of the EU single market and movement of labour and so there would be little difference to to status quo.
@MichaelPDeacon: Heidi Allen gave a speech opposing tax credit cuts... and now other Tory MPs won't talk to her. HT @IsabelHardman
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSZY5vBXIAAmovR.jpg
It also seems to me that those predicting a doomsday scenario if we leave are being funded by the EU, Agra Europe being the latest to be found out. The more this deception is uncovered the more the general public will wonder what else they are lying about.
Leave has a better chance than you think, and your prediction comes across as the arrogance displayed so far by Remain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-rules-uks-porn-filters-are-illegal-a6711756.html
I don't think x=x in your formulation
I think you mean courgettes...
One advantage of the EU bringing down trade barriers.
Courgettes are lovely with fillet steak. And mince.
I was driving down the road last week, there was a sign saying "Free Apples", pulled in. A retired elderly man had an orchard, with so many apples he just gives them away. He has several different varieties, some of them actually native to the county.
What struck me, having only a couple of hours bought a pack of eight from a supermarket, was just how different they looked.
The apples from the supermarket were uniform in colour, shape and size. With no imperfections and blemishes.
The ones from the orchard were totally different. It was if they were a different fruit entirely. Out of a box of hundreds of apples, i could count barely half a dozen that would have reached the necessary grade for the supermarket.
Strangely, this supermarket was a discount supermarket. If there is a such a supply of lower grade fruit and veg out there, why isnt it getting into the supply chain? I would gladly buy these less attractive veg for the right price.
Hence howls of outrage.
Spanish two year bonds now have negative yields, as do French, German, Swiss, Swedish and Dutch bonds. The Italian government - mind - has to pay a truly outrageous 0.009% per year.
Indeed, for a short while it was the accepted dogma of most of them. I am sure Richard N would have been in favour of it too.
Until such a time as the accepted dogma changed, at any rate.
Still: I'm not sending them any of my own money.
(As an aside, there are three reason why Eurozone bond yields are so low. 1. inflation expectations for the zone are rock bottom; 2. QE; 3. capital rules for banks and insurance companies that require a certain proportion of assets to be in government bonds... irrespective of price.)
EDIT Have you tried the Everyday ranges in Tesco? Some blemishes but still fine. I was driving down the road last week, there was a sign saying "Free Apples", pulled in. A retired elderly man had an orchard, with so many apples he just gives them away. He has several different varieties, some of them actually native to the county.
What struck me, having only a couple of hours bought a pack of eight from a supermarket, was just how different they looked.
The apples from the supermarket were uniform in colour, shape and size. With no imperfections and blemishes.
The ones from the orchard were totally different. It was if they were a different fruit entirely. Out of a box of hundreds of apples, i could count barely half a dozen that would have reached the necessary grade for the supermarket.
Strangely, this supermarket was a discount supermarket. If there is a such a supply of lower grade fruit and veg out there, why isnt it getting into the supply chain? I would gladly buy these less attractive veg for the right price.
If you're contending that the amount logged as profit at all was the issue, then the howls about the bonuses paid were a distraction at best, and picking on a significant mitigating factor at worst.
The reason, of course, is falling bond rates. The money that has been bled out of our private sector over the last 5 years to meet these type of obligations is just mind blowing. No wonder construction and investment have disappointed.
I was joking to one of my fellow directors this morning that perhaps we should vote for a Labour government. The economy might go to hell in a basket but at least the damn pension liabilities would disappear on the back of higher borrowing rates!
We simply don't know what we'll get if we vote to Remain and the onus is on them to explain it as much as it is for Leave to show that the UK is capable of being a successful independent country.
I dont buy fruit and veg from Tescos, the price makes my eyes water. Its either lidl/aldi or Asda. If you charge more then £1.50 for 500g of grapes, i just turn around and shop elsewhere. That is my barometer...... I will just put my shopping down and leave...
I don't think Richard is naive in general nor do I disrespect him (in fact, quite the opposite) but I do think he really has his blinkers on when it comes to the EU.
I'm baffled as to why as he normally talks such sense.
If the Remain side is going to be arguing they're the status quo, I'm going to want to see what protections we will have for those things. On the other hand, the Leave side is going to have to show me what the UK outside the EU looks like, what sort of trade agreement we should get with our largest trading partner, what sort of immigration policy we will have, and how EU money will be deployed more effectively.
The Telegraph is reporting that the EU's Frans Timmermans is saying its highly likely the UK will get explicit exemption from 'ever closer union', ie what ever sort of EU/Eurozone 'superstate' they chose to evolve.
In a low interest rate environment, you need to have a bigger savings pot to ensure you are able to retire. Low interest rates can, therefore, encourage higher savings rates, and therefore have the opposite effect of what central bankers desire.
Speaking of returns there is 10% in a month from Ratesetter's marketing budget still available ^^;
Empty forms of words like that are not going to convince anyone
I appreciate that large institutional investors aren't going to be opening 5,000,000 TSB accounts and clearing say £2k in each one (And nor could they) to get 5% there must surely be better corporate bond options in relatively safe blue chip NYSE/FTSE that will beat 0%. The main reason is surely because they HAVE to as @rcs1000 points out.
These events are perfectly normal. I can remember borrowing billions and billions of Yen at minus rates just cos I didn't work for a Japanese bank back in the early 1990's
I was going to add to my comment but did not want to waffle or distract from the point. However...
Beyond what is generally said about ever closer union, we have the reality of how the eurozone is inevitably going to be closer integrated. We are not on the eurozone and so how the EU works will need to reflect that we are not in it.
Rules on capital adequacy for banks require that certain proportions of assets are invested in certain ways. The goal is to avoid banks or insurance companies owning just subprime mortgage debt the next time we have a crisis.
However, this causes a big problem when - as now - net debt issuance by Eurozone governments is negative. Essentially, there is a shrinking pool of investment grade rated Eurozone (and Swedish and Swiss) government debt, with an increasing number of banks and insurance companies chasing it.
Bizarrely, capital rules are such that it is considered more risky to hold cash (as in, physical notes) than investment grade government bonds.
Use your common sense: is it really plausible that the the EEA countries would have a veto on Single Market rules, when individual EU countries don't? Or that they could have full access to the Single Market whilst choosing which rules to follow?
But best of luck if you're on the lending side of that investment...
With respect ... All Leavers offer is speculation, fantasy, wishful thinking. With respect ... Leavers chose not to live in the real world.
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Annexes to the Agreement/annex9.pdf
They don't choose which rules to follow. They have to follow the ones in the original document, and the ones they have subsequently agreed to. What they don't have to follow is new directives the EU keeps on adding.