Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
Amen to that. Public sector pensions at the upper end are scandalously generous compared to those we mere plebs in the private sector have to scrimp and save for. We don't hear much about MP's and senior civil servants being put into money purchase schemes suffering the rules we do, do we?
Indeed, as someone fairly centrist I find the major challenges of the 97-10 era come mainly from the left of my position not the right:
- What should intervention look like given successes (eventually) like ex-Yugoslavia and conspicuous failures like Iraq? (answer to be found somewhere on the cautious left) - Any government system obviously means redistribution of some form, but given 97-10 increased inequality, what is the optimal amount of that? (answer on the left somewhere) - Business (de)regulation failed badly in the crash, but what should sensible regulated capitalism look like (answer in the moderate left and in history) - The long-term blight of high economic inactivity triggered and the role of monetarism and globalisation in that (traditionally left, but willing to consider that the right may have some answers here)
The main challenge from the right is:
- Did government spend too much - Brown spent on the toppish end from a low-debt base, in a way that would have been very manageable in a 2% 2yr downturn, but was very difficult and we are just about squeaking it in a 6% 6yr downturn. (the challenge may come from the right, but I've not come to the same conclusions as the right)
The trouble was the answers from Labour were too piecemeal, not that they too left wing, but that there was no narrative thread.
Thoughtful post, thanks. FWIW, my view:
- Intervention needs a pretty broad consensus, a pre-intervention definition of success and an exit strategy. "We will intervene in Sierra Leone, stop the rebels from raping, amputating and murdering, train the Government forces to support their elected government more effectively, and withdraw within 2 years." Worked fine. - The consensus from moderate left to moderate right is that people should be given help to try again (training, rewards for getting a job, etc.) if they're failing for some reason, and an adequate income to live decently even if they continue to fail. I'm not sure that even on the far left it's high incomes that are the main issue, but rather high tax avoidance - if someone earns £squillions and actually pays 45% of £squillions in tax, fair enough. But a leftish government should be utterly ruthless with tax havens - work with other countries to ruin them. - Regulation should be reasonably strict but predictable. Major businesses can live with well-defined strict regulations - what they hate and flee from is arbitrary and unpredictable variation. (That's why they'll flee from the US if Trump wins - it's not that he's left or right, just that he might do anything.) - Globalisation is genuniely difficult for everyone, and the left-wing answer is more and more internationalism (startin with not pulling out of the EU). Global firms will ALWAYS beat individual countries. - Spending - agree with your assessment, and also about the lack of narrative in 2015.
O/T Bizarre that Rubio is now clear 2nd favourite to Clinton to be next POTUS.
Not won a contest and is the proud possessor of 10 delegates out of the 103 decided so far...
I'm having a crack at putting together a similiar spreadsheet to yours for the Democrats. Seeing as I'm involved in the POTUS market now, will be interesting to check hard data against the guff the pundits come out with.
O/T Bizarre that Rubio is now clear 2nd favourite to Clinton to be next POTUS.
Not won a contest and is the proud possessor of 10 delegates out of the 103 decided so far...
But has Fox onside - that is worth millions in campaigning time. Depends on when the others drop out.
The media and endorsements can drag someone up only a little, Rubio had everyone on his side in S.C. and he only got a 7 point boost. Which is fine if the race is very close, but you are behind by 15-20 points going in you still lose.
Rubio's position is very familiar, he has the support of everyone but the voters.
A little bit of realism doesn't hurt, Nevada votes tomorrow, Trump has a 20 point lead though it's a caucus. Then a debate in 3 days and Super Tuesday in 8 days, where Trump leads in every state but Texas (and Cruz not Rubio is ahead in Texas).
If the polls hold for Trump on Super Tuesday and he wins all states but one, that will be the best performance since Bob Dole in 1996, and that will be it typically for the GOP nomination. (it kinda already is if Trump wins Nevada, only the debate will be between him and the nomination)
They don’t mean it, of course, but the BBC bias against the Leave camp starts long before even the first question is asked on air.
I know from first-hand experience the look of horrified pity that I get from BBC producers when I say that I am a Eurosceptic, which is something akin to the mixture of revulsion and bemusement they would feel if I had just confessed to a secret passion for killing puppies while listening to Barry Manilow’s greatest hits.
I say this more in sorrow than in anger, as a staunch admirer and supporter of the BBC as a world-class British institution, but the truth is that many BBC employees, like those of the Guardian newspaper, move in a world where they rarely come across people with different views from their own.
Glad to note that despite lots of efforts by authorities to stop it, The Cheese Rolling event is still going strong.
O/T Bizarre that Rubio is now clear 2nd favourite to Clinton to be next POTUS.
Not won a contest and is the proud possessor of 10 delegates out of the 103 decided so far...
His nomination price is even more baffling, at least he was a healthy implied 2.40 or so to beat the Dems last time I checked.
Trump's POTUS price is huge.
The GOP nomination race resembles the Labour leadership contest.
Many pundits thought some white knight would ride to rescue Labour from the tide of Corbynisn and couldn't believe the possibility of his victory until the numbers began to hit the fan.
So with Trump - "Pundits" desperately trying to see their way to an end game that doesn't feature him, whilst Trump gathers delegates and clearly emerges as the latest GOP candidate to flounder come November.
So unable to back up your claim - rather typical of the harder line Outers on here
Egads, more hand-waving, there sure is a lot of it about today.
He made the original claim, you refuted it (on the basis of no evidence) and now you are trying to call him for not having any evidence to refute your evidence free refutation.
(Hint: Words to the effect of "well Dave believes it" are not evidence)
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
O/T Bizarre that Rubio is now clear 2nd favourite to Clinton to be next POTUS.
Not won a contest and is the proud possessor of 10 delegates out of the 103 decided so far...
His nomination price is even more baffling, at least he was a healthy implied 2.40 or so to beat the Dems last time I checked.
Trump's POTUS price is huge.
The GOP nomination race resembles the Labour leadership contest.
Many pundits thought some white knight would ride to rescue Labour from the tide of Corbynisn and couldn't believe the possibility of his victory until the numbers began to hit the fan.
So with Trump - "Pundits" desperately trying to see their way to an end game that doesn't feature him, whilst Trump gathers delegates and clearly emerges as the latest GOP candidate to flounder come November.
I wonder if we're into a Hague-like term. Labour seemingly unelectable, the Conservatives content to be both Government *and* Opposition [well, over the EU].
On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
If the full process is dragging, could we join EFTA as an interim measure?
PM BoJo addresses the nation
"You voted leave, so I am today signing an agreement to Join the EFTA..."
It's the issue that shall not be named. We will leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty in particular our borders but will instantly join a european body that preserves free movement of people.
How can the BBC lead on "Leaving EU a big gamble for UK security" ? It's nothing of the sort. Fallon clearly doesn't understand his job, or anything else.
Leaving the EU may be many things but there's no downside for UK security, and if anything a small upside.
"Leaving the EU is a big gamble on almost all issues apart from UK security" would have been a better headline for the BBC. Absolute fools.
Oh FFS, and what happened to Sterling and GDP during the last Labour government, and we managed to survive that, with nothing return. Its idiotic to bang on like a few percent fall in GDP or Sterling will be anything more than a bit uncomfortable, and will open the possibilities of many more trading markets.
Err, whoever said that a fall in sterling was a bad thing in itself? Not me, and not anyone else as far as I know
However, only a half-wit would fail to ask what is behind sterling being marked down on Brexit fears.
But arguing that there won't be any effect over the transition period is just silly.
No one is making any such argument. The argument is that its an insignificant amount compared to how much it has moved in the last 7-8 years, and it didnt result in massive changes for the country, so suggesting that these relatively minor changes of (using your numbers 1-2% of GDP/Value) per year are not going to be more than inconvenient in national terms.
Fine, you concede the point. We are getting somewhere. We are agreed that:
(a) Sterling is falling partly because of Brexit fears (b) That is because of concerns that the economy will be damaged by Brexit in the short- to medium-term.
So can we all now stop pretending otherwise?
Sterling has moved 9% in the last year, so you will forgive me if I don't get that excited about your projections of losing 1-2% per year.
UK GDP got completely shafted by Labour for no return, and that is going to happen periodically because fortunes rise and fall, and yet you quibbled about a much smaller short term hit on GDP with the prospect of substantial increases later.
Your scare story isn't very scary, and your timidity is selling your country and your grand children short.
We're going to have trouble finding common ground .
I looked at the Eurostat figures for GDP growth. The latest full set are for 2014 - not all countries have reported 2015 thus far.
Would be controversial to assume that if we stay in the EU, the UK growth rate will move towards the EZ norm? After all, if we're playing by the same rule book, that would seem to make sense. Unless we're claiming that UK has some secret sauce that allows it to be in the EU without being affected by EU regulation.
For the decade 2004-2014 the EZ has achieved 9.54% growth (the EZ economies are slightly smaller than they were in 2007). In the same decade the UK has grown 16.83%. Using CEO maths (thanks Nvidia!), that's around double.
I don't get why people think the EU core is so fantastic. When I've talked about being shackled to a corpse before, I meant it.
@JackW: How seriously do you take Hillary's little local difficulty with email?
Clearly a smoking gun and we know how the US love their assorted weaponry but I'm minded to think this one will be firing blanks - plenty of noise but no political injury.
O/T Bizarre that Rubio is now clear 2nd favourite to Clinton to be next POTUS.
Not won a contest and is the proud possessor of 10 delegates out of the 103 decided so far...
His nomination price is even more baffling, at least he was a healthy implied 2.40 or so to beat the Dems last time I checked.
Trump's POTUS price is huge.
The GOP nomination race resembles the Labour leadership contest.
Many pundits thought some white knight would ride to rescue Labour from the tide of Corbynisn and couldn't believe the possibility of his victory until the numbers began to hit the fan.
So with Trump - "Pundits" desperately trying to see their way to an end game that doesn't feature him, whilst Trump gathers delegates and clearly emerges as the latest GOP candidate to flounder come November.
Is Hilary on course, you think ?
Yes.Both for the Dem nomination and POTUS.
Hillary will defeat Trump. Not close and possibly a landslide.
@NickP On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
Not just that.
We set up international structures, like say, the EU, which are explicitly designed to make easier for companies to move their money around ("Free movement of Capital") and then we look all surprised when they choose to move it in such as way that results in the least tax paid. Not to mention that the current president spent a chunk of his former career trying to make Luxembourg a very attractive place for big business to come and (largely) not pay their taxes.... and yet Labour vote Remain, funny old world.
If the full process is dragging, could we join EFTA as an interim measure?
PM BoJo addresses the nation
"You voted leave, so I am today signing an agreement to Join the EFTA..."
It's the issue that shall not be named. We will leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty in particular our borders but will instantly join a european body that preserves free movement of people.
Well quite - given you and I are going with the status quo it's for Outers to provide evidence of how they get round this conundrum. So far they have signally failed.
We're going to have trouble finding common ground .
I looked at the Eurostat figures for GDP growth. The latest full set are for 2014 - not all countries have reported 2015 thus far.
Would be controversial to assume that if we stay in the EU, the UK growth rate will move towards the EZ norm? After all, if we're playing by the same rule book, that would seem to make sense. Unless we're claiming that UK has some secret sauce that allows it to be in the EU without being affected by EU regulation.
For the decade 2004-2014 the EZ has achieved 9.54% growth (the EZ economies are slightly smaller than they were in 2007). In the same decade the UK has grown 16.83%. Using CEO maths (thanks Nvidia!), that's around double.
I don't get why people think the EU core is so fantastic. When I've talked about being shackled to a corpse before, I meant it.
I would not agree with the idea that the EU or the EZ are homogeneous and will trend to the same growth rate. The simple fact is that the vast bulk of fiscal policies as well as almost all monetary ones for the UK are not set centrally but locally.
Mr. Omnium, because it's committed to a careful study of political neutrality, and isn't taking sides in the EU debate?
My point wasn't that they weren't neutral it was that they were highlighting the weakest possible argument for staying in the EU. Roughly "Leave will make French Cheese harder to obtain".
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay – that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 14, 1983.
Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No.
Two migrants accused of raping a 12-year-old refugee at a housing centre for unaccompanied minors in Sweden lied about their age, claiming to be 15.
The men reportedly attacked the boy at the centre in Alvesta, Smaland, and are said to have filmed the sexual assault on a mobile phone.
Despite claiming to be 15 and 16 when applying for asylum in Sweden, the two alleged attackers have now been found to be over 18 after undergoing a dental age assessment, a prosecutor said
If the full process is dragging, could we join EFTA as an interim measure?
PM BoJo addresses the nation
"You voted leave, so I am today signing an agreement to Join the EFTA..."
It's the issue that shall not be named. We will leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty in particular our borders but will instantly join a european body that preserves free movement of people.
Well quite - given you and I are going with the status quo it's for Outers to provide evidence of how they get round this conundrum. So far they have signally failed.
The kippers have the conundrum.
As with Mr Tyndall, I don't particularly care about free movement of LABOUR, I care about free movement of free-loaders, free movement of criminals, and the inability of us to chuck out people who are detrimental to the national interest. Joining the EEA/EFTA and adopting Swiss style rules on employers offering work to illegals, and refusing immigration and deporting anyone that doesn't apply through an embassy or consulate unless they have a job and move under the free movement of labour from an EEA/EU state.
I don't disapprove of immigration, I disapprove of uncontrolled borders and not being able to throw people out of our country who we decide are persona non grata for one reason or another, and I especially disapprove of people being able to do an end run around our lawful visa process and shaft all the people that follow the rules, its hugely unfair and does us no credit as a country.
How can the BBC lead on "Leaving EU a big gamble for UK security" ? It's nothing of the sort. Fallon clearly doesn't understand his job, or anything else.
Leaving the EU may be many things but there's no downside for UK security, and if anything a small upside.
"Leaving the EU is a big gamble on almost all issues apart from UK security" would have been a better headline for the BBC. Absolute fools.
Again, security matters are a non-sequitur. UKUSA, Five-eyes and the various second party agreements either predate, or are contemporaries of the original EEC treaties.
When it comes to security, like defence, the UK are the leaders in Europe. The rest of Europe don't have anything comparable to our capability.
The idea that Western democracies can't cooperate on these matters without being members of a single club is ludicrous.
If the full process is dragging, could we join EFTA as an interim measure?
PM BoJo addresses the nation
"You voted leave, so I am today signing an agreement to Join the EFTA..."
It's the issue that shall not be named. We will leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty in particular our borders but will instantly join a european body that preserves free movement of people.
Well quite - given you and I are going with the status quo it's for Outers to provide evidence of how they get round this conundrum. So far they have signally failed.
They also seem worried that the ECB will somehow nobble the City's trading of euro business if we stay in, but believe (as semi-articulated by an unimpressive Nadhim Zahawi on DP) that if we leave, the City's pre-eminent role as euro trading capital will be preserved.
Two migrants accused of raping a 12-year-old refugee at a housing centre for unaccompanied minors in Sweden lied about their age, claiming to be 15.
The men reportedly attacked the boy at the centre in Alvesta, Smaland, and are said to have filmed the sexual assault on a mobile phone.
Despite claiming to be 15 and 16 when applying for asylum in Sweden, the two alleged attackers have now been found to be over 18 after undergoing a dental age assessment, a prosecutor said
@NickP On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
Not just that.
We set up international structures, like say, the EU, which are explicitly designed to make easier for companies to move their money around ("Free movement of Capital") and then we look all surprised when they choose to move it in such as way that results in the least tax paid. Not to mention that the current president spent a chunk of his former career trying to make Luxembourg a very attractive place for big business to come and (largely) not pay their taxes.... and yet Labour vote Remain, funny old world.
I do not agree that the EU was set up explicitly to make it easier to move money around.
The vote is on whether we remain in the EU on Cameron's (worse) revised terms, or whether we leave. What happens if we leave is a separate debate.
There will be a huge fuss when whoever negotiates our leave explains that for us to get a good trade deal, we will have to basically accept what we had before. As you say, that's a separate debate.
@NickP On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
Not just that.
We set up international structures, like say, the EU, which are explicitly designed to make easier for companies to move their money around ("Free movement of Capital") and then we look all surprised when they choose to move it in such as way that results in the least tax paid. Not to mention that the current president spent a chunk of his former career trying to make Luxembourg a very attractive place for big business to come and (largely) not pay their taxes.... and yet Labour vote Remain, funny old world.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to score points it's a real concern whoever is CoE (viz George O getting rightly skewered the other day for thinking he'd done a good deal with Google). I just think much of the tax base is going to get awfully hard to pin down.
I walked past a Socialist Workers demo the other day where someone was waving a placard saying "tax the 1%", and I just thought how idiotic. Can't they see, at punitive rates, they'll just clear off and you'll be left with tax of a big percentage of zero (see F Hollande/G Depardieu)? I realise there's the usual mantra of cracking down on tax havens but you can't realistically crack down on them all. It's always worth some tiny island's while to be "attractive", and ultimately the harsher you are the more "real" countries such as Switzerland or the USA even who are far less likely to bend come into the reckoning of the "1%"
But we still all (well 99% of us) want a free health service, and the pot hole free roads (unlike the A48M at present!!)
@NickP On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
Not just that.
We set up international structures, like say, the EU, which are explicitly designed to make easier for companies to move their money around ("Free movement of Capital") and then we look all surprised when they choose to move it in such as way that results in the least tax paid. Not to mention that the current president spent a chunk of his former career trying to make Luxembourg a very attractive place for big business to come and (largely) not pay their taxes.... and yet Labour vote Remain, funny old world.
I do not agree that the EU was set up explicitly to make it easier to move money around.
So why did they adopt the free movement of capital (ie money) as one of the four founding pillars of the community.
If the full process is dragging, could we join EFTA as an interim measure?
PM BoJo addresses the nation
"You voted leave, so I am today signing an agreement to Join the EFTA..."
It's the issue that shall not be named. We will leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty in particular our borders but will instantly join a european body that preserves free movement of people.
Well quite - given you and I are going with the status quo it's for Outers to provide evidence of how they get round this conundrum. So far they have signally failed.
The kippers have the conundrum.
As with Mr Tyndall, I don't particularly care about free movement of LABOUR, I care about free movement of free-loaders, free movement of criminals, and the inability of us to chuck out people who are detrimental to the national interest. Joining the EEA/EFTA and adopting Swiss style rules on employers offering work to illegals, and refusing immigration and deporting anyone that doesn't apply through an embassy or consulate unless they have a job and move under the free movement of labour from an EEA/EU state.
I don't disapprove of immigration, I disapprove of uncontrolled borders and not being able to throw people out of our country who we decide are persona non grata for one reason or another, and I especially disapprove of people being able to do an end run around our lawful visa process and shaft all the people that follow the rules, its hugely unfair and does us no credit as a country.
I think that is a powerful argument. My understanding was that it (FMofP) was the main issue for those who are considering Brexit, not just Kippers, but I have no idea why I think that.
The question is - are we going to leave the EU because we can't deport an Egyptian shoplifter back to Egypt because he will get 50 lashes there and it would be an abuse of his human rights? And will we change the law, post Brexit, to say that we can deport him?
Mr. Divvie, you did say: "Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No."
The lack of an oil boom is hardly down to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
Nate Silver @NateSilver538 12h12 hours ago Trump is actually pretty weak out west in their polling. But not in NV, where there are lots of transplants and casinos.
Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No.
What's that Skip?
Clearly Scottish Widows is waiting until Scotland declares independence before returning to Edinburgh :-D
If the full process is dragging, could we join EFTA as an interim measure?
PM BoJo addresses the nation
"You voted leave, so I am today signing an agreement to Join the EFTA..."
It's the issue that shall not be named. We will leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty in particular our borders but will instantly join a european body that preserves free movement of people.
Well quite - given you and I are going with the status quo it's for Outers to provide evidence of how they get round this conundrum. So far they have signally failed.
They also seem worried that the ECB will somehow nobble the City's trading of euro business if we stay in, but believe (as semi-articulated by an unimpressive Nadhim Zahawi on DP) that if we leave, the City's pre-eminent role as euro trading capital will be preserved.
I don;t think most leavers believe that. We are going to lose the euro trading role whether we stay in or leave, because the eurozone is committed to ever closer integration
What's the best way of preserving the rest from the staunchly socialist, regulation crazy, City hating EU?
@NickP On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
Not just that.
We set up international structures, like say, the EU, which are explicitly designed to make easier for companies to move their money around ("Free movement of Capital") and then we look all surprised when they choose to move it in such as way that results in the least tax paid. Not to mention that the current president spent a chunk of his former career trying to make Luxembourg a very attractive place for big business to come and (largely) not pay their taxes.... and yet Labour vote Remain, funny old world.
I do not agree that the EU was set up explicitly to make it easier to move money around.
Well, as it's one of the four freedoms, you're being a bit daft to disagree. Free movement of goods, workers and money being three of 'em, the right to establish services being the fourth.
@NickP On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
Not just that.
We set up international structures, like say, the EU, which are explicitly designed to make easier for companies to move their money around ("Free movement of Capital") and then we look all surprised when they choose to move it in such as way that results in the least tax paid. Not to mention that the current president spent a chunk of his former career trying to make Luxembourg a very attractive place for big business to come and (largely) not pay their taxes.... and yet Labour vote Remain, funny old world.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to score points it's a real concern whoever is CoE (viz George O getting rightly skewered the other day for thinking he'd done a good deal with Google). I just think much of the tax base is going to get awfully hard to pin down.
I walked past a Socialist Workers demo the other day where someone was waving a placard saying "tax the 1%", and I just thought how idiotic. Can't they see, at punitive rates, they'll just clear off and you'll be left with tax of a big percentage of zero (see F Hollande/G Depardieu)? I realise there's the usual mantra of cracking down on tax havens but you can't realistically crack down on them all. It's always worth some tiny island's while to be "attractive", and ultimately the harsher you are the more "real" countries such as Switzerland or the USA even who are far less likely to bend come into the reckoning of the "1%"
But we still all (well 99% of us) want a free health service, and the pot hole free roads (unlike the A48M at present!!)
Yes I agree with all of this. I was only making a little jibe about "Remain", the larger point is politicians are constructing international structures to facilitate the movement of money, and then wondering why they end up with less tax.
Ultimately I think China is going to declare either Hong Kong or Macau as a tax-free area for international savings and investment and then the west is stuffed, no earthly chance of leaning on China, who will be very happy to have all that money sitting in their banks, and a massive hit for many western economies.
"[The EU is] fundamentally unreformable.... a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure".
- M. H. Thatcher, writing in "Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World" (2002).
Most Labour party members gain more from a Tory government than a Labour one; hence their support for Corbyn. Discuss.
Well oddly if Corbyn were in power, the Pound would probably crash and interest rates rise too, both of which would benefit me hugely. Still wouldn't vote for him in a million years. He and his acolytes are just unfit to rule on security issues alone.
Mr. Divvie, you did say: "Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No."
The lack of an oil boom is hardly down to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
I doubt you'd find a Scottish nationalist ever blaming the Welsh or the Northern Irish for anything ;-)
Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No.
What's that Skip?
Great thing for business - uncertainty......want to run it again.....Zoomers think it will be good for the economy and business......
The question is - are we going to leave the EU because we can't deport an Egyptian shoplifter back to Egypt because he will get 50 lashes there and it would be an abuse of his human rights? And will we change the law, post Brexit, to say that we can deport him?
To be honest, yes.
If he knows he is in that level of hot water at home he should be taking every care to follow the rules in the UK, if he comes to the UK and takes the piss I have no sympathy.
"The failure of Home Secretary Theresa May to live up to her reputation as a critic of the EU came as little surprise to anyone, but the loss of Savid Javid from the Brexit cause was another matter. "Sources close to" Mr. Javid have said that he took his decision with a heavy heart. No wonder, for if I am right in my belief that regardless of the outcome of the referendum, only a Brexit campaigner would be able to reunite the Conservative Party, Javid has lost the chance to be only its second ethnic minority leader almost 150 years after Benjamin D'israel became the first."
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
They can fuck off. It's my money. I work hard for it, save hard, out of income already taxed and it's not there to be plundered - retrospectively - at will. Osborne is penalising saving, is penalising good investment decisions, is penalising those who rely on government promises to make long-term decisions and is doing so at a time when it is hard for those damaged by his decisions to take corrective action to put sufficient extra money by for their old age.
What irks me beyond measure is the way that those who do or try to do the right thing in this country are taken for mugs.
Forget all the talk about supporting hard-working families. It's so much piss and wind. Do the right thing and you're seen as a wallet to be mugged. It's little wonder Italians hide their money from the state. They have no illusions that the state's promises can be relied upon or that the state, for all its pious sanctimonious cant, is anything other than a robber baron.
Most Labour party members gain more from a Tory government than a Labour one; hence their support for Corbyn. Discuss.
Well oddly if Corbyn were in power, the Pound would probably crash and interest rates rise too, both of which would benefit me hugely. Still wouldn't vote for him in a million years. He and his acolytes are just unfit to rule on security issues alone.
It's not all about money.
The problem with Cohen's theory is large numbers of Labour members are public sector workers etc for whom a Tory government spells, in their minds at least, fear and strife.
Mr. Divvie, you did say: "Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No."
The lack of an oil boom is hardly down to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
I doubt you'd find a Scottish nationalist ever blaming the Welsh or the Northern Irish for anything ;-)
The question is - are we going to leave the EU because we can't deport an Egyptian shoplifter back to Egypt because he will get 50 lashes there and it would be an abuse of his human rights? And will we change the law, post Brexit, to say that we can deport him?
To be honest, yes.
If he knows he is in that level of hot water at home he should be taking every care to follow the rules in the UK, if he comes to the UK and takes the piss I have no sympathy.
@NickP On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
Not just that.
We set up international structures, like say, the EU, which are explicitly designed to make easier for companies to move their money around ("Free movement of Capital") and then we look all surprised when they choose to move it in such as way that results in the least tax paid. Not to mention that the current president spent a chunk of his former career trying to make Luxembourg a very attractive place for big business to come and (largely) not pay their taxes.... and yet Labour vote Remain, funny old world.
I do not agree that the EU was set up explicitly to make it easier to move money around.
What the hell do you think "free movement of capital" in the 1958 Treaty of Rome means?
Mr. Divvie, you did say: "Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No."
The lack of an oil boom is hardly down to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
Let me see if I can get my head round some of the PB paradoxes.
SNP 2014 projections of oil prices: lies, lies, you promised!
OBR 2014 projections of oil prices: well, forecasting's a difficult business, nobody's perfect.
Dave in 2014 promising a £200bn oil boom: he was just going by what the OBR said!
Project Fear I: a measured and honest description of the pitfalls ahead for an independent Scotland, born out of deep concern for our Scottish cousins.
Project Fear II: a dishonest farrago of fearmongering designed to browbeat the honest yeomanry of Olde England into submission.
Barroso: he's a trustworthy chap just giving a realistic and expert view on Scottish independence.
Two things struck me about these charts - the positions on the environment, with labour party members being less concerned than the public at large; and the big one - that labour voters on balance think labour policies should be more left-wing.
That second point indicates to me that there won't be too great a fall of in Labour voting if policies do shift further to the left. So doom and gloom may well be right concerning future Labour prospects of governing, but it seems as though the party will survive quite well with support in the 20%s even with a further leftward lurch.
Mr. Divvie, never said the SNP lied, but they (and others) clearly got oil forecasts wrong.
I wonder how Scots will vote, given their financial sector is (proportionally) larger than England's. Cameron's incompetence will probably cost Scotland a comparable (proportionally, of course) amount as it does England.
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
They can fuck off. It's my money. I work hard for it, save hard, out of income already taxed and it's not there to be plundered - retrospectively - at will. Osborne is penalising saving, is penalising good investment decisions, is penalising those who rely on government promises to make long-term decisions and is doing so at a time when it is hard for those damaged by his decisions to take corrective action to put sufficient extra money by for their old age.
What irks me beyond measure is the way that those who do or try to do the right thing in this country are taken for mugs.
Forget all the talk about supporting hard-working families. It's so much piss and wind. Do the right thing and you're seen as a wallet to be mugged. It's little wonder Italians hide their money from the state. They have no illusions that the state's promises can be relied upon or that the state, for all its pious sanctimonious cant, is anything other than a robber baron.
Grrr.....
Osborne's already screwed over those who went into BTL as an alternative to the piss poor returns on other pension investments. And now he's doing a great job at alienating everyone else, except his big corporate chums.
One desperately hopes that smug little George will never be PM. Never has a politician been more deserving of losing out on that role.
Mr. Divvie, you did say: "Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No."
The lack of an oil boom is hardly down to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
Let me see if I can get my head round some of the PB paradoxes.
Two things struck me about these charts - the positions on the environment, with labour party members being less concerned than the public at large; and the big one - that labour voters on balance think labour policies should be more left-wing.
That second point indicates to me that there won't be too great a fall of in Labour voting if policies do shift further to the left. So doom and gloom may well be right concerning future Labour prospects of governing, but it seems as though the party will survive quite well with support in the 20%s even with a further leftward lurch.
Members doesn't equal voters. 300k members. 30 million voters.
@ScottyNational: EU: Stugeon,a committed nationalist who wants to break up a union, to urge England not to listen to nationalists who want to beak up a union
@ScottyNational: Currency: SNP urge 'Leave' campaign to follow their logic by wanting to leave a union then immediately demand to join an EU currency union
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
@ScottyNational: EU: Stugeon,a committed nationalist who wants to break up a union, to urge England not to listen to nationalists who want to beak up a union
@ScottyNational: Currency: SNP urge 'Leave' campaign to follow their logic by wanting to leave a union then immediately demand to join an EU currency union
I hope you're suitably grateful for being given the chance to rest your Boris bashing wrist.
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
They can fuck off. It's my money. I work hard for it, save hard, out of income already taxed and it's not there to be plundered - retrospectively - at will. Osborne is penalising saving, is penalising good investment decisions, is penalising those who rely on government promises to make long-term decisions and is doing so at a time when it is hard for those damaged by his decisions to take corrective action to put sufficient extra money by for their old age.
What irks me beyond measure is the way that those who do or try to do the right thing in this country are taken for mugs.
Forget all the talk about supporting hard-working families. It's so much piss and wind. Do the right thing and you're seen as a wallet to be mugged. It's little wonder Italians hide their money from the state. They have no illusions that the state's promises can be relied upon or that the state, for all its pious sanctimonious cant, is anything other than a robber baron.
Grrr.....
You've reached the same conclusion about Osborne that I have.
Trade deals yadda yadda, EEA, EFTA, EU etc etc its all bollox.
Look, BMW sell millions of cars because people want them, its nothing to do with govts, trade deals, treaties or articles. We are a trading nation, have been for centuries, we need to make things that people want to buy and allow people to buy the things they want to buy, irrespective of where they come from.
Politicians don't get this, they've gone from uni to SPAD to officialdom without ever being involved in enterprise, very few have any experience of trading, they simply don't understand it. It seems that applies to plenty on here too.
Comments
- Intervention needs a pretty broad consensus, a pre-intervention definition of success and an exit strategy. "We will intervene in Sierra Leone, stop the rebels from raping, amputating and murdering, train the Government forces to support their elected government more effectively, and withdraw within 2 years." Worked fine.
- The consensus from moderate left to moderate right is that people should be given help to try again (training, rewards for getting a job, etc.) if they're failing for some reason, and an adequate income to live decently even if they continue to fail. I'm not sure that even on the far left it's high incomes that are the main issue, but rather high tax avoidance - if someone earns £squillions and actually pays 45% of £squillions in tax, fair enough. But a leftish government should be utterly ruthless with tax havens - work with other countries to ruin them.
- Regulation should be reasonably strict but predictable. Major businesses can live with well-defined strict regulations - what they hate and flee from is arbitrary and unpredictable variation. (That's why they'll flee from the US if Trump wins - it's not that he's left or right, just that he might do anything.)
- Globalisation is genuniely difficult for everyone, and the left-wing answer is more and more internationalism (startin with not pulling out of the EU). Global firms will ALWAYS beat individual countries.
- Spending - agree with your assessment, and also about the lack of narrative in 2015.
"You voted leave, so I am today signing an agreement to Join the EFTA..."
Which is fine if the race is very close, but you are behind by 15-20 points going in you still lose.
Rubio's position is very familiar, he has the support of everyone but the voters.
A little bit of realism doesn't hurt, Nevada votes tomorrow, Trump has a 20 point lead though it's a caucus. Then a debate in 3 days and Super Tuesday in 8 days, where Trump leads in every state but Texas (and Cruz not Rubio is ahead in Texas).
If the polls hold for Trump on Super Tuesday and he wins all states but one, that will be the best performance since Bob Dole in 1996, and that will be it typically for the GOP nomination.
(it kinda already is if Trump wins Nevada, only the debate will be between him and the nomination)
https://twitter.com/AndrewSNicoll/status/701774461012418560
Many pundits thought some white knight would ride to rescue Labour from the tide of Corbynisn and couldn't believe the possibility of his victory until the numbers began to hit the fan.
So with Trump - "Pundits" desperately trying to see their way to an end game that doesn't feature him, whilst Trump gathers delegates and clearly emerges as the latest GOP candidate to flounder come November.
He made the original claim, you refuted it (on the basis of no evidence) and now you are trying to call him for not having any evidence to refute your evidence free refutation.
(Hint: Words to the effect of "well Dave believes it" are not evidence)
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
I wonder if we're into a Hague-like term. Labour seemingly unelectable, the Conservatives content to be both Government *and* Opposition [well, over the EU].
On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
At least @Richard_Tyndall gets this and is suitably conflicted.
Leaving the EU may be many things but there's no downside for UK security, and if anything a small upside.
"Leaving the EU is a big gamble on almost all issues apart from UK security" would have been a better headline for the BBC. Absolute fools.
I looked at the Eurostat figures for GDP growth. The latest full set are for 2014 - not all countries have reported 2015 thus far.
Would be controversial to assume that if we stay in the EU, the UK growth rate will move towards the EZ norm? After all, if we're playing by the same rule book, that would seem to make sense. Unless we're claiming that UK has some secret sauce that allows it to be in the EU without being affected by EU regulation.
For the decade 2004-2014 the EZ has achieved 9.54% growth (the EZ economies are slightly smaller than they were in 2007). In the same decade the UK has grown 16.83%. Using CEO maths (thanks Nvidia!), that's around double.
I don't get why people think the EU core is so fantastic. When I've talked about being shackled to a corpse before, I meant it.
Hillary will defeat Trump. Not close and possibly a landslide.
We set up international structures, like say, the EU, which are explicitly designed to make easier for companies to move their money around ("Free movement of Capital") and then we look all surprised when they choose to move it in such as way that results in the least tax paid. Not to mention that the current president spent a chunk of his former career trying to make Luxembourg a very attractive place for big business to come and (largely) not pay their taxes.... and yet Labour vote Remain, funny old world.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 14, 1983.
The vote is on whether we remain in the EU on Cameron's (worse) revised terms, or whether we leave. What happens if we leave is a separate debate.
Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No.
What's that Skip?
The men reportedly attacked the boy at the centre in Alvesta, Smaland, and are said to have filmed the sexual assault on a mobile phone.
Despite claiming to be 15 and 16 when applying for asylum in Sweden, the two alleged attackers have now been found to be over 18 after undergoing a dental age assessment, a prosecutor said
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458329/Two-migrant-men-lied-15-accused-raping-boy-12-Swedish-youth-asylum-centre-filming-assault.html
Mr. Divvie, come on, old bean. Even an SNP type can hardly blame the English for the price of oil declining.
As with Mr Tyndall, I don't particularly care about free movement of LABOUR, I care about free movement of free-loaders, free movement of criminals, and the inability of us to chuck out people who are detrimental to the national interest. Joining the EEA/EFTA and adopting Swiss style rules on employers offering work to illegals, and refusing immigration and deporting anyone that doesn't apply through an embassy or consulate unless they have a job and move under the free movement of labour from an EEA/EU state.
I don't disapprove of immigration, I disapprove of uncontrolled borders and not being able to throw people out of our country who we decide are persona non grata for one reason or another, and I especially disapprove of people being able to do an end run around our lawful visa process and shaft all the people that follow the rules, its hugely unfair and does us no credit as a country.
When it comes to security, like defence, the UK are the leaders in Europe. The rest of Europe don't have anything comparable to our capability.
The idea that Western democracies can't cooperate on these matters without being members of a single club is ludicrous.
I walked past a Socialist Workers demo the other day where someone was waving a placard saying "tax the 1%", and I just thought how idiotic. Can't they see, at punitive rates, they'll just clear off and you'll be left with tax of a big percentage of zero (see F Hollande/G Depardieu)? I realise there's the usual mantra of cracking down on tax havens but you can't realistically crack down on them all. It's always worth some tiny island's while to be "attractive", and ultimately the harsher you are the more "real" countries such as Switzerland or the USA even who are far less likely to bend come into the reckoning of the "1%"
But we still all (well 99% of us) want a free health service, and the pot hole free roads (unlike the A48M at present!!)
The question is - are we going to leave the EU because we can't deport an Egyptian shoplifter back to Egypt because he will get 50 lashes there and it would be an abuse of his human rights? And will we change the law, post Brexit, to say that we can deport him?
"Still, we've got guaranteed EU membership, pensions, HMRC jobs, the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world and a £200b oil boom as rewards for voting No."
The lack of an oil boom is hardly down to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/701613276375994372
Nate Silver @NateSilver538 12h12 hours ago
Trump is actually pretty weak out west in their polling. But not in NV, where there are lots of transplants and casinos.
Dave's "deal" is worse than that between Darth Vader and Lando in "The Empire Strikes Back"!
What's the best way of preserving the rest from the staunchly socialist, regulation crazy, City hating EU?
Leave.
Ultimately I think China is going to declare either Hong Kong or Macau as a tax-free area for international savings and investment and then the west is stuffed, no earthly chance of leaning on China, who will be very happy to have all that money sitting in their banks, and a massive hit for many western economies.
- M. H. Thatcher, writing in "Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World" (2002).
It's not all about money.
The fat lady is not singing yet though, she will in 8 days.
The SNP prefer Grievance to Governance......oh well, Tory SNP Austerity for Scotland it is then.....
Speaking of Scottish things, I have, after some scientific investigation, concluded I like shortbread.
If he knows he is in that level of hot water at home he should be taking every care to follow the rules in the UK, if he comes to the UK and takes the piss I have no sympathy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12168018/With-Boris-Johnson-and-Michael-Gove-on-side-the-momentum-is-now-with-the-Brexit-Army.html
"The failure of Home Secretary Theresa May to live up to her reputation as a critic of the EU came as little surprise to anyone, but the loss of Savid Javid from the Brexit cause was another matter. "Sources close to" Mr. Javid have said that he took his decision with a heavy heart. No wonder, for if I am right in my belief that regardless of the outcome of the referendum, only a Brexit campaigner would be able to reunite the Conservative Party, Javid has lost the chance to be only its second ethnic minority leader almost 150 years after Benjamin D'israel became the first."
What irks me beyond measure is the way that those who do or try to do the right thing in this country are taken for mugs.
Forget all the talk about supporting hard-working families. It's so much piss and wind. Do the right thing and you're seen as a wallet to be mugged. It's little wonder Italians hide their money from the state. They have no illusions that the state's promises can be relied upon or that the state, for all its pious sanctimonious cant, is anything other than a robber baron.
Grrr.....
I'll get me coat.....
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0efcd00b-79dd-4536-8eef-cfe29ccb6dab
Let me see if I can get my head round some of the PB paradoxes.
SNP 2014 projections of oil prices: lies, lies, you promised!
OBR 2014 projections of oil prices: well, forecasting's a difficult business, nobody's perfect.
Dave in 2014 promising a £200bn oil boom: he was just going by what the OBR said!
Project Fear I: a measured and honest description of the pitfalls ahead for an independent Scotland, born out of deep concern for our Scottish cousins.
Project Fear II: a dishonest farrago of fearmongering designed to browbeat the honest yeomanry of Olde England into submission.
Barroso: he's a trustworthy chap just giving a realistic and expert view on Scottish independence.
Juncker: burn him!
That second point indicates to me that there won't be too great a fall of in Labour voting if policies do shift further to the left. So doom and gloom may well be right concerning future Labour prospects of governing, but it seems as though the party will survive quite well with support in the 20%s even with a further leftward lurch.
I wonder how Scots will vote, given their financial sector is (proportionally) larger than England's. Cameron's incompetence will probably cost Scotland a comparable (proportionally, of course) amount as it does England.
Remain: 134
Leave: 142
Undecided: 54
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vp6viBi5DA4avMgR2Y8lKrrAUqJp-0zL2LZB6iVD3uU/edit#gid=450656551
One desperately hopes that smug little George will never be PM. Never has a politician been more deserving of losing out on that role.
SNP 2016 - Seek Prosperity inside the Union
@ScottyNational: Currency: SNP urge 'Leave' campaign to follow their logic by wanting to leave a union then immediately demand to join an EU currency union
Boris is currently my favourite Tory!
I will #VoteLeave in EU referendum. The deal does not deliver the game changer we need or protect against further EU integration.
Can't just say "let's leave and see what happens, cry Freedom!"
Leavers need to articulate exactly what happens next (say 1-5 years).
Be LEAVE!
Look, BMW sell millions of cars because people want them, its nothing to do with govts, trade deals, treaties or articles. We are a trading nation, have been for centuries, we need to make things that people want to buy and allow people to buy the things they want to buy, irrespective of where they come from.
Politicians don't get this, they've gone from uni to SPAD to officialdom without ever being involved in enterprise, very few have any experience of trading, they simply don't understand it. It seems that applies to plenty on here too.
Cannot remember a more surreal statement by a PM at a Despatch Box. Cheered on by opposition MPs, his own benches silent.