It's quite easy to find people who dislike the thing and can mention many things wrong with it. It's much harder to find those who are dead keen on it who can provide a persuasive argument in it's favour.
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
The problem is the 'moaning about my bank' point mentioned in Dan Hannan's article of a couple of days ago. There's a big difference between moaning about something, and actually switching, especially when there doesn't seem to be any even vaguely coherent attempt to explain what we'd be switching to.
Surely, by now, with the referendum only months away, we'd expect there to be some indications from the Leave side of their position on - or at least some grown-up discussion of - points such as:
- EEA or not EEA? - Signing back into freedom of movement or not signing back in? - Free market in services or not? - Free movement of capital or not? - Signing back into the EU VAT regime or not? [I was amazed a few nights ago to see a discussion here which assumed we wouldn't, which made me realise it's never mentioned] - Continuing with EU product-type approvals or not? [I'd assume yes, but is that what everyone else assumes?] - Protection for the City against Eurozone land-grabs
I missed the discussion on VAT. I was wondering why we should sign up to it again if we left the EU? The other EEA members may charge VAT or some form of sales tax but they are not part of the VAT agreement, can set VAT rates as they like (including no VAT if they choose) and do not have to pay a portion of VAT receipts to the EU as EU members do.
You are wrong about VAT not being mentioned. I have used it several times with relation to energy costs as an example of a consequence of something bad resulting from EU membership. Most recently about 10 days ago when I suggested it could be a very powerful argument against EU membership.
I also wonder how those people who welcomed these migrants and clapped as they arrived in Germany feel? Knowing the type of people who do this, I expect they are on the "it never happened, and this is a right wing conspiracy" train, but you never know.
I also wonder how those people who welcomed these migrants and clapped as they arrived in Germany feel? Knowing the type of people who do this, I expect they are on the "it never happened, and this is a right wing conspiracy" train, but you never know.
Read the latest Guardian article, they are spinning like crazy...
It's quite easy to find people who dislike the thing and can mention many things wrong with it. It's much harder to find those who are dead keen on it who can provide a persuasive argument in it's favour.
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
The problem is the 'moaning about my bank' point mentioned in Dan Hannan's article of a couple of days ago. There's a big difference between moaning about something, and actually switching, especially when there doesn't seem to be any even vaguely coherent attempt to explain what we'd be switching to.
Surely, by now, with the referendum only months away, we'd expect there to be some indications from the Leave side of their position on - or at least some grown-up discussion of - points such as:
- EEA or not EEA? - Signing back into freedom of movement or not signing back in? - Free market in services or not? - Free movement of capital or not? - Signing back into the EU VAT regime or not? [I was amazed a few nights ago to see a discussion here which assumed we wouldn't, which made me realise it's never mentioned] - Continuing with EU product-type approvals or not? [I'd assume yes, but is that what everyone else assumes?] - Protection for the City against Eurozone land-grabs
I missed the discussion on VAT. I was wondering why we should sign up to it again if we left the EU? The other EEA members may charge VAT or some form of sales tax but they are not part of the VAT agreement, can set VAT rates as they like (including no VAT if they choose) and do not have to pay a portion of VAT receipts to the EU as EU members do.
You are wrong about VAT not being mentioned. I have used it several times with relation to energy costs as an example of a consequence of something bad resulting from EU membership. Most recently about 10 days ago when I suggested it could be a very powerful argument against EU membership.
Eliminating VAT on energy would be a good start. Electricity and gas are not luxury goods and should not be VATable.
David, they have been compensated for the council tax freeze by central government. They are pretty incompetent at saving money or providing efficient services.
Oh, Lord! Are you still going on about needing a definite statement of what leaving would mean? You well know, not least because it has been discussed on here umpteen times before, that it is impossible for anyone to state what the future relationship with the EU would be. That relationship can only be decided after the UK has said it is leaving (Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, if you have forgotten).
Should anyone do as many on here have said and actually come up with a statement of "What leave would actually mean" they would, rightly, be attacked by cries of "You can't say that because the future relationship has to be negotiated". It is the Remain's catch-22.
However, just like the Heller's original Catch-22, it is possible to cut through by taking a step back on concentrating on principles.
Well, the Leave side can please itself, but be in no doubt: without some coherent answers to these questions, they will lose badly. If they can't even answer the most basic questions, notably my first two, how on earth do they expect to convince people that leaving would be better?
Of course you are right that it's a Catch-22, but that's because reality is a Catch-22: You can't have your cake and eat it. They need to decide on a coherent story (and, crucially, a plausible one). Otherwise the Remain side will quite rightly be able to point to the ludicrous contradictions.
And, as you imply, yes I've been saying this for a long time. The fact that it's difficult was exactly why I recommended some threre years ago, when the referendum because Conservative policy, that they should start. Instead they faffed around trying to get Ed Milband into No 10, and they're still faffing around.
It isn't the killer point that you think it is. People will vote Leave for all sorts of reasons.
I really can't give you any guarantees about the type of deal that would be negotiated between politicians I have absolutely no control over in the event of a Leave vote, just as I can't give you any guarantees about the type of government the UK will have in 10 years time.
Personally, whilst I would have no problems at all with increased taxes to pay for extra spending, I suspect it would be a harder sell to the public than "run a modest deficit to increase spending".
However, the worst position of all would be what some so-called Labour moderates are saying we should do which is to say social-democratic aims can be achieved without increasing spending at all. If I went onto a doorstep and said "a Labour government would improve the NHS and schools, but don't worry, it would all be for free, it won't cost any money", I would be laughed out of town. The public (rightly) knows that improvements in public services will inevitably come with a price tag attached; left-wingers will just have to man up and constantly try to persuade people that the improvements are worth the price tag, rather than trying this nonsense about "how to improve things without any money".
Not sure. I think that people suspect tax rises would be needed anyway. Talk of Mansion Taxes and the Tax Gap acknowledges that, it just implies that you-the-voter wouldn't have to pay more and people suspect this is bullshit.
I think arguing openly for higher taxes would give the centre-left more credibility. Of course, there's the objection that it would scare people off. That's one legacy of 1992, I think.
Edit: I entirely agree with your point that it's futile to pretend a social-democratic manifesto will be free.
It's quite easy to find people who dislike the thing and can mention many things wrong with it. It's much harder to find those who are dead keen on it who can provide a persuasive argument in it's favour.
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
The problem is the 'moaning about my bank' point mentioned in Dan Hannan's article of a couple of days ago. There's a big difference between moaning about something, and actually switching, especially when there doesn't seem to be any even vaguely coherent attempt to explain what we'd be switching to.
Surely, by now, with the referendum only months away, we'd expect there to be some indications from the Leave side of their position on - or at least some grown-up discussion of - points such as:
- EEA or not EEA? - Signing back into freedom of movement or not signing back in? - Free market in services or not? - Free movement of capital or not? - Signing back into the EU VAT regime or not? [I was amazed a few nights ago to see a discussion here which assumed we wouldn't, which made me realise it's never mentioned] - Continuing with EU product-type approvals or not? [I'd assume yes, but is that what everyone else assumes?] - Protection for the City against Eurozone land-grabs
I missed the discussion on VAT. I was wondering why we should sign up to it again if we left the EU? The other EEA members may charge VAT or some form of sales tax but they are not part of the VAT agreement, can set VAT rates as they like (including no VAT if they choose) and do not have to pay a portion of VAT receipts to the EU as EU members do.
You are wrong about VAT not being mentioned. I have used it several times with relation to energy costs as an example of a consequence of something bad resulting from EU membership. Most recently about 10 days ago when I suggested it could be a very powerful argument against EU membership.
Presumably a low rate of VAT would result in the imposition of import tariffs to the rest of the EU. If, say, Norway were to have zero sales tax on cars, then the EU would not stand for cheap Japanese cars flooding the market. The Germans would stop that in a heartbeat. Still, internally to Norway it would be a boon (although the loss of tax would need making up elsewhere, ceteris paribus).
I posted a couple of years ago (mainly because of the EU attacks on the City) that the balance of the argument was moving towards leaving, but currently I'm moving towards an increased likelihood of voting Remain, for the very simple reason that I really can't see what Leave is advocating. Some indications of the answers to those questions would help, but it's looking increasingly unlikely that we'll get any.
I posted a couple of years ago (mainly because of the EU attacks on the City) that the balance of the argument was moving towards leaving, but currently I'm moving towards an increased likelihood of voting Remain, for the very simple reason that I really can't see what Leave is advocating. Some indications of the answers to those questions would help, but it's looking increasingly unlikely that we'll get any.
Who in 1976 predicted Schengen , the Euro and the multitude of interference from Brussels. Remainers are asking us to stay on the downhill ride for another 30 years.
I posted a couple of years ago (mainly because of the EU attacks on the City) that the balance of the argument was moving towards leaving, but currently I'm moving towards an increased likelihood of voting Remain, for the very simple reason that I really can't see what Leave is advocating. Some indications of the answers to those questions would help, but it's looking increasingly unlikely that we'll get any.
A Leave vote is when negotiation starts, not when it ends.
I also wonder how those people who welcomed these migrants and clapped as they arrived in Germany feel? Knowing the type of people who do this, I expect they are on the "it never happened, and this is a right wing conspiracy" train, but you never know.
Cologne starting to enter the US primary debate (near end of article):
You are wrong about VAT not being mentioned. I have used it several times with relation to energy costs as an example of a consequence of something bad resulting from EU membership. Most recently about 10 days ago when I suggested it could be a very powerful argument against EU membership.
That's what I was referring to. I was very surprised at your post, because I'd always assumed that remaining within the VAT regime was a near certainty in the event of Brexit. Thinking about it, I had no particular reason to assume that, which is exactly the point: there seems to be no position or discussion amongst the BOOers on things like this.
You couldn't make this s##t up. Dead Ringers or Rory Bremner should do a special. Shouldn't take long to do, the script is already written for them.
When Sarah Palin was running for Veep and Tina Fey was impersonating her on SNL, some of the skit dialogue was word-for-word (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOZS60-Imw )
That was some of the best political satire ever seen on TV. Not only did Fey have the close physical resemblance to Palin, she completely nailed the character.
It was on prime time TV every week for the six weeks leading up to the election - without the impartiality rules that would have stopped it in Britian. It would undoubtedly have had an effect on the vote.
There was a very funny ad lib by Ricky Gervais last night on Conan - actually silenced Conan for a moment as he figured out how to respond.
Gervais was complaining how he had self-censored himself for the Golden Globes compere job. Conan pushed him for some examples of what he had cut out. Gervais thought for a moment and said: "why not. After all, no one watches your show"
I posted a couple of years ago (mainly because of the EU attacks on the City) that the balance of the argument was moving towards leaving, but currently I'm moving towards an increased likelihood of voting Remain, for the very simple reason that I really can't see what Leave is advocating. Some indications of the answers to those questions would help, but it's looking increasingly unlikely that we'll get any.
I don't see how voting for Remain will protect the City. We still won't have a veto on Finreg. Dave isn't asking for it back and the non-EMU bloc can be outvoted using QMV. If Dave got us a veto, I would consider voting Remain, but it just isn't on the table because Dave isn't asking.
Fundamentally, government debt as a % of GDP should continue to fall over time, even if the absolute amount rises.
Given we're at Rawl's essay stage - That is surely an ideological opinion???
That boyfriend of Prudence, Gordon Brown no less, had a golden rule that the national debt should not exceed 40% of GDP. As a figure it had about as much credibility as doctors on safe drinking limits but it did give us room for manoeuvre and the ability to keep going after he dumped her and set fire to the joint.
At the moment we are about 85% and that should be the peak as debt has started to grow more slowly than GDP. If we could work our way back to 40% I personally would be a lot more relaxed.
I posted a couple of years ago (mainly because of the EU attacks on the City) that the balance of the argument was moving towards leaving, but currently I'm moving towards an increased likelihood of voting Remain, for the very simple reason that I really can't see what Leave is advocating. Some indications of the answers to those questions would help, but it's looking increasingly unlikely that we'll get any.
A Leave vote is when negotiation starts, not when it ends.
That only works if you argue that a Leave vote is contingent requiring later ratification, not final. Few of your fellow confirmed Leavers would be happy with that, I suspect (though personally I am very attracted to that approach).
Oh, Lord! Are you still going on about needing a definite statement of what leaving would mean? You well know, not least because it has been discussed on here umpteen times before, that it is impossible for anyone to state what the future relationship with the EU would be. That relationship can only be decided after the UK has said it is leaving (Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, if you have forgotten).
Should anyone do as many on here have said and actually come up with a statement of "What leave would actually mean" they would, rightly, be attacked by cries of "You can't say that because the future relationship has to be negotiated". It is the Remain's catch-22.
However, just like the Heller's original Catch-22, it is possible to cut through by taking a step back on concentrating on principles.
Well, the Leave side can please itself, but be in no doubt: without some coherent answers to these questions, they will lose badly. If they can't even answer the most basic questions, notably my first two, how on earth do they expect to convince people that leaving would be better?
Of course you are right that it's a Catch-22, but that's because reality is a Catch-22: You can't have your cake and eat it. They need to decide on a coherent story (and, crucially, a plausible one). Otherwise the Remain side will quite rightly be able to point to the ludicrous contradictions.
And, as you imply, yes I've been saying this for a long time. The fact that it's difficult was exactly why I recommended some threre years ago, when the referendum because Conservative policy, that they should start. Instead they faffed around trying to get Ed Milband into No 10, and they're still faffing around.
Yes, but suppose the Leave side said "Leave and we will do X as regards the EEA/EFTA false dichotomy, and Y as regards freedom of movement" and so on for all the other questions. Sure as eggs is eggs the Remainders will leap on such statements with cries of "You can't say that because you cannot guarantee it. You are offering a false prospectus", and they would be right to do so.
To frame the argument around detail is to invite getting lost in the minutiae, and being trapped against undeliverable promises. Broad brush strokes and principles are more likely to carry the day, for both sides.
Presumably a low rate of VAT would result in the imposition of import tariffs to the rest of the EU. If, say, Norway were to have zero sales tax on cars, then the EU would not stand for cheap Japanese cars flooding the market. The Germans would stop that in a heartbeat. Still, internally to Norway it would be a boon (although the loss of tax would need making up elsewhere, ceteris paribus).
It is not so much VAT on big ticket items I was considering but on smaller day to day items and expenses that no one would seriously consider luxuries.
Some of the neutral commentators on here have quite rightly said that if they are expected to vote to leave the EU then they have to be given practical reasons why things would be better outside. For some of those in business, arguments about improved world trade and protecting the City may be powerful but there are millions of people who we have to persuade who are only really interested in what effect it will have on their daily lives.
Pointing out that membership of the EU prevents us from removing VAT on heating and cooking costs (or as another example female sanitary products and toilet roll) is something that directly impacts on people's daily experience.
I know we should not only be concentrating on the monetary costs of EU membership but in this case talking about the extra pounds of cost on your heating bills probably has a far greater immediate impact than talking about the extra billions of pounds on the nation's membership bill.
Fundamentally, government debt as a % of GDP should continue to fall over time, even if the absolute amount rises.
Given we're at Rawl's essay stage - That is surely an ideological opinion???
That boyfriend of Prudence, Gordon Brown no less, had a golden rule that the national debt should not exceed 40% of GDP. As a figure it had about as much credibility as doctors on safe drinking limits but it did give us room for manoeuvre and the ability to keep going after he dumped her and set fire to the joint.
At the moment we are about 85% and that should be the peak as debt has started to grow more slowly than GDP. If we could work our way back to 40% I personally would be a lot more relaxed.
The joys of sophistry - I hope your post puts it a bit in perspective for some anti-austerity people
If moderate Labour are to survive they first need to find a way to win the internal argument about spending and budgets without sounding like Osborne.
Curiously, Scotland is a potential testing ground for this argument. In Dundee City Council 6000 of the 7900 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy. This is a consequence of the SNP freeze on CT combined with cuts in budgets that have flown through from the Westminster settlement. Labour, locally, are arguing that the services that are going to be cut are important and that CT should be increased to fund them. At the moment any such increase would simply be deducted from the central grant in accordance with SNP policy. I think Labour are going to go into May arguing that the CT freeze is no longer sustainable. If that argument gets any traction Labour moderates need to build on it nationally.
Personally, whilst I would have no problems at all with increased taxes to pay for extra spending, I suspect it would be a harder sell to the public than "run a modest deficit to increase spending".
However, the worst position of all would be what some so-called Labour moderates are saying we should do which is to say social-democratic aims can be achieved without increasing spending at all. If I went onto a doorstep and said "a Labour government would improve the NHS and schools, but don't worry, it would all be for free, it won't cost any money", I would be laughed out of town. The public (rightly) knows that improvements in public services will inevitably come with a price tag attached; left-wingers will just have to man up and constantly try to persuade people that the improvements are worth the price tag, rather than trying this nonsense about "how to improve things without any money".
I think that makes a great deal of sense, frankly. It might not be an agenda to appeal to me, personally, but it is clear and honest in intent, and I can see the appeal, whereas the 'can do everything for nothing' type arguments which we do see a lot of.
Agreed. There is room for an honest left wing agenda, that the state should be more involved in people's lives and that higher government spending is a good thing.
What there's no room for is Brown and Miliband's view that the higher spending doesn't require higher taxes, or that massive taxes rises can be imposed on a small number of rich people who will just pay up without changing behaviour.
A sensible Labour policy platform for Corbyn's successor might be that health and education or key policy X require a £30bn improvement, we will pay for this by raising the 20p tax rate to 22p and dropping the 40p threshold by £5k. That is an honest and coherent message, rather than the belief in the magic money tree of the last half a dozen years.
A Leave vote is when negotiation starts, not when it ends.
Indeed, so it's an enormous leap into the dark. The Leave side are in denial about this problem (i.e. the political problem, from their point of view). To take only the most obvious example, what on earth would be the point of voting to leave the EU because of concerns over immigration and freedom of movement, if we immediately signed straight back in? Lord Lawson fell exactly into this trap a couple of days ago, when in an interview he pointed to Switzerland as a model.
Yes, I agree that is a non starter. But so is the Corbynite position of, well, we will just print the money. Moderate Labour need to get the conversation within the party back into the land of sanity. It isn't going to be easy but acknowledging that there is a price tag to proposed improvements is a step on the way.
Personally, what I think Labour should do before 2020 (well, after Corbyn goes) is focus like a laser on specific examples of wasteful spending: public-sector bosses being paid too much, unnecessary perks for public-sector workers (like travel expenses or hotel stays), badly-negotiated PFI contracts, genuine welfare cheats who could be working. Then say that a future Labour government would launch a website which would give people the ability to track more closely what exactly government expenditure was going towards.
One thing that was striking to me so often in the run-up to the election when people would be talking about Labour overspending, they often weren't really talking about the deficit but about those specific examples of largesse. Apparently, even in Scottish focus groups, people would often be castigating Labour for signing up to austerity, then the very next minute criticising the last Labour government for certain things they wasted spending on: they didn't see a contradiction between them.
IMO, if/when Labour have demonstrated that they won't tolerate wasted spending, and that they will give the public more oversight into exactly where the money is going, then they can win an argument for higher spending if people are persuaded that that extra money will go towards real public services and to people in genuine need. What definitely isn't going to work is if Labour allow the "economic credibility" debate to be conducted on the Tories' terms: that it's all about how big the deficit is, what % of GDP spending accounts for, that increasing taxes on the rich is all "politics of envy", that all welfare spending is going to undeserved scroungers (rather than the scroungers being only a minority of welfare recipients), etcetc.
I don't see how voting for Remain will protect the City.
It might not. That is indeed one of the crucial points which could influence me.
On the other hand, if we leave, then clearly we've got zero chance of prevent the Eurozone from doing whatever it wants.
Again, I'd like to see a grown-up discussion of this.
Well within the EU we can't go to the WTO for extraterritorial taxes like the FTT they are planning so we would actually have more protection by leaving in some cases. It would also make our banks safer given that the EU is trying to impose bail-in rules which would see Cyprus style bank bail outs adopted where ordinary depositors are destroyed and the senior bond-holders get off with no loss.
Without a veto I don't see how being in or out of the EU changes anything, I mean we are absolutely 100% opposed to the FTT, the bonus cap and a multitude of other measures, and yet they are still coming or came into force anyway. The FTT is especially pernicious as you know and at least outside of the EU we can take the fight to them without a political court like the ECJ doing what it can to protect the interests of the EMU rather than the single market.
I posted a couple of years ago (mainly because of the EU attacks on the City) that the balance of the argument was moving towards leaving, but currently I'm moving towards an increased likelihood of voting Remain, for the very simple reason that I really can't see what Leave is advocating. Some indications of the answers to those questions would help, but it's looking increasingly unlikely that we'll get any.
A Leave vote is when negotiation starts, not when it ends.
That only works if you argue that a Leave vote is contingent requiring later ratification, not final. Few of your fellow confirmed Leavers would be happy with that, I suspect (though personally I am very attracted to that approach).
Nice as that approach sounds, Mr. Meeks, it can't be done. The Lisbon Treaty is quite clear. Negotiations begin after a country votes to leave and will last for a maximum of two years. There is no provision for a county having got down to the point of negotiating its new relationship to say, well OK we didn't mean it, we will go back to where we were and forget the whole thing.
You are wrong about VAT not being mentioned. I have used it several times with relation to energy costs as an example of a consequence of something bad resulting from EU membership. Most recently about 10 days ago when I suggested it could be a very powerful argument against EU membership.
That's what I was referring to. I was very surprised at your post, because I'd always assumed that remaining within the VAT regime was a near certainty in the event of Brexit. Thinking about it, I had no particular reason to assume that, which is exactly the point: there seems to be no position or discussion amongst the BOOers on things like this.
I think what needs to be clear is the difference between having some form of VAT or sales tax and being part of the EU VAT regime. No one is seriously suggesting we would not have VAT in some form or another. Most EEA members and most other European countries even if outside the EU have it in some form.
But the point is that being outside the EU VAT regime - as EEA members are - allows you to set VAT rates to suit the country's own need sand political beliefs. The immediate examples that spring to mind are those I mentioned just now in another posting. Energy and such mundane but never the less essential day to day items as toilet paper, cleaning products and sanitary products.
It would also mean no longer having to pay a portion of VAT receipts to the EU.
'It might not. That is indeed one of the crucial points which could influence me. '
As the PM is now not asking for any meaningful guarantees or changes to EU rules that would protect the City, isn't it entirely clear that voting 'remain' won't protect it?
So how will it 'influence' you exactly Richard? Will you be trudging to vote 'remain' with just a tiny bit less spring in your step?
I also wonder how those people who welcomed these migrants and clapped as they arrived in Germany feel? Knowing the type of people who do this, I expect they are on the "it never happened, and this is a right wing conspiracy" train, but you never know.
Hopefully, they will have been the victims of the mass gropping.
some people only learn when reality hits them in the face (or in this case sticks its hand up their skirt).
It's quite easy to find people who dislike the thing and can mention many things wrong with it. It's much harder to find those who are dead keen on it who can provide a persuasive argument in it's favour.
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
The problem is the 'moaning about my bank' point mentioned in Dan Hannan's article of a couple of days ago. There's a big difference between moaning about something, and actually switching, especially when there doesn't seem to be any even vaguely coherent attempt to explain what we'd be switching to.
Surely, by now, with the referendum only months away, we'd expect there to be some indications from the Leave side of their position on - or at least some grown-up discussion of - points such as:
- EEA or not EEA? - Signing back into freedom of movement or not signing back in? - Free market in services or not? - Free movement of capital or not? - Signing back into the EU VAT regime or not? [I was amazed a few nights ago to see a discussion here which assumed we wouldn't, which made me realise it's never mentioned] - Continuing with EU product-type approvals or not? [I'd assume yes, but is that what everyone else assumes?] - Protection for the City against Eurozone land-grabs
All of these need to be negotiated.
On the City, though, you have it arse-about-tit.
Yes there are elements such as passporting that would need to be negotiated, but I am sure that the European banks wouldn't want to abandon London so it is in their interests.
The FTT debacle demonstrates that the EU is quite prepared to try to harm the City if they think that, collectively, it is in their interests to do so. The Eurodollar market shows what happens if, once we are on the outside, they try to throw up walls against us.
I wonder who will be the first MP to bring up the alleged sexual assaults in Germany? Will the PM get any kudos from only taking refugees from the camps?
Any artificial constraints and barriers the EU introduces could provide opportunities for new markets and profits in the City. It's not that being in the EU will "protect the City", but that being outside the EU could provide a whole raft of new business thanks to EU obstructionism.
David, they have been compensated for the council tax freeze by central government. They are pretty incompetent at saving money or providing efficient services.
And remember this is an SNP Council in Freedom City no less.
They have to share the pain if UK cuts Scottish budget though. What they want is to stay fat and happy and just milk the public. Unless the SNP have been lying , and we would have heard for sure, then they are compensated for the CT freeze as has always been stated. Compare with Labour where they raised CT over 60% in 8 years or so and still provided crap service. Look in your local papers and see the salaries being offered on these councils, eye watering.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Err...she came to power in 1979. Winter of Discontent and all that. Bit like griping at Ozzy for not chopping more than a hundred billion off the mess he inherited from Gordo already. EVERY Tory government faces the same problem - it comes after a Labour one - and the money is gone.
Really - In 1970 Ted Heath inherited a Budget Surplus from his Labour predecessors AND a Balance of Payments surplus. No Tory Government has bequeathed either to its Labour successors.
Comments
You are wrong about VAT not being mentioned. I have used it several times with relation to energy costs as an example of a consequence of something bad resulting from EU membership. Most recently about 10 days ago when I suggested it could be a very powerful argument against EU membership.
And remember this is an SNP Council in Freedom City no less.
I really can't give you any guarantees about the type of deal that would be negotiated between politicians I have absolutely no control over in the event of a Leave vote, just as I can't give you any guarantees about the type of government the UK will have in 10 years time.
I think arguing openly for higher taxes would give the centre-left more credibility. Of course, there's the objection that it would scare people off. That's one legacy of 1992, I think.
Edit: I entirely agree with your point that it's futile to pretend a social-democratic manifesto will be free.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gop-establishments-civil-war-1452212775
Gervais was complaining how he had self-censored himself for the Golden Globes compere job. Conan pushed him for some examples of what he had cut out. Gervais thought for a moment and said: "why not. After all, no one watches your show"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/08/transgender-woman-raped-girl-before-transition-male-prison-davina-ayrton?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews
At the moment we are about 85% and that should be the peak as debt has started to grow more slowly than GDP. If we could work our way back to 40% I personally would be a lot more relaxed.
On the other hand, if we leave, then clearly we've got zero chance of prevent the Eurozone from doing whatever it wants.
Again, I'd like to see a grown-up discussion of this.
To frame the argument around detail is to invite getting lost in the minutiae, and being trapped against undeliverable promises. Broad brush strokes and principles are more likely to carry the day, for both sides.
Some of the neutral commentators on here have quite rightly said that if they are expected to vote to leave the EU then they have to be given practical reasons why things would be better outside. For some of those in business, arguments about improved world trade and protecting the City may be powerful but there are millions of people who we have to persuade who are only really interested in what effect it will have on their daily lives.
Pointing out that membership of the EU prevents us from removing VAT on heating and cooking costs (or as another example female sanitary products and toilet roll) is something that directly impacts on people's daily experience.
I know we should not only be concentrating on the monetary costs of EU membership but in this case talking about the extra pounds of cost on your heating bills probably has a far greater immediate impact than talking about the extra billions of pounds on the nation's membership bill.
What there's no room for is Brown and Miliband's view that the higher spending doesn't require higher taxes, or that massive taxes rises can be imposed on a small number of rich people who will just pay up without changing behaviour.
A sensible Labour policy platform for Corbyn's successor might be that health and education or key policy X require a £30bn improvement, we will pay for this by raising the 20p tax rate to 22p and dropping the 40p threshold by £5k. That is an honest and coherent message, rather than the belief in the magic money tree of the last half a dozen years.
One thing that was striking to me so often in the run-up to the election when people would be talking about Labour overspending, they often weren't really talking about the deficit but about those specific examples of largesse. Apparently, even in Scottish focus groups, people would often be castigating Labour for signing up to austerity, then the very next minute criticising the last Labour government for certain things they wasted spending on: they didn't see a contradiction between them.
IMO, if/when Labour have demonstrated that they won't tolerate wasted spending, and that they will give the public more oversight into exactly where the money is going, then they can win an argument for higher spending if people are persuaded that that extra money will go towards real public services and to people in genuine need. What definitely isn't going to work is if Labour allow the "economic credibility" debate to be conducted on the Tories' terms: that it's all about how big the deficit is, what % of GDP spending accounts for, that increasing taxes on the rich is all "politics of envy", that all welfare spending is going to undeserved scroungers (rather than the scroungers being only a minority of welfare recipients), etcetc.
Without a veto I don't see how being in or out of the EU changes anything, I mean we are absolutely 100% opposed to the FTT, the bonus cap and a multitude of other measures, and yet they are still coming or came into force anyway. The FTT is especially pernicious as you know and at least outside of the EU we can take the fight to them without a political court like the ECJ doing what it can to protect the interests of the EMU rather than the single market.
But the point is that being outside the EU VAT regime - as EEA members are - allows you to set VAT rates to suit the country's own need sand political beliefs. The immediate examples that spring to mind are those I mentioned just now in another posting. Energy and such mundane but never the less essential day to day items as toilet paper, cleaning products and sanitary products.
It would also mean no longer having to pay a portion of VAT receipts to the EU.
As the PM is now not asking for any meaningful guarantees or changes to EU rules that would protect the City, isn't it entirely clear that voting 'remain' won't protect it?
So how will it 'influence' you exactly Richard? Will you be trudging to vote 'remain' with just a tiny bit less spring in your step?
some people only learn when reality hits them in the face (or in this case sticks its hand up their skirt).
Two Iraqi men who arrived in the US as refugees have been arrested on terror charges https://t.co/7nehtUvshS https://t.co/ifE5AdxuPu
On the City, though, you have it arse-about-tit.
Yes there are elements such as passporting that would need to be negotiated, but I am sure that the European banks wouldn't want to abandon London so it is in their interests.
The FTT debacle demonstrates that the EU is quite prepared to try to harm the City if they think that, collectively, it is in their interests to do so. The Eurodollar market shows what happens if, once we are on the outside, they try to throw up walls against us.
Will the PM get any kudos from only taking refugees from the camps?
Compare with Labour where they raised CT over 60% in 8 years or so and still provided crap service. Look in your local papers and see the salaries being offered on these councils, eye watering.