I'm in favour of full transparency of tax returns. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Sorry - but your desire for 'transparency' does not trump the right to privacy.
People should never be expected to reveal their finances in public.
Public corporations should not have a right to confidentiality about their tax returns. They are not private individuals.
Aren’t all Norweigan tax reurns available on-line? Politicians included.
Don't know about Norway, but Finland definitely....but asked anybody there and they will tell you there are all sorts of ways in which rich people's incomes aren't quite what they seem.
Ever since taxation was first introduced, people have been finding ways of ensuring their contributions are kept as low as they can manage. Some through illegal means - and some totally legally. It has and will always be thus.
Silly question...in the days of Blair and whiter than white, ministers were asked to put all outside interesting into blind trusts. Do the current government ministers still do that? And if so, I presume all they get each year is a payment for x from the trust, of which they have no control or knowledge about how it was generated / calculated.
I don't know if they do, or indeed if all Blair's ministers did. Somehow I doubt it.
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
Nothing so far's changed my view that I'll probably vote to leave: the hat would have to be very large to contain a rabbit big enough to send me sailing back over the fence to 'remain'.
Both sides of the campaign seem so incompetent they should not be allowed to run a whelk stall, yet alone a campaign about who should run the country.
But in terms of PR / leafleting, remain seem to be more in charge. Sadly.
Agree entirely with the first two comments, don't have an opinion on the third as have been out of the country for most of the last year.
I'm in favour of full transparency of tax returns. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Sorry - but your desire for 'transparency' does not trump the right to privacy.
People should never be expected to reveal their finances in public.
Public corporations should not have a right to confidentiality about their tax returns. They are not private individuals.
Aren’t all Norweigan tax reurns available on-line? Politicians included.
Don't know about Norway, but Finland definitely....but asked anybody there and they will tell you there are all sorts of ways in which rich people's incomes aren't quite what they seem.
Ever since taxation was first introduced, people have been finding ways of ensuring their contributions are kept as low as they can manage. Some through illegal means - and some totally legally. It has and will always be thus.
Why pay more than you have to?
Well that's why it's Gov'ts job to close down the loopholes rather than opening up ridiculous new holes like the film "investment" Brown did.
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
Nothing so far's changed my view that I'll probably vote to leave: the hat would have to be very large to contain a rabbit big enough to send me sailing back over the fence to 'remain'.
Both sides of the campaign seem so incompetent they should not be allowed to run a whelk stall, yet alone a campaign about who should run the country.
But in terms of PR / leafleting, remain seem to be more in charge. Sadly.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
Silly question...in the days of Blair and whiter than white, ministers were asked to put all outside interesting into blind trusts. Do the current government ministers still do that? And if so, I presume all they get each year is a payment for x from the trust, of which they have no control or knowledge about how it was generated / calculated.
I don't know if they do, or indeed if all Blair's ministers did. Somehow I doubt it.
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
Just checked with official documents. Yes many ministers have put their interests in blind trusts. Also, Osborne's only outside interest is his well known shareholding in the old man's wallpaper business. I can't imagine there is that much room for tax dodging on his PAYE ministers salary and I presume the dividends from the shares.
I'm in favour of full transparency of tax returns. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Sorry - but your desire for 'transparency' does not trump the right to privacy.
People should never be expected to reveal their finances in public.
Public corporations should not have a right to confidentiality about their tax returns. They are not private individuals.
Aren’t all Norweigan tax reurns available on-line? Politicians included.
Don't know about Norway, but Finland definitely....but asked anybody there and they will tell you there are all sorts of ways in which rich people's incomes aren't quite what they seem.
Ever since taxation was first introduced, people have been finding ways of ensuring their contributions are kept as low as they can manage. Some through illegal means - and some totally legally. It has and will always be thus.
Why pay more than you have to?
Well that's why it's Gov'ts job to close down the loopholes rather than opening up ridiculous new holes like the film "investment" Brown did.
I agree with that. All legislation has loopholes, it is wrong in my opinion to take advantage of them and an endless task of the revenue to close them down.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I understand the dilemma, with respect to the outcome either way being similar/almost the same. In the end, much like with the Scottish independence debate, it boils down to "where does sovereignty lie?"
I want sovereignty to lie with the Crown-in-Parliament, which is ultimately controlled by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Hence why I support Leave.
As the outcome (EU-light membership v. EEA membership/Swiss-style arrangement) is so similar, why not vote Leave and at least vest full sovereignty once again in our own parliament?
Silly question...in the days of Blair and whiter than white, ministers were asked to put all outside interesting into blind trusts. Do the current government ministers still do that? And if so, I presume all they get each year is a payment for x from the trust, of which they have no control or knowledge about how it was generated / calculated.
I don't know if they do, or indeed if all Blair's ministers did. Somehow I doubt it.
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
The blind trust business has been with us for years hasn't it and pre-dates Blair. I am surprised at the readiness of even the paranoid to suggest it is being abused.
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
There's still plenty of time. Wait for the next (even bigger) wave of migrants into Europe in the spring, wait for the referendum campaign to really begin (probably immediately following the May elections), wait for the TV debates... there are a lot of undecided/unsure voters and they can be swung round. Look at how in Scotland how the Yes side surged - Leave are in a similar position to Yes.
Also, in the end, it could come down to turnout - if Leave voters are more keen, and Remain voters are complacent/not fussed, then Leave could edge it even if in the polls they are slightly behind.
That's the main issue for me. As soon as we want something then it's never reported as what the EU will allow its what Merkel decides we can have. Who put that bitch in charge??
That alone is enough for me to vote out. I know we are not going to win but I can stand there honestly and say I tried to save my country. It should be remembered when we are inundated with EU demands starting from day 1 after the referendum is held. They will move fast ...very fast and you can kiss goodbye to the pound currency , the national anthem and any freedom we have. It will be decided in Brussels by faceless unelected bureaucrats. All for the socialist collective good of course and the only way socialists stand a chance of getting any power in this country
We have but one opportunity to stop it...we should not waste it.
Vote leave.
It will start within 5 minutes of the exit poll being published. Clarke, Mandleson and Kinnock will be all over the airwaves reveling in their smugness.
By the way are there any Labour BOOers in the senior ranks? Anyone know where the likes of Umuna or Jarvis stand? I ask because what Leave needs to do is not become a Tory or Tory/UKIP thing but an open cross party alliance of fine upstanding Brits who will defend us against the traitorous pigdogs ( (c) S.Prasanan ) of Remain.
It's generally thought not. There are a few backbenchers who are "outs", but they're mainly known in political circles. There was an unverified rumour in a press report that half a dozen frontbenchers have said that if the party didn't have a view they'd be in favour of Out, but even that sounded pretty limp-wristed. Corbyn himself feels that the EU isn't exactly a workers' paradise, and we shouldn't be backing up any moves by Cameron to undermine commitments to workers (the Working Time Directive was the red line and Cameron has tactfully dropped anything about that), but the overwhelming view in Labour is that we should stay in, if not with great enthusiasm. Real Ken Clarke-style eurofans are thin on the ground in all parties (I'm one, but we're an endangered species).
Labour has learned from the Scottish referendum and Corbyn and Cameron won't be sharing any platforms - I don't think it's in Remain's interest that they should. The risk for Remain is that Labour voters don't necessarily care enough to bother to vote, especially if it's portrayed as a vote of confidence in Cameron.
There is a Euro debate in Melton Mowbray on Wed 3rd Feb at the Baptist Church. Kate Hoey is one of the speakers, and I may try to make it, if I get done with work in time.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 13m13 minutes ago John McDonnell has done a lot more telly recently, and he's getting pretty good at it. Has also been visiting a lot of local parties.
As tipped by me at 50/1...
I've scheduled your next piece for 5pm.
Now wish we luck with American airport security. I have to American airport security 4 times in the next few days.
This will not end well.
Mr Eagles, remember that there's a time and a place for tomfoolery and sarcasm. American airports are neither the time not the place. The TSA will genuinely think it's hilarious if they can delay you for 24 hours, don't turn up drunk and call them Sir. Seriously.
If I understand Mr Eagles origins aright then with apologies I suggest it is that plus the activities of other emigrants from the UK that will sadly spark an awkward transit for him.
@johnmcdonnellMP: After the #googletax deal for openness and transparency I've published my tax return today. Now it's Osborne's turn https://t.co/Zrkecsk2M7
No. He surely would still have to declare the income and then the contributions
Is that all he's published - where's the other pages?
As far as I can see he has only published the Employment page with figure from P60. As I understand it this figure will be less than gross salary because of pension contributions.
No other income...no interest? No untaxed income? - where's his media work recorded?
There's separate pages for other income, rentals or self-employed work. This is the page (or section of the page) that is all about what's on his P60 (as issued by his employer).
Absolutely - so he's NOT published his tax return. He's publish PART of the tax return for which the information was already in the public domain
So this all seems as cackhanded as his throwing the red book gimmick. And didn't a comment earlier suggest his performances were improving...
Silly question...in the days of Blair and whiter than white, ministers were asked to put all outside interesting into blind trusts. Do the current government ministers still do that? And if so, I presume all they get each year is a payment for x from the trust, of which they have no control or knowledge about how it was generated / calculated.
I don't know if they do, or indeed if all Blair's ministers did. Somehow I doubt it.
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
Just checked with official documents. Yes many ministers have put their interests in blind trusts. Also, Osborne's only outside interest is his well known shareholding in the old man's wallpaper business. I can't imagine there is that much room for tax dodging on his PAYE ministers salary and I presume the dividends from the shares.
The scope for financial misconduct from government ministers is not from their own investments and tax avoidance but from arranging cosy agreements with outside organisations who then pay them vast amounts for no apparent reason once the politician leaves office.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 13m13 minutes ago John McDonnell has done a lot more telly recently, and he's getting pretty good at it. Has also been visiting a lot of local parties.
As tipped by me at 50/1...
I've scheduled your next piece for 5pm.
Now wish we luck with American airport security. I have to American airport security 4 times in the next few days.
This will not end well.
Mr Eagles, remember that there's a time and a place for tomfoolery and sarcasm. American airports are neither the time not the place. The TSA will genuinely think it's hilarious if they can delay you for 24 hours, don't turn up drunk and call them Sir. Seriously.
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
Nothing so far's changed my view that I'll probably vote to leave: the hat would have to be very large to contain a rabbit big enough to send me sailing back over the fence to 'remain'.
Both sides of the campaign seem so incompetent they should not be allowed to run a whelk stall, yet alone a campaign about who should run the country.
But in terms of PR / leafleting, remain seem to be more in charge. Sadly.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I wouldnt mind being out of the EU as long as we stay in the EEA. In practice it wouldn't make much difference, apart from giving our commissioners and MEPs the sack.
Silly question...in the days of Blair and whiter than white, ministers were asked to put all outside interesting into blind trusts. Do the current government ministers still do that? And if so, I presume all they get each year is a payment for x from the trust, of which they have no control or knowledge about how it was generated / calculated.
I don't know if they do, or indeed if all Blair's ministers did. Somehow I doubt it.
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
Just checked with official documents. Yes many ministers have put their interests in blind trusts. Also, Osborne's only outside interest is his well known shareholding in the old man's wallpaper business. I can't imagine there is that much room for tax dodging on his PAYE ministers salary and I presume the dividends from the shares.
I wouldn't want to comment about any individual's arrangements, they are none of my business. Likewise the scope for fiddling income tax due is neither here nor there. I was merely commenting on the idea of blind trusts for ministers.
On McDonnell's tax return. Surely any other MP could confirm the numbers, what is deducted for 'pension' contributions etc. That page of the tax return will be the same for every MP without outside income. A good journalist will find either a friendly MP to corroborate the numbers or dig out details of the MP pension scheme which must be in the public domain somewhere.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 13m13 minutes ago John McDonnell has done a lot more telly recently, and he's getting pretty good at it. Has also been visiting a lot of local parties.
As tipped by me at 50/1...
I've scheduled your next piece for 5pm.
Now wish we luck with American airport security. I have to American airport security 4 times in the next few days.
This will not end well.
Mr Eagles, remember that there's a time and a place for tomfoolery and sarcasm. American airports are neither the time not the place. The TSA will genuinely think it's hilarious if they can delay you for 24 hours, don't turn up drunk and call them Sir. Seriously.
Wear business suits and sensible shoes!
Take a good book! I have a medical colleague born in Baghdad and with a British passport. Travelling as a lone male he always gets a few hours in the holding room when passing through US Border control. He now travels prepared!
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I agree with you that membership of the EEA probably won't turn out to be that different but for me that is one of the attractions. It gives us the opportunity for a much more fundamental reappraisal and restriction on our relations with the EU than Cameron has managed or the other members were up for when we were inside.
There are undoubtedly many things that the continent of Europe is better working together on. A single market requires a level playing field and that requires a large number of restrictions on what individual member states can do. These are not threats to sovereignty but an essential price that has to be paid to get the benefit.
For me, our loss of influence on how those rules are set does have to be set off against the freedom of manoeuvre and democratic choices we will be able to make in areas not affected by the single market. It is a trade and neither side has a clear indisputable advantage on the other. I think our influence is waning on the inside because of the increasing dominance of the EZ inside the EU and it seems likely that is a trend that is going to continue. That suggests the trade favours Leave but I do agree with you this is an odd thing to feel so strongly about.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 13m13 minutes ago John McDonnell has done a lot more telly recently, and he's getting pretty good at it. Has also been visiting a lot of local parties.
As tipped by me at 50/1...
I've scheduled your next piece for 5pm.
Now wish we luck with American airport security. I have to American airport security 4 times in the next few days.
This will not end well.
Mr Eagles, remember that there's a time and a place for tomfoolery and sarcasm. American airports are neither the time not the place. The TSA will genuinely think it's hilarious if they can delay you for 24 hours, don't turn up drunk and call them Sir. Seriously.
On McDonnell's tax return. Surely any other MP could confirm the numbers, what is deducted for 'pension' contributions etc. That page of the tax return will be the same for every MP without outside income. A good journalist will find either a friendly MP to corroborate the numbers or dig out details of the MP pension scheme which must be in the public domain somewhere.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 13m13 minutes ago John McDonnell has done a lot more telly recently, and he's getting pretty good at it. Has also been visiting a lot of local parties.
As tipped by me at 50/1...
I've scheduled your next piece for 5pm.
Now wish we luck with American airport security. I have to American airport security 4 times in the next few days.
This will not end well.
Mr Eagles, remember that there's a time and a place for tomfoolery and sarcasm. American airports are neither the time not the place. The TSA will genuinely think it's hilarious if they can delay you for 24 hours, don't turn up drunk and call them Sir. Seriously.
If I understand Mr Eagles origins aright then with apologies I suggest it is that plus the activities of other emigrants from the UK that will sadly spark an awkward transit for him.
Yes, which is why he needs to behave himself even more than usual.
I was on a flight from Dubai to JFK a few years ago, it took a couple of hours for me to get through and I was in biz class therefore towards the front of the queue. People around me were worried about missed connections, those further back were probably not so lucky.
Silly question...in the days of Blair and whiter than white, ministers were asked to put all outside interesting into blind trusts. Do the current government ministers still do that? And if so, I presume all they get each year is a payment for x from the trust, of which they have no control or knowledge about how it was generated / calculated.
I don't know if they do, or indeed if all Blair's ministers did. Somehow I doubt it.
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
The blind trust business has been with us for years hasn't it and pre-dates Blair. I am surprised at the readiness of even the paranoid to suggest it is being abused.
Has anyone suggested that it is being abused? I merely point out that the scope for abuse in the UK is enormous, and the downsides of making such trusts compulsory.
Of course you may think that in the City a gentleman's word is his bond and no gentleman would ever betray a confidence. That, in fact, no "old boy" network exists. If so I can't help you.
On McDonnell's tax return. Surely any other MP could confirm the numbers, what is deducted for 'pension' contributions etc. That page of the tax return will be the same for every MP without outside income. A good journalist will find either a friendly MP to corroborate the numbers or dig out details of the MP pension scheme which must be in the public domain somewhere.
Well Boris earns substantively more than the average MP...
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 13m13 minutes ago John McDonnell has done a lot more telly recently, and he's getting pretty good at it. Has also been visiting a lot of local parties.
As tipped by me at 50/1...
I've scheduled your next piece for 5pm.
Now wish we luck with American airport security. I have to American airport security 4 times in the next few days.
This will not end well.
Mr Eagles, remember that there's a time and a place for tomfoolery and sarcasm. American airports are neither the time not the place. The TSA will genuinely think it's hilarious if they can delay you for 24 hours, don't turn up drunk and call them Sir. Seriously.
Wear business suits and sensible shoes!
Take a good book! I have a medical colleague born in Baghdad and with a British passport. Travelling as a lone male he always gets a few hours in the holding room when passing through US Border control. He now travels prepared!
Nothing to do with nationality I'm afraid. I always always was stopped at security and for these four reasons. 1) I travelled alone 2) I always bought a ticket at the last moment 3) I travelled with hand luggage only 4) I was male
I finally got fed up and stood firm in the US because I was always held up despite travelling business. The security agent in charge came across and explained the above points. If you looked on your boarding card he said you will see the following in the bottom right corner
XXXX
Means full security check.
Incidentally I was also always stopped when returning to the UK from the Middle East as well. Not by passport control but by the police directly behind those gates. I also told them to take a running jump as well eventually
There may be odious comments appearing on The Guardian's comment sections, rather than have the courage to publish them, and giving the commentators enough rope to hang themselves, The Guardian resorts to censorship. Pathetic decision from Stephen Pritchard.
'What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament'
It's not 'clear' to you. It's just an inaccurate line you spin on here constantly.
My father-in-law always got stopped when travelling by air (which he did, and does, frequently, for work, because he travels alone, and also because he looked like a hippy. He started wearing a suit (although still has rather hippyish head and facial hair) and now gets stopped much more seldom.
On another note, Terry |Wogan has just died. Bloody hell - genuinely sad about that. No-one is irreplaceable, but Terry comes closer than anyone in British cultural life.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 13m13 minutes ago John McDonnell has done a lot more telly recently, and he's getting pretty good at it. Has also been visiting a lot of local parties.
As tipped by me at 50/1...
I've scheduled your next piece for 5pm.
Now wish we luck with American airport security. I have to American airport security 4 times in the next few days.
This will not end well.
Mr Eagles, remember that there's a time and a place for tomfoolery and sarcasm. American airports are neither the time not the place. The TSA will genuinely think it's hilarious if they can delay you for 24 hours, don't turn up drunk and call them Sir. Seriously.
Wear business suits and sensible shoes!
Take a good book! I have a medical colleague born in Baghdad and with a British passport. Travelling as a lone male he always gets a few hours in the holding room when passing through US Border control. He now travels prepared!
There was a couple of years in my working-life when I was doing a lot of work in and around the Caribbean, particularly in the Turks and Caicos islands to which there was, in those days no direct flights from the UK. Consequently my passport was full of stamps of entry and exit from the USA to/from T&C, Jamaica, Caymans, Anguilla etc. I seldom had a problem going through Miami, Houston or Dallas but I was regularly turned over by US immigration and customs when I arrived at Baltimore (my entry point of choice when going to meetings in Washington) from the UK.
The US security bureaucracy really isn't, or at least wasn't in those days, very switched on and I found most of the front line staff as thick as a yard of lard.
The leader of the opposition gets more than an MP's salary, £125,000 according to the Daily Mail. I think the shadow chancellor also gets a higher salary.
So when McDonnell comes to publish his 2015/16 tax return it will show the higher salary following his elevation (less the tax relief of pension contributions of course).
Does anyone know how and why San Marino managed to avoid getting caught up in the unification of Italy?
If I remember correctly , Garibaldi respected the fact that they were a republic for at least a thousand years, also it is very small and not strategically placed.
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
Nothing so far's changed my view that I'll probably vote to leave: the hat would have to be very large to contain a rabbit big enough to send me sailing back over the fence to 'remain'.
Both sides of the campaign seem so incompetent they should not be allowed to run a whelk stall, yet alone a campaign about who should run the country.
But in terms of PR / leafleting, remain seem to be more in charge. Sadly.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
It is only 'clear to you' because you are so willfully ignorant of the facts.
On another note, Terry |Wogan has just died. Bloody hell - genuinely sad about that. No-one is irreplaceable, but Terry comes closer than anyone in British cultural life.
Well 2016 does feel like a watershed year for british culture and TV with so many deaths.
@johnmcdonnellMP: After the #googletax deal for openness and transparency I've published my tax return today. Now it's Osborne's turn https://t.co/Zrkecsk2M7
'What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament'
It's not 'clear' to you. It's just an inaccurate line you spin on here constantly.
I hummed and hawed about even responding to this but what do you say would be so radically different about being in the EEA rather than full members of the EU?
We would still be members of the single market (which means EU rules relating to that would continue to override UK laws); still be subject to the rulings of the CJE in respect of the interpretation of those rules; still have freedom of movement and establishment; still largely negotiate international trade deals with the rest of the single market; still make "contributions" to the EU for that membership, hopefully somewhat less than now; we would still have the same options to opt in or out of things like the European Single Arrest warrant as we do now.
I can see some differences in fisheries, agriculture and structural spending by the EU (which lets face it is not that important anyway). I can see EU integration accelerating without us being in the way and this might or might not make the likes of Denmark and Sweden follow us out.
What I struggle to see is the world looking that different under either scenario. It is almost, if not quite, a question of timing. I see EEA membership as helping us to keep our EU membership roughly where it is now for longer rather than where it is likely to go if we stay.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 13m13 minutes ago John McDonnell has done a lot more telly recently, and he's getting pretty good at it. Has also been visiting a lot of local parties.
As tipped by me at 50/1...
I've scheduled your next piece for 5pm.
Now wish we luck with American airport security. I have to American airport security 4 times in the next few days.
This will not end well.
Mr Eagles, remember that there's a time and a place for tomfoolery and sarcasm. American airports are neither the time not the place. The TSA will genuinely think it's hilarious if they can delay you for 24 hours, don't turn up drunk and call them Sir. Seriously.
Wear business suits and sensible shoes!
Take a good book! I have a medical colleague born in Baghdad and with a British passport. Travelling as a lone male he always gets a few hours in the holding room when passing through US Border control. He now travels prepared!
The US security bureaucracy really isn't, or at least wasn't in those days, very switched on and I found most of the front line staff as thick as a yard of lard.
The US security bureaucracy really isn't, or at least wasn't in those days, very switched on and I found most of the front line staff as thick as a yard of lard.
I guess they have the same problem that a lot of big organizations have when doing mission-critical jobs at scale, which is that given enough employees inevitably some of them are going to be too dim to make sensible decisions on their own, so you have to make exhaustive rules and systems that even they can follow without screwing things up too badly. But once you've done that, you've created a work environment that's pretty much insufferable to anyone who isn't as thick as a yard of lard.
I'm doubtful whether economics will swing it one way or the other. People will be making speculative claims on either side which are implausible to me (3m jobs lost v free trade treaties on favourable terms with anyone we want). In truth, whether GDP per head is 38,000 USD, compared to 39,000 USD makes very little difference.
Silly question...in the days of Blair and whiter than white, ministers were asked to put all outside interesting into blind trusts. Do the current government ministers still do that? And if so, I presume all they get each year is a payment for x from the trust, of which they have no control or knowledge about how it was generated / calculated.
I don't know if they do, or indeed if all Blair's ministers did. Somehow I doubt it.
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
Just checked with official documents. Yes many ministers have put their interests in blind trusts. Also, Osborne's only outside interest is his well known shareholding in the old man's wallpaper business. I can't imagine there is that much room for tax dodging on his PAYE ministers salary and I presume the dividends from the shares.
Osborne and Little paid about £320,000 in dividends last year - most of it to George's mother Felicity.
George himself owns just 6,833 shares. The dividend was 18p/share. £1,230 dividend income is not enough to get excited about.
Does anyone know how and why San Marino managed to avoid getting caught up in the unification of Italy?
If I remember correctly , Garibaldi respected the fact that they were a republic for at least a thousand years, also it is very small and not strategically placed.
They also had given sanctuary to Italian nationalists fighting for unification, including briefly to Garibaldi himself after the fall of his Roman Republic in 1849.
I mentioned last night before I went to bed that every secondary modern school in South Bucks (where I come from) did better than some of the local comprehensive schools where I live except for the 2 decent ones.
What is really worrying is that a school that only achieved 17% of pupils getting 5 a*-c grades is believed by ofsted to only need improvement when Special measures is clearly what is required...
When many Secondary Moderns became Comps, some teachers joke that they dropped the educational standards at the same time...
That's the main issue for me. As soon as we want something then it's never reported as what the EU will allow its what Merkel decides we can have. Who put that bitch in charge??
The idea that Angela Merkel runs the EU is a British right-wing sexual fantasy. She's influential, partly because Germany is big and rich and partly because she's a successful politician who's been at the top for a long time. But when it comes to changing the EU to Britain's liking everyone has a veto, which is one of the reasons Cameron was never going to get much.
The US security bureaucracy really isn't, or at least wasn't in those days, very switched on and I found most of the front line staff as thick as a yard of lard.
I guess they have the same problem that a lot of big organizations have when doing mission-critical jobs at scale, which is that given enough employees inevitably some of them are going to be too dim to make sensible decisions on their own, so you have to make exhaustive rules and systems that even they can follow without screwing things up too badly. But once you've done that, you've created a work environment that's pretty much insufferable to anyone who isn't as thick as a yard of lard.
'What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament'
It's not 'clear' to you. It's just an inaccurate line you spin on here constantly.
I hummed and hawed about even responding to this but what do you say would be so radically different about being in the EEA rather than full members of the EU?
We would still be members of the single market (which means EU rules relating to that would continue to override UK laws); still be subject to the rulings of the CJE in respect of the interpretation of those rules; still have freedom of movement and establishment; still largely negotiate international trade deals with the rest of the single market; still make "contributions" to the EU for that membership, hopefully somewhat less than now; we would still have the same options to opt in or out of things like the European Single Arrest warrant as we do now.
I can see some differences in fisheries, agriculture and structural spending by the EU (which lets face it is not that important anyway). I can see EU integration accelerating without us being in the way and this might or might not make the likes of Denmark and Sweden follow us out.
What I struggle to see is the world looking that different under either scenario. It is almost, if not quite, a question of timing. I see EEA membership as helping us to keep our EU membership roughly where it is now for longer rather than where it is likely to go if we stay.
There are huge swathes of EU law relating to social, foreign policy, economic and tax issues where we would no longer be subject to EU decision making. An immediate example I have used before is VAT. You say that EU control over farming and agriculture are not that important and yet they have a massively adverse effect on environmental issues and on the sustainability of both farming and fishing as well as directly on our food or prices. Energy pllicy is another area where EU decision making is damaging our ability to maintain a reliable energy supply. These are just a few examples but almost every aspect of our lives is affected by the EU and generally it is in an adverse and unaccountable fashion.
The idea that being in the EEA would change nothing is one if the most pernicious lies being spread by the Eurofanatics.
I mentioned last night before I went to bed that every secondary modern school in South Bucks (where I come from) did better than some of the local comprehensive schools where I live except for the 2 decent ones.
What is really worrying is that a school that only achieved 17% of pupils getting 5 a*-c grades is believed by ofsted to only need improvement when Special measures is clearly what is required...
When many Secondary Moderns became Comps, some teachers joke that they dropped the educational standards at the same time...
I live in South Bucks, I moved here because of the grammar schools. Nobody will ever convince me that bringing back grammar schools will not increase social mobility, of course it will.
This comprehensive experiment has gone on for 50 years and all that has happened is our educational standards have fallen, together with social mobility
Silly question...in the days of Blair and whiter than white, ministers were asked to put all outside interesting into blind trusts. Do the current government ministers still do that? And if so, I presume all they get each year is a payment for x from the trust, of which they have no control or knowledge about how it was generated / calculated.
I don't know if they do, or indeed if all Blair's ministers did. Somehow I doubt it.
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
Just checked with official documents. Yes many ministers have put their interests in blind trusts. Also, Osborne's only outside interest is his well known shareholding in the old man's wallpaper business. I can't imagine there is that much room for tax dodging on his PAYE ministers salary and I presume the dividends from the shares.
Osborne and Little paid about £320,000 in dividends last year - most of it to George's mother Felicity.
George himself owns just 6,833 shares. The dividend was 18p/share. £1,230 dividend income is not enough to get excited about.
For all that I am not a particular fan of Osborne, the one thing I have never thought him to be us self serving - except in the obvious political sense.
Jim Messina who worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 and the Tory campaign in 2015 and chairs the super PAC for Hillary's 2016 campaign says Cameron, Clinton and Obama all have something in common. “They all are very strong leaders who understand where they want to take their country, who are willing to take on their own parties and the opposition when they believe what they think they have to do to get their countries in a better place,” he told Sky News’s Murnaghan show. He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”. Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved. “You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said. Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.” https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
I mentioned last night before I went to bed that every secondary modern school in South Bucks (where I come from) did better than some of the local comprehensive schools where I live except for the 2 decent ones.
What is really worrying is that a school that only achieved 17% of pupils getting 5 a*-c grades is believed by ofsted to only need improvement when Special measures is clearly what is required...
When many Secondary Moderns became Comps, some teachers joke that they dropped the educational standards at the same time...
Many of the secondary moderns in Trafford are amongst the best schools in Greater Manchester - the reason being, the existence of secondary moderns in Trafford is a by-product the existence of grammar schools, which in turn is a by-product of Trafford MBC giving more of a shit about educational achievement (and slightly less of the all-must-have-prizes-none-shall-exceed mentality that was about when I was going through state education elsewhere in Greater Manchester in the early 80s, and which still exists in pockets) than the average Greater Manchester education authority.
Jim Messina who worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 and the Tory campaign in 2015 and chairs the super PAC for Hillary's 2016 campaign says Cameron, Clinton and Obama all have something in common. “They all are very strong leaders who understand where they want to take their country, who are willing to take on their own parties and the opposition when they believe what they think they have to do to get their countries in a better place,” he told Sky News’s Murnaghan show. He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”. Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved. “You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said. Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.” https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
I like the way he tries to include Hillary in between two winners. What has she actually said about where she wants to take her country, and given her predilitction for not understanding classified information why anyone would trust her with anything?
'What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament'
It's not 'clear' to you. It's just an inaccurate line you spin on here constantly.
I hummed and hawed about even responding to this but what do you say would be so radically different about being in the EEA rather than full members of the EU?
We would still be members of the single market (which means EU rules relating to that would continue to override UK laws); still be subject to the rulings of the CJE in respect of the interpretation of those rules; still have freedom of movement and establishment; still largely negotiate international trade deals with the rest of the single market; still make "contributions" to the EU for that membership, hopefully somewhat less than now; we would still have the same options to opt in or out of things like the European Single Arrest warrant as we do now.
I can see some differences in fisheries, agriculture and structural spending by the EU (which lets face it is not that important anyway). I can see EU integration accelerating without us being in the way and this might or might not make the likes of Denmark and Sweden follow us out.
What I struggle to see is the world looking that different under either scenario. It is almost, if not quite, a question of timing. I see EEA membership as helping us to keep our EU membership roughly where it is now for longer rather than where it is likely to go if we stay.
There are huge swathes of EU law relating to social, foreign policy, economic and tax issues where we would no longer be subject to EU decision making. An immediate example I have used before is VAT. You say that EU control over farming and agriculture are not that important and yet they have a massively adverse effect on environmental issues and on the sustainability of both farming and fishing as well as directly on our food or prices. Energy pllicy is another area where EU decision making is damaging our ability to maintain a reliable energy supply. These are just a few examples but almost every aspect of our lives is affected by the EU and generally it is in an adverse and unaccountable fashion.
The idea that being in the EEA would change nothing is one if the most pernicious lies being spread by the Eurofanatics.
Agriculture would seem to be a big deal. Food prices seen much cheaper outside Europe.
Jim Messina who worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 and the Tory campaign in 2015 and chairs the super PAC for Hillary's 2016 campaign says Cameron, Clinton and Obama all have something in common. “They all are very strong leaders who understand where they want to take their country, who are willing to take on their own parties and the opposition when they believe what they think they have to do to get their countries in a better place,” he told Sky News’s Murnaghan show. He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”. Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved. “You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said. Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.” https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
I like the way he tries to include Hillary in between two winners. What has she actually said about where she wants to take her country, and given her predilitction for not understanding classified information why anyone would trust her with anything?
Against Rubio Hillary would probably lose, for the reasons you suggest, against Trump, who is a lot of hot air and is hardly a paragon of virtue himself she is probably the favourite
Jim Messina who worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 and the Tory campaign in 2015 and chairs the super PAC for Hillary's 2016 campaign says Cameron, Clinton and Obama all have something in common. “They all are very strong leaders who understand where they want to take their country, who are willing to take on their own parties and the opposition when they believe what they think they have to do to get their countries in a better place,” he told Sky News’s Murnaghan show. He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”. Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved. “You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said. Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.” https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
The Republicans will win far more than 37 per cent So they have the better claim to be the party that "unites the country"
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
There's still plenty of time. Wait for the next (even bigger) wave of migrants into Europe in the spring, wait for the referendum campaign to really begin (probably immediately following the May elections), wait for the TV debates... there are a lot of undecided/unsure voters and they can be swung round. Look at how in Scotland how the Yes side surged - Leave are in a similar position to Yes.
Also, in the end, it could come down to turnout - if Leave voters are more keen, and Remain voters are complacent/not fussed, then Leave could edge it even if in the polls they are slightly behind.
That's the main issue for me. As soon as we want something then it's never reported as what the EU will allow its what Merkel decides we can have. Who put that bitch in charge??
That alone is enough for me to vote out. I know we are not going to win but I can stand there honestly and say I tried to save my country. It should be remembered when we are inundated with EU demands starting from day 1 after the referendum is held. They will move fast ...very fast and you can kiss goodbye to the pound currency , the national anthem and any freedom we have. It will be decided in Brussels by faceless unelected bureaucrats. All for the socialist collective good of course and the only way socialists stand a chance of getting any power in this country
We have but one opportunity to stop it...we should not waste it.
Vote leave.
I'm confused. Are we ruled by "faceless unelected bureaucrats" or by Merkel?
Jim Messina who worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 and the Tory campaign in 2015 and chairs the super PAC for Hillary's 2016 campaign says Cameron, Clinton and Obama all have something in common. “They all are very strong leaders who understand where they want to take their country, who are willing to take on their own parties and the opposition when they believe what they think they have to do to get their countries in a better place,” he told Sky News’s Murnaghan show. He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”. Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved. “You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said. Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.” https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
The Republicans will win far more than 37 per cent So they have the better claim to be the party that "unites the country"
Less diversity of options in the US though. Getting 37 is good not great here, but epically disastrous there.
I mentioned last night before I went to bed that every secondary modern school in South Bucks (where I come from) did better than some of the local comprehensive schools where I live except for the 2 decent ones.
What is really worrying is that a school that only achieved 17% of pupils getting 5 a*-c grades is believed by ofsted to only need improvement when Special measures is clearly what is required...
When many Secondary Moderns became Comps, some teachers joke that they dropped the educational standards at the same time...
I live in South Bucks, I moved here because of the grammar schools. Nobody will ever convince me that bringing back grammar schools will not increase social mobility, of course it will.
This comprehensive experiment has gone on for 50 years and all that has happened is our educational standards have fallen, together with social mobility
People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn. - M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 14 October, 1977.
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
There's still plenty of time. Wait for the next (even bigger) wave of migrants into Europe in the spring, wait for the referendum campaign to really begin (probably immediately following the May elections), wait for the TV debates... there are a lot of undecided/unsure voters and they can be swung round. Look at how in Scotland how the Yes side surged - Leave are in a similar position to Yes.
Also, in the end, it could come down to turnout - if Leave voters are more keen, and Remain voters are complacent/not fussed, then Leave could edge it even if in the polls they are slightly behind.
That's the main issue for me. As soon as we want something then it's never reported as what the EU will allow its what Merkel decides we can have. Who put that bitch in charge??
That alone is enough for me to vote out. I know we are not going to win but I can stand there honestly and say I tried to save my country. It should be remembered when we are inundated with EU demands starting from day 1 after the referendum is held. They will move fast ...very fast and you can kiss goodbye to the pound currency , the national anthem and any freedom we have. It will be decided in Brussels by faceless unelected bureaucrats. All for the socialist collective good of course and the only way socialists stand a chance of getting any power in this country
We have but one opportunity to stop it...we should not waste it.
Vote leave.
I'm confused. Are we ruled by "faceless unelected bureaucrats" or by Merkel?
I mentioned last night before I went to bed that every secondary modern school in South Bucks (where I come from) did better than some of the local comprehensive schools where I live except for the 2 decent ones.
What is really worrying is that a school that only achieved 17% of pupils getting 5 a*-c grades is believed by ofsted to only need improvement when Special measures is clearly what is required...
When many Secondary Moderns became Comps, some teachers joke that they dropped the educational standards at the same time...
Many of the secondary moderns in Trafford are amongst the best schools in Greater Manchester - the reason being, the existence of secondary moderns in Trafford is a by-product the existence of grammar schools, which in turn is a by-product of Trafford MBC giving more of a shit about educational achievement (and slightly less of the all-must-have-prizes-none-shall-exceed mentality that was about when I was going through state education elsewhere in Greater Manchester in the early 80s, and which still exists in pockets) than the average Greater Manchester education authority.
That said, I have very mixed feelings about grammar schools. I have three daughters under the age of 6; I'd like them all to go to the local grammar school, but the chances of them all getting in seem slim, and obviously I don't really want some going and some not. Preparation for the 11-plus at local primary schools seems inconsistent, and our local primary school seems less successful than others at getting children into grammar schools. I'll arrange for tutoring etc, but the fact that I'm planning on doing so illustrates the not-exactly-level playing field that's in place. Had I only one child, I would probably be less bothered. One of the reasons I settled here was the schools, but I can see the attraction of the mythical good local comprehensive that I wouldn't have to worry about them getting into. On balance, I'm still in favour of grammar schools, but I can see the merits of other approaches; I don't think one approach to education has all the answers.
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
There's still plenty of time. Wait for the next (even bigger) wave of migrants into Europe in the spring, wait for the referendum campaign to really begin (probably immediately following the May elections), wait for the TV debates... there are a lot of undecided/unsure voters and they can be swung round. Look at how in Scotland how the Yes side surged - Leave are in a similar position to Yes.
Also, in the end, it could come down to turnout - if Leave voters are more keen, and Remain voters are complacent/not fussed, then Leave could edge it even if in the polls they are slightly behind.
That's the main issue for me. As soon as we want something then it's never reported as what the EU will allow its what Merkel decides we can have. Who put that bitch in charge??
That alone is enough for me to vote out. I know we are not going to win but I can stand there honestly and say I tried to save my country. It should be remembered when we are inundated with EU demands starting from day 1 after the referendum is held. They will move fast ...very fast and you can kiss goodbye to the pound currency , the national anthem and any freedom we have. It will be decided in Brussels by faceless unelected bureaucrats. All for the socialist collective good of course and the only way socialists stand a chance of getting any power in this country
We have but one opportunity to stop it...we should not waste it.
Vote leave.
I'm confused. Are we ruled by "faceless unelected bureaucrats" or by Merkel?
Why would PB REMAINers want the UK to be ruled by either?
Now is the time to stick cash on against Clinton if you haven't done so yet. Its worth a few quid that she will fail be it through laying Clinton on the exchanges or backing others. Like all bets its a risk taking on a warm favourite but its where you make your money.
Jim Messina who worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 and the Tory campaign in 2015 and chairs the super PAC for Hillary's 2016 campaign says Cameron, Clinton and Obama all have something in common. “They all are very strong leaders who understand where they want to take their country, who are willing to take on their own parties and the opposition when they believe what they think they have to do to get their countries in a better place,” he told Sky News’s Murnaghan show. He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”. Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved. “You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said. Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.” https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
The Republicans will win far more than 37 per cent So they have the better claim to be the party that "unites the country"
Yes but that is in what is effectively a 2 party system, the US does not have the likes of UKIP, the LDs and the Greens and SNP. If Bloomberg runs as an independent though then the GOP would be unlikely to get more than 37%
In fact when you just look at general elections since 2000 (inclusive) Labour have won 2 and lost 2, the Republicans have won 2 and lost 2 and one of their wins saw them lose the popular vote!
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to penalise firms who do not pay the Living Wage has been described as "unworkable" by his business spokesman. Angela Eagle told The Sunday Times the plan to ban such firms from paying dividends was "not a runner".
Jim Messina who worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 and the Tory campaign in 2015 and chairs the super PAC for Hillary's 2016 campaign says Cameron, Clinton and Obama all have something in common. “They all are very strong leaders who understand where they want to take their country, who are willing to take on their own parties and the opposition when they believe what they think they have to do to get their countries in a better place,” he told Sky News’s Murnaghan show. He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”. Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved. “You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said. Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.” https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
The Republicans will win far more than 37 per cent So they have the better claim to be the party that "unites the country"
Given that each US party typically wins 44-53%, they must both be fairly close to the mainstream.
I mentioned last night before I went to bed that every secondary modern school in South Bucks (where I come from) did better than some of the local comprehensive schools where I live except for the 2 decent ones.
What is really worrying is that a school that only achieved 17% of pupils getting 5 a*-c grades is believed by ofsted to only need improvement when Special measures is clearly what is required...
When many Secondary Moderns became Comps, some teachers joke that they dropped the educational standards at the same time...
I live in South Bucks, I moved here because of the grammar schools. Nobody will ever convince me that bringing back grammar schools will not increase social mobility, of course it will.
This comprehensive experiment has gone on for 50 years and all that has happened is our educational standards have fallen, together with social mobility
I fully support the return of grammar school education, though can see sensitivities and would propose three things that would be part of any plan to allow their return (in England):
1. Grammar school system to be done on a local authority basis - a local authority can vote for its return in its area either by a vote made by its councillors or by a referendum (which can be called for by petition).
2. The entry exam to be replaced by: a. an assessment of a child's education history (perhaps the previous 4 years) and b. the ability for a child to be entered also at age 13/14 (for those who show a clear shift in academic ability 11+).
3. Equal public funding per pupil in a local authority area for all, grammar or non-grammar.
I'm pretty sure that if the Conservative party put the above in their manifesto they would receive great support.
Britain would be economically (X) if it left the European Union: Better off: 27% (-) Worse off: 32% (-1) No different: 24% (+2) (via YouGov)
I personally would be financially (X) if Britain left the EU: Better off: 16% (-) Worse off: 18% (+2) [No difference]: 46% (-) (via YouGov)
Leave should make the argument that EVEN IF we were marginally worse off (and it would be marginal) it is still worthwhile leaving and regaining our sovereignty.
"If these two things persist – a crisis-free and modestly growing eurozone and heightened levels of consumer confidence in Britain – the leave campaign will have its work cut out in trying to persuade voters that change is either necessary or desirable."
I agree with this. What Leave needs is another Greek style melt down. Not impossible and a reason why we might be having this referendum sooner rather than later.
I saw a professor on BBC Breakfast one morning a couple of weeks ago (sorry I can't remember his name) saying the opposite. He had studied all previous EU-related referenda in every country and found that economic uncertainty actually favoured a pro-integration result and a generally comfortable outlook produced the opposite. So you have two trends working in opposition.
I'm staying with friends this weekend so just dropping in a quick comment on my wife's iPhone: I am deeply depressed.
I've been waiting my whole life for this referendum, a chance to regain self-governance for our country, and we're throwing it away.
Both Leave campaigns are in disarray, and fighting each other, and no serious Conservative is willing to bravely show leadership on the matter. Instead, one by one, they are sheepishly declaring for Remain.
In addition, the scare and fearmongering is clearly having an effect on a few of our regulars who are *inclined* to vote Leave.
I never thought it would be like this. And am deeply dissappointed about my own party.
Lots to think about.
There's still plenty of time. Wait for the next (even bigger) wave of migrants into Europe in the spring, wait for the referendum campaign to really begin (probably immediately following the May elections), wait for the TV debates... there are a lot of undecided/unsure voters and they can be swung round. Look at how in Scotland how the Yes side surged - Leave are in a similar position to Yes.
Also, in the end, it could come down to turnout - if Leave voters are more keen, and Remain voters are complacent/not fussed, then Leave could edge it even if in the polls they are slightly behind.
That's the main issue for me. As soon as we want something then it's never reported as what the EU will allow its what Merkel decides we can have. Who put that bitch in charge??
That alone is enough for me to vote out. I know we are not going to win but I can stand there honestly and say I tried to save my country. It should be remembered when we are inundated with EU demands starting from day 1 after the referendum is held. They will move fast ...very fast and you can kiss goodbye to the pound currency , the national anthem and any freedom we have. It will be decided in Brussels by faceless unelected bureaucrats. All for the socialist collective good of course and the only way socialists stand a chance of getting any power in this country
We have but one opportunity to stop it...we should not waste it.
Vote leave.
I'm confused. Are we ruled by "faceless unelected bureaucrats" or by Merkel?
Why would PB REMAINers want the UK to be ruled by either?
I imagine for PB Lefties it is because they were promised a social Europe by Jacques Delors in 1988. It hasn't quite materialised though...
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I understand the dilemma, with respect to the outcome either way being similar/almost the same. In the end, much like with the Scottish independence debate, it boils down to "where does sovereignty lie?"
I want sovereignty to lie with the Crown-in-Parliament, which is ultimately controlled by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Hence why I support Leave.
As the outcome (EU-light membership v. EEA membership/Swiss-style arrangement) is so similar, why not vote Leave and at least vest full sovereignty once again in our own parliament?
Flightpath's dilemma - which is shared by a lot of people, and by most of business - is that their order of preference is:
1. EFTA/EEA 2. EU 3. Complete Independence
But because of the nature of the referendum question, they fear (understandably) that they'll vote for Leave hoping for 1, and end up with 3. They will therefore vote for Remain.
The issue that the Leave camp has is that, to motivate those principally concerned by immigration, that they need to leave 3 on the table. That's how they motivate the base, and it was 3 that UKIP has campaigned for all along.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I understand the dilemma, with respect to the outcome either way being similar/almost the same. In the end, much like with the Scottish independence debate, it boils down to "where does sovereignty lie?"
I want sovereignty to lie with the Crown-in-Parliament, which is ultimately controlled by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Hence why I support Leave.
As the outcome (EU-light membership v. EEA membership/Swiss-style arrangement) is so similar, why not vote Leave and at least vest full sovereignty once again in our own parliament?
Flightpath's dilemma - which is shared by a lot of people, and by most of business - is that their order of preference is:
1. EFTA/EEA 2. EU 3. Complete Independence
But because of the nature of the referendum question, they fear (understandably) that they'll vote for Leave hoping for 1, and end up with 3. They will therefore vote for Remain.
The issue that the Leave camp has is that, to motivate those principally concerned by immigration, that they need to leave 3 on the table. That's how they motivate the base, and it was 3 that UKIP has campaigned for all along.
Britain would be economically (X) if it left the European Union: Better off: 27% (-) Worse off: 32% (-1) No different: 24% (+2) (via YouGov)
I personally would be financially (X) if Britain left the EU: Better off: 16% (-) Worse off: 18% (+2) [No difference]: 46% (-) (via YouGov)
Leave should make the argument that EVEN IF we were marginally worse off (and it would be marginal) it is still worthwhile leaving and regaining our sovereignty.
Britain would be economically (X) if it left the European Union: Better off: 27% (-) Worse off: 32% (-1) No different: 24% (+2) (via YouGov)
I personally would be financially (X) if Britain left the EU: Better off: 16% (-) Worse off: 18% (+2) [No difference]: 46% (-) (via YouGov)
Leave should make the argument that EVEN IF we were marginally worse off (and it would be marginal) it is still worthwhile leaving and regaining our sovereignty.
What price is sovereignty?
Yes, but that notion of "sovereignty" assumes that my interests are aligned with people who happen to have been born on the same island as me.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I understand the dilemma, with respect to the outcome either way being similar/almost the same. In the end, much like with the Scottish independence debate, it boils down to "where does sovereignty lie?"
I want sovereignty to lie with the Crown-in-Parliament, which is ultimately controlled by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Hence why I support Leave.
As the outcome (EU-light membership v. EEA membership/Swiss-style arrangement) is so similar, why not vote Leave and at least vest full sovereignty once again in our own parliament?
Flightpath's dilemma - which is shared by a lot of people, and by most of business - is that their order of preference is:
1. EFTA/EEA 2. EU 3. Complete Independence
But because of the nature of the referendum question, they fear (understandably) that they'll vote for Leave hoping for 1, and end up with 3. They will therefore vote for Remain.
The issue that the Leave camp has is that, to motivate those principally concerned by immigration, that they need to leave 3 on the table. That's how they motivate the base, and it was 3 that UKIP has campaigned for all along.
3. is clearly not going to happen.
2. on the other hand is obviously going to happen should we leave.
Once the campaign properly starts, the UKIP element will be subsumed by the wider Leave support, which will spell out to Joe Public that EEA/Swiss-style is the way forward and what it will mean.
Britain would be economically (X) if it left the European Union: Better off: 27% (-) Worse off: 32% (-1) No different: 24% (+2) (via YouGov)
I personally would be financially (X) if Britain left the EU: Better off: 16% (-) Worse off: 18% (+2) [No difference]: 46% (-) (via YouGov)
Leave should make the argument that EVEN IF we were marginally worse off (and it would be marginal) it is still worthwhile leaving and regaining our sovereignty.
Britain would be economically (X) if it left the European Union: Better off: 27% (-) Worse off: 32% (-1) No different: 24% (+2) (via YouGov)
I personally would be financially (X) if Britain left the EU: Better off: 16% (-) Worse off: 18% (+2) [No difference]: 46% (-) (via YouGov)
Leave should make the argument that EVEN IF we were marginally worse off (and it would be marginal) it is still worthwhile leaving and regaining our sovereignty.
What price is sovereignty?
Yes, but that notion of "sovereignty" assumes that my interests are aligned with people who happen to have been born on the same island as me.
Which is far more likely than the interests of the 460 million people in the EU who aren't on this blessed plot.
Jim Messina who worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 and the Tory campaign in 2015 and chairs the super PAC for Hillary's 2016 campaign says Cameron, Clinton and Obama all have something in common. “They all are very strong leaders who understand where they want to take their country, who are willing to take on their own parties and the opposition when they believe what they think they have to do to get their countries in a better place,” he told Sky News’s Murnaghan show. He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”. Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved. “You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said. Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.” https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
The Republicans will win far more than 37 per cent So they have the better claim to be the party that "unites the country"
Given that each US party typically wins 44-53%, they must both be fairly close to the mainstream.
Depends on the candidate, Goldwater got 38% in 1964, McGovern 37% in 1972. Bush Snr also only got 37% in 1992 when faced with a strong third party candidate. If the UK had no UKIP, LDs, SNP or Greens both Labour and the Tories would get 45%+, that was the case until the 1970s eg in the 1951 election the Tories won 48%, Labour 48.8% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
Britain would be economically (X) if it left the European Union: Better off: 27% (-) Worse off: 32% (-1) No different: 24% (+2) (via YouGov)
I personally would be financially (X) if Britain left the EU: Better off: 16% (-) Worse off: 18% (+2) [No difference]: 46% (-) (via YouGov)
Leave should make the argument that EVEN IF we were marginally worse off (and it would be marginal) it is still worthwhile leaving and regaining our sovereignty.
Britain would be economically (X) if it left the European Union: Better off: 27% (-) Worse off: 32% (-1) No different: 24% (+2) (via YouGov)
I personally would be financially (X) if Britain left the EU: Better off: 16% (-) Worse off: 18% (+2) [No difference]: 46% (-) (via YouGov)
Leave should make the argument that EVEN IF we were marginally worse off (and it would be marginal) it is still worthwhile leaving and regaining our sovereignty.
What price is sovereignty?
Yes, but that notion of "sovereignty" assumes that my interests are aligned with people who happen to have been born on the same island as me.
Although I'm often critical of The Economist, I was interested by their description of a meeting of British and continental politicians, where the latter indicated they would treat a Leave vote as a hostile act by the UK.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I understand the dilemma, with respect to the outcome either way being similar/almost the same. In the end, much like with the Scottish independence debate, it boils down to "where does sovereignty lie?"
I want sovereignty to lie with the Crown-in-Parliament, which is ultimately controlled by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Hence why I support Leave.
As the outcome (EU-light membership v. EEA membership/Swiss-style arrangement) is so similar, why not vote Leave and at least vest full sovereignty once again in our own parliament?
Flightpath's dilemma - which is shared by a lot of people, and by most of business - is that their order of preference is:
1. EFTA/EEA 2. EU 3. Complete Independence
But because of the nature of the referendum question, they fear (understandably) that they'll vote for Leave hoping for 1, and end up with 3. They will therefore vote for Remain.
The issue that the Leave camp has is that, to motivate those principally concerned by immigration, that they need to leave 3 on the table. That's how they motivate the base, and it was 3 that UKIP has campaigned for all along.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I understand the dilemma, with respect to the outcome either way being similar/almost the same. In the end, much like with the Scottish independence debate, it boils down to "where does sovereignty lie?"
I want sovereignty to lie with the Crown-in-Parliament, which is ultimately controlled by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Hence why I support Leave.
As the outcome (EU-light membership v. EEA membership/Swiss-style arrangement) is so similar, why not vote Leave and at least vest full sovereignty once again in our own parliament?
Flightpath's dilemma - which is shared by a lot of people, and by most of business - is that their order of preference is:
1. EFTA/EEA 2. EU 3. Complete Independence
But because of the nature of the referendum question, they fear (understandably) that they'll vote for Leave hoping for 1, and end up with 3. They will therefore vote for Remain.
The issue that the Leave camp has is that, to motivate those principally concerned by immigration, that they need to leave 3 on the table. That's how they motivate the base, and it was 3 that UKIP has campaigned for all along.
My preference is 3, 1, 2.
Mine too. This pathetic fear of being *shock* a country shows how far the general populace has been demoralised.
I do not see either side as being particularly clever or effective. What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares. As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive. I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious. So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I understand the dilemma, with respect to the outcome either way being similar/almost the same. In the end, much like with the Scottish independence debate, it boils down to "where does sovereignty lie?"
I want sovereignty to lie with the Crown-in-Parliament, which is ultimately controlled by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Hence why I support Leave.
As the outcome (EU-light membership v. EEA membership/Swiss-style arrangement) is so similar, why not vote Leave and at least vest full sovereignty once again in our own parliament?
Flightpath's dilemma - which is shared by a lot of people, and by most of business - is that their order of preference is:
1. EFTA/EEA 2. EU 3. Complete Independence
But because of the nature of the referendum question, they fear (understandably) that they'll vote for Leave hoping for 1, and end up with 3. They will therefore vote for Remain.
The issue that the Leave camp has is that, to motivate those principally concerned by immigration, that they need to leave 3 on the table. That's how they motivate the base, and it was 3 that UKIP has campaigned for all along.
Comments
Why pay more than you have to?
Two Tories, two Lefties and two Kippers
Speakers include:
Brian Denny, RMT
Nigel Farage, MEP
Simon Heffer, Daily Telegraph
Kate Hoey, MP and Grassroots Out Co-Founder
Tom Pursglove, MP and Grassroots Out Co-Founder
Will Wragg, MP
https://www.ticketsource.co.uk/date/FFMMHG
On first glance making such a policy mandatory would seem to be a good idea, at least a step in the right direction. However, I am not convinced it would work and may have unintended consequences that would actually be worse than the original problem.
Aside from anything else, the "Old Boy" network in the UK is so strong that channels of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary would always exist. That is toxic because people breaking the law in one aspect of their professional lives are more likely to break it in others. Thus an even bigger pool of corruption would be created and, God knows, the City is corrupt enough already.
Also that from recent media articles it's clear that from the day the PM announces the date, a large section of the written press are going to go very hard for Leave. See Christopher Booker's piece in the Telegraph today for an example.
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12130566/Mr-Cameron-wont-get-away-with-his-shabby-little-EU-deal.html
What is clear to me is that leaving the EU and joining EFTA/EEA will make very little real difference to anything except we will not be in the council of ministers or have a commissioner or have any votes or have members in the EU parliament. And frankly I say who cares.
As such both campaigns are being disingenuous. Of course if we vote Leave then anything that has been agreed by Cameron will be off the table and we start all over again from outside trying to negotiate a deal with the EU/EEA. So from that point of view being Out would be clearly a worse state than being In.
I am sanguine about being out of the EU and in the EEA. Its not that much different. Set against that we still have to face a continental wide politico-economic block on our doorstep which is not going to go away. To pretend it will not succeed and not exert some influence on us is naive.
I do not regard any Out argument that also says out of the EEA and in with 'glorious isolation' as serious.
So I lean to Remain. No one who has a modicum of common sense should have a visceral commitment to either side.
I want sovereignty to lie with the Crown-in-Parliament, which is ultimately controlled by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Hence why I support Leave.
As the outcome (EU-light membership v. EEA membership/Swiss-style arrangement) is so similar, why not vote Leave and at least vest full sovereignty once again in our own parliament?
http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/gulf-reforms-needed-to-take-on-us-frackers
Clarke, Mandleson and Kinnock will be all over the airwaves reveling in their smugness.
See Blair and JPMorgan as an example.
There are undoubtedly many things that the continent of Europe is better working together on. A single market requires a level playing field and that requires a large number of restrictions on what individual member states can do. These are not threats to sovereignty but an essential price that has to be paid to get the benefit.
For me, our loss of influence on how those rules are set does have to be set off against the freedom of manoeuvre and democratic choices we will be able to make in areas not affected by the single market. It is a trade and neither side has a clear indisputable advantage on the other. I think our influence is waning on the inside because of the increasing dominance of the EZ inside the EU and it seems likely that is a trend that is going to continue. That suggests the trade favours Leave but I do agree with you this is an odd thing to feel so strongly about.
I was on a flight from Dubai to JFK a few years ago, it took a couple of hours for me to get through and I was in biz class therefore towards the front of the queue. People around me were worried about missed connections, those further back were probably not so lucky.
Of course you may think that in the City a gentleman's word is his bond and no gentleman would ever betray a confidence. That, in fact, no "old boy" network exists. If so I can't help you.
This is awesome: How the Times used to broadcast election results. https://t.co/ORGOJpp0LN
1) I travelled alone
2) I always bought a ticket at the last moment
3) I travelled with hand luggage only
4) I was male
I finally got fed up and stood firm in the US because I was always held up despite travelling business. The security agent in charge came across and explained the above points. If you looked on your boarding card he said you will see the following in the bottom right corner
XXXX
Means full security check.
Incidentally I was also always stopped when returning to the UK from the Middle East as well. Not by passport control but by the police directly behind those gates. I also told them to take a running jump as well eventually
It's not 'clear' to you. It's just an inaccurate line you spin on here constantly.
The US security bureaucracy really isn't, or at least wasn't in those days, very switched on and I found most of the front line staff as thick as a yard of lard.
So when McDonnell comes to publish his 2015/16 tax return it will show the higher salary following his elevation (less the tax relief of pension contributions of course).
We would still be members of the single market (which means EU rules relating to that would continue to override UK laws); still be subject to the rulings of the CJE in respect of the interpretation of those rules; still have freedom of movement and establishment; still largely negotiate international trade deals with the rest of the single market; still make "contributions" to the EU for that membership, hopefully somewhat less than now; we would still have the same options to opt in or out of things like the European Single Arrest warrant as we do now.
I can see some differences in fisheries, agriculture and structural spending by the EU (which lets face it is not that important anyway). I can see EU integration accelerating without us being in the way and this might or might not make the likes of Denmark and Sweden follow us out.
What I struggle to see is the world looking that different under either scenario. It is almost, if not quite, a question of timing. I see EEA membership as helping us to keep our EU membership roughly where it is now for longer rather than where it is likely to go if we stay.
George himself owns just 6,833 shares. The dividend was 18p/share. £1,230 dividend income is not enough to get excited about.
What is really worrying is that a school that only achieved 17% of pupils getting 5 a*-c grades is believed by ofsted to only need improvement when Special measures is clearly what is required...
When many Secondary Moderns became Comps, some teachers joke that they dropped the educational standards at the same time...
@Maomentum_: From the right Tories attack Sadiq as Corbyn's man. Dangerous tactic with Jeremy so popular.
Last year they targeted one of the top travel bloggers, who had apparently gone to Turkey.
http://thepointsguy.com/2015/08/my-new-tsa-travel-hell/
It seems to take about 6 months to wash through.
The idea that being in the EEA would change nothing is one if the most pernicious lies being spread by the Eurofanatics.
I live in South Bucks, I moved here because of the grammar schools. Nobody will ever convince me that bringing back grammar schools will not increase social mobility, of course it will.
This comprehensive experiment has gone on for 50 years and all that has happened is our educational standards have fallen, together with social mobility
He added that working for Mr Cameron had been “one of the proudest things” he had done in his career and that he “would do it again in a heartbeat”.
Mr Messina said the traditional transatlantic relationships between Tories and Republicans and Labour and Democrats had now dissolved.
“You have a mainstream party of Conservatives in the UK that wins elections, that governs very well and unites the country... and unfortunately that’s not the modern Republican party that Ronald Reagan built 30 years ago,” he said.
Instead, he compared the current Republican party to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn: “What you’re seeing is a Republican party that has gone off the rails a bit, much like Labour has in the UK, and are seemingly set on nominating people who can’t win the general election.”
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jim-messina-compares-david-cameron-obama-and-hillary#sthash.KSsmjwnb.dpuf
Many of the secondary moderns in Trafford are amongst the best schools in Greater Manchester - the reason being, the existence of secondary moderns in Trafford is a by-product the existence of grammar schools, which in turn is a by-product of Trafford MBC giving more of a shit about educational achievement (and slightly less of the all-must-have-prizes-none-shall-exceed mentality that was about when I was going through state education elsewhere in Greater Manchester in the early 80s, and which still exists in pockets) than the average Greater Manchester education authority.
So they have the better claim to be the party that "unites the country"
This comprehensive experiment has gone on for 50 years and all that has happened is our educational standards have fallen, together with social mobility
People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 14 October, 1977.
That said, I have very mixed feelings about grammar schools. I have three daughters under the age of 6; I'd like them all to go to the local grammar school, but the chances of them all getting in seem slim, and obviously I don't really want some going and some not. Preparation for the 11-plus at local primary schools seems inconsistent, and our local primary school seems less successful than others at getting children into grammar schools. I'll arrange for tutoring etc, but the fact that I'm planning on doing so illustrates the not-exactly-level playing field that's in place. Had I only one child, I would probably be less bothered. One of the reasons I settled here was the schools, but I can see the attraction of the mythical good local comprehensive that I wouldn't have to worry about them getting into. On balance, I'm still in favour of grammar schools, but I can see the merits of other approaches; I don't think one approach to education has all the answers.
Britain would be economically (X) if it left the European Union:
Better off: 27% (-)
Worse off: 32% (-1)
No different: 24% (+2)
(via YouGov)
I personally would be financially (X) if Britain left the EU:
Better off: 16% (-)
Worse off: 18% (+2)
[No difference]: 46% (-)
(via YouGov)
Now is the time to stick cash on against Clinton if you haven't done so yet. Its worth a few quid that she will fail be it through laying Clinton on the exchanges or backing others. Like all bets its a risk taking on a warm favourite but its where you make your money.
In fact when you just look at general elections since 2000 (inclusive) Labour have won 2 and lost 2, the Republicans have won 2 and lost 2 and one of their wins saw them lose the popular vote!
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to penalise firms who do not pay the Living Wage has been described as "unworkable" by his business spokesman.
Angela Eagle told The Sunday Times the plan to ban such firms from paying dividends was "not a runner".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35454109
This comprehensive experiment has gone on for 50 years and all that has happened is our educational standards have fallen, together with social mobility
I fully support the return of grammar school education, though can see sensitivities and would propose three things that would be part of any plan to allow their return (in England):
1. Grammar school system to be done on a local authority basis - a local authority can vote for its return in its area either by a vote made by its councillors or by a referendum (which can be called for by petition).
2. The entry exam to be replaced by: a. an assessment of a child's education history (perhaps the previous 4 years) and b. the ability for a child to be entered also at age 13/14 (for those who show a clear shift in academic ability 11+).
3. Equal public funding per pupil in a local authority area for all, grammar or non-grammar.
I'm pretty sure that if the Conservative party put the above in their manifesto they would receive great support.
What price is sovereignty?
All polls have nudged towards Leave in January.
1. EFTA/EEA
2. EU
3. Complete Independence
But because of the nature of the referendum question, they fear (understandably) that they'll vote for Leave hoping for 1, and end up with 3. They will therefore vote for Remain.
The issue that the Leave camp has is that, to motivate those principally concerned by immigration, that they need to leave 3 on the table. That's how they motivate the base, and it was 3 that UKIP has campaigned for all along.
Oh dear @johnmcdonnellMP, it's all falling apart. https://t.co/KgfLIRxP5J https://t.co/6eVWhmtmVV
2. on the other hand is obviously going to happen should we leave.
Once the campaign properly starts, the UKIP element will be subsumed by the wider Leave support, which will spell out to Joe Public that EEA/Swiss-style is the way forward and what it will mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
Dracunculus
"Lewd anthropomorphic images" https://t.co/5cUwDxlrkp