I know a couple of them receive in work benefits but those are not due to the level of wages I pay but due to the fact they are single parents who have children and the government has chosen to give extra welfare to those with children and have a low family income.
I dare say your business is employing well skilled people in a moderately high end business. Lower down the food chain things get messy. The problem comes when a person needs £7/hr to live, but is only capable of producing goods or services worth £5 after expenses. At the moment that gap is filled by the government. Education will help in the long term, but for the bottom third of society it's not going to help very much, as they are the people that struggle at school and leave as soon as they can anyway.
The question for the next 20 years and beyond is how to provide employment and a productive place in society for the sort of people who can only manage basic manufacturing jobs, and are massively undercut by their opposite numbers in Asia.
The minimum wage is £6.80 an hour and going up in two months to £7.20 per hour businesses have to pay what it owes. If someone is only producing something worth £5 an hour then a business loses money by hiring them, the government isn't subsidising them still though.
If the government is giving welfare to people with children then that is a matter for the government, it has nothing to do with the businesses that even at minimum wage levels still has to pay Employers NI and everything else I mentioned.
I'm not the one wishing businesses would go bust and people lose their jobs. I suspect drink is the least of your problems. Some form of mental illness seems more likely.
I want people to get and keep jobs with people who don't spend their time whining about things they have no influence over. PT isn't fit to employ anyone. The problem with our economy is that he's just one of many. Self-interest in this country to-day isn't enlightened, if it ever was.
I didn't whine. Show me a whine. I set the record straight instead, detailing the many taxes that I pay to the Exchequer. As for whether I'm fit to employ anyone or not, you know nothing about my business or how I treat my employees. I'll let you know though that I have never not paid a penny I owe in wages or taxes though.
As for self-interest, I'm trying to run a small business to provide for myself and my family. As part of that 20 other people have jobs that would not exist otherwise to provide for their families. The government has extra taxes it would not have to provide for what it needs to spend on.
Good luck finding enough people to set up businesses up and down the country who aren't aware of the many taxes they need to pay and who have no interest in trying to make money. People who aren't aware of taxes tend to go out of business when the government demands them though.
"The many taxes I pay to the Exchequer" sounds like a whine to me - either you aren't paying a penny that your competitors aren't paying, or else you need a new accountant.
or the governments pissing money up the wall and asking decent citizens to fund its whims.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
Welder ? Machine operative ? banker ?
Ah, HA! Mr Brooke is here, now we have a real subject expert in place. Have you read the discussion mssrs. Indigo, Thompson and myself have been having over the past 45 minutes or so on the subject of manufacturing in the UK, Mr. B.? I so what is your take on it?
Just watched PMQs. Cameron an absolute disgrace on the NHS today, when faced with the facts all he does is to continue to repeat untrue statements which he must know are not borne out by the data.
Just because he has an opposing view does not make it a disgrace any more so than you holding your view. The doctors need to be careful with these strikes as they could lose public support rapidly. After all a lot of the public work Saturdays without demanding social wage enhancements and most will be paid a lot less than doctors.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
Welder ? Machine operative ? banker ?
Ah, HA! Mr Brooke is here, now we have a real subject expert in place. Have you read the discussion mssrs. Indigo, Thompson and myself have been having over the past 45 minutes or so on the subject of manufacturing in the UK, Mr. B.? I so what is your take on it?
too many people are stuck in the 70s. This country has some excellent businesses and there is no reason why we cant have more. Our political classes however have no concept of how to nurture that growth,
Hearing Ukip members have been warned of dire consequences if they work with Vote Leave campaign rather than Farage-backed Grassroots Out.
If Farage is Mad Kings Aerys with Galloway as his pyromancer who will be the young Jaime Lannister ?
I know everyone goes on about potential splits in the Tory party but I really think it us far more likely that UKIP will effectively disintegrate after the referendum.
I have no doubt you are correct in that viewpoint and I would venture to suggest that when the dust has settled post 23rd June there will be a cabinet representative of all views within the conservative party and it will act as a renewal which labour may well regret to their long term cost
Hearing after Gove's interview, No 10 has told officials at Ministry of Justice to stop showing him documents that relate to the EU
It can only be a matter of hours before he's fired from government for good. It's not a fashionable idea on here but I find Gove and his wife more duplicitous than even Boris. Her article in this mornings Mail was pure Iago.
Confirms my suspicions that Gove will be PM in the coming years.
Anyone who gets up Roger's nose this much is alright by me.
I know a couple of them receive in work benefits but those are not due to the level of wages I pay but due to the fact they are single parents who have children and the government has chosen to give extra welfare to those with children and have a low family income.
I dare say your business is employing well skilled people in a moderately high end business. Lower down the food chain things get messy. The problem comes when a person needs £7/hr to live, but is only capable of producing goods or services worth £5 after expenses. At the moment that gap is filled by the government. Education will help in the long term, but for the bottom third of society it's not going to help very much, as they are the people that struggle at school and leave as soon as they can anyway.
One of the problems of our political discourse is that it always focuses on finding a way to top up income, rather than looking at ways to drive down the cost of living, to the benefit of everyone.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
He seems hugely overrated to me. I can't see why people keep touting him as a future leader.
And I have a somewhat jaundiced view of the bank at which he used to work.
How can I put this without getting into trouble?
Let's just say this: if there were to be a Venn diagram of bankers who had spent time there and moved on and bankers who come to my attention, there would be a heavy overlap between the two circles.
I'm not the one wishing businesses would go bust and people lose their jobs. I suspect drink is the least of your problems. Some form of mental illness seems more likely.
I want people to get and keep jobs with people who don't spend their time whining about things they have no influence over. PT isn't fit to employ anyone. The problem with our economy is that he's just one of many. Self-interest in this country to-day isn't enlightened, if it ever was.
I didn't whine. Show me a whine. I set the record straight instead, detailing the many taxes that I pay to the Exchequer. As for whether I'm fit to employ anyone or not, you know nothing about my business or how I treat my employees. I'll let you know though that I have never not paid a penny I owe in wages or taxes though.
As for self-interest, I'm trying to run a small business to provide for myself and my family. As part of that 20 other people have jobs that would not exist otherwise to provide for their families. The government has extra taxes it would not have to provide for what it needs to spend on.
Good luck finding enough people to set up businesses up and down the country who aren't aware of the many taxes they need to pay and who have no interest in trying to make money. People who aren't aware of taxes tend to go out of business when the government demands them though.
"The many taxes I pay to the Exchequer" sounds like a whine to me - either you aren't paying a penny that your competitors aren't paying, or else you need a new accountant.
Not a whine just a matter of fact. As for other businesses 9 out of 10 new businesses go bust. I'm working hard to try and make sure mine is in the 1 out of 10 by being aware of all costs.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
I know a couple of them receive in work benefits but those are not due to the level of wages I pay but due to the fact they are single parents who have children and the government has chosen to give extra welfare to those with children and have a low family income.
I dare say your business is employing well skilled people in a moderately high end business. Lower down the food chain things get messy. The problem comes when a person needs £7/hr to live, but is only capable of producing goods or services worth £5 after expenses. At the moment that gap is filled by the government. Education will help in the long term, but for the bottom third of society it's not going to help very much, as they are the people that struggle at school and leave as soon as they can anyway.
One of the problems of our political discourse is that it always focuses on finding a way to top up income, rather than looking at ways to drive down the cost of living, to the benefit of everyone.
Good point, and well presented. I wish more people would think like this!
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
"I will MAKE it legal!" - Darth Sidious (aka. Palpatine)
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
'Hearing after Gove's interview, No 10 has told officials at Ministry of Justice to stop showing him documents that relate to the EU'
But of course Richard N and the other spinners will still assure us the government is being 100% honest, has nothing to hide and behaves entirely in good faith. As do all the other EU governments. And George Washington never told a lie.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
He seems hugely overrated to me. I can't see why people keep touting him as a future leader.
And I have a somewhat jaundiced view of the bank at which he used to work.
How can I put this without getting into trouble?
Let's just say this: if there were to be a Venn diagram of bankers who had spent time there and moved on and bankers who come to my attention, there would be a heavy overlap between the two circles.
I know a couple of them receive in work benefits but those are not due to the level of wages I pay but due to the fact they are single parents who have children and the government has chosen to give extra welfare to those with children and have a low family income.
I dare say your business is employing well skilled people in a moderately high end business. Lower down the food chain things get messy. The problem comes when a person needs £7/hr to live, but is only capable of producing goods or services worth £5 after expenses. At the moment that gap is filled by the government. Education will help in the long term, but for the bottom third of society it's not going to help very much, as they are the people that struggle at school and leave as soon as they can anyway.
One of the problems of our political discourse is that it always focuses on finding a way to top up income, rather than looking at ways to drive down the cost of living, to the benefit of everyone.
Good point, and well presented. I wish more people would think like this!
Perhaps a politician could talk about 'a cost of living crisis'. :-)
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
You would have thought that if Corbyn had been true to his beliefs he would be for leave because by supporting the EU his idea of nationalising the railways is dead in the water.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
You would have thought that if Corbyn had been true to his beliefs he would be for leave because by supporting the EU his idea of nationalising the railways is dead in the water.
Aside from Branson, aren't ours nationalised by the Germans anyway ?
I know a couple of them receive in work benefits but those are not due to the level of wages I pay but due to the fact they are single parents who have children and the government has chosen to give extra welfare to those with children and have a low family income.
I dare say your business is employing well skilled people in a moderately high end business. Lower down the food chain things get messy. The problem comes when a person needs £7/hr to live, but is only capable of producing goods or services worth £5 after expenses. At the moment that gap is filled by the government. Education will help in the long term, but for the bottom third of society it's not going to help very much, as they are the people that struggle at school and leave as soon as they can anyway.
One of the problems of our political discourse is that it always focuses on finding a way to top up income, rather than looking at ways to drive down the cost of living, to the benefit of everyone.
Good point, and well presented. I wish more people would think like this!
Perhaps a politician could talk about 'a cost of living crisis'. :-)
They could, But he would have to be careful not to demand a frees to energy prises, just before they started to fall.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
You would have thought that if Corbyn had been true to his beliefs he would be for leave because by supporting the EU his idea of nationalising the railways is dead in the water.
Would it be illegal for the UK government to set up a company, wholly owned by the government, that placed bids for the franchises?
I know a couple of them receive in work benefits but those are not due to the level of wages I pay but due to the fact they are single parents who have children and the government has chosen to give extra welfare to those with children and have a low family income.
I dare say your business is employing well skilled people in a moderately high end business. Lower down the food chain things get messy. The problem comes when a person needs £7/hr to live, but is only capable of producing goods or services worth £5 after expenses. At the moment that gap is filled by the government. Education will help in the long term, but for the bottom third of society it's not going to help very much, as they are the people that struggle at school and leave as soon as they can anyway.
One of the problems of our political discourse is that it always focuses on finding a way to top up income, rather than looking at ways to drive down the cost of living, to the benefit of everyone.
Good point, and well presented. I wish more people would think like this!
Most of the cost of living is indirectly paying other people's wages ( and by extension their taxes), so the two are completely intertwined.
For example, in the UK you pay about £2 for a 1.75L of Coca Cola. Here I pay about 60p for an identical bottle of same drink. It is bottled about a mile from where I live. The workers in the bottling plant probably make around £8 per day, the delivery trucks less, the people working in the shops that sell it, less still. The equipment used here is probably the same or very similar to that used in the UK.. the key difference is labour cost. If you workforce is expensive, then your cost of living is going to tend to be expensive.
Ergo if you want to drive down the cost of living, you need to either pay people less, or employ less people, the first is just as vicious circle to the poor house, the second is alright if the market will bear the cost of mechanisation, and you have somewhere else to employ the displaced employees. You can also cut taxes, but that requires governments to do less, as in just stopping doing whole things completely... Asian governments mostly do MUCH less, but I can't see it being popular in the UK.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
He seems hugely overrated to me. I can't see why people keep touting him as a future leader.
And I have a somewhat jaundiced view of the bank at which he used to work.
How can I put this without getting into trouble?
Let's just say this: if there were to be a Venn diagram of bankers who had spent time there and moved on and bankers who come to my attention, there would be a heavy overlap between the two circles.
I spent time there and moved on.
And I suspect I have come to your attention.
Just, hopefully, for the right reasons...
tbh Charles we view you as a good egg rather than a banker.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
Welder ? Machine operative ? banker ?
Ah, HA! Mr Brooke is here, now we have a real subject expert in place. Have you read the discussion mssrs. Indigo, Thompson and myself have been having over the past 45 minutes or so on the subject of manufacturing in the UK, Mr. B.? I so what is your take on it?
too many people are stuck in the 70s. This country has some excellent businesses and there is no reason why we cant have more. Our political classes however have no concept of how to nurture that growth,
Thanks, Mr. Brooke. I suspect that one of the reasons why our politicians have no clue is time scale. The average politician might think as far ahead as the next GE, though I am sure ministers work on much shorter time scales, to build a good business I think one has to look much further ahead and plan accordingly/
A few years ago I was at a dinner and was seated next to the 40-something year old CEO of a large, long-lived, successful but still family owned business. He was thinking about where his company needed to be in 20 or thirty years time and what actions he needed to take now to put it on the right course. He saw his role as a steward with a duty to hand over the company in a better condition than it was when he received it and on course for the future. Most people I spoke to on those occasions talked about current share prices, the next set of results and their bonuses.
I am firmly of the belief that unless we can raise the sights of the strategic management in our major companies up from their bonuses and onto the long term, then the UK will continue to decline in absolute and relative terms. Unfortunately the only people who can make that happen are HMG and they are focussed on even shorter timescales than most senior executives.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
A good choice, but I don't think that's who he has in mind, and I think he was hinting. Trump said something about 'Getting legislation over the line' - has she done anything of that sort? Who has? Some major bill that has taken time and effort - a perhaps passed over figure in the glamour stakes.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
Welder ? Machine operative ? banker ?
Ah, HA! Mr Brooke is here, now we have a real subject expert in place. Have you read the discussion mssrs. Indigo, Thompson and myself have been having over the past 45 minutes or so on the subject of manufacturing in the UK, Mr. B.? I so what is your take on it?
too many people are stuck in the 70s. This country has some excellent businesses and there is no reason why we cant have more. Our political classes however have no concept of how to nurture that growth,
Thanks, Mr. Brooke. I suspect that one of the reasons why our politicians have no clue is time scale. The average politician might think as far ahead as the next GE, though I am sure ministers work on much shorter time scales, to build a good business I think one has to look much further ahead and plan accordingly/
A few years ago I was at a dinner and was seated next to the 40-something year old CEO of a large, long-lived, successful but still family owned business. He was thinking about where his company needed to be in 20 or thirty years time and what actions he needed to take now to put it on the right course. He saw his role as a steward with a duty to hand over the company in a better condition than it was when he received it and on course for the future. Most people I spoke to on those occasions talked about current share prices, the next set of results and their bonuses.
I am firmly of the belief that unless we can raise the sights of the strategic management in our major companies up from their bonuses and onto the long term, then the UK will continue to decline in absolute and relative terms. Unfortunately the only people who can make that happen are HMG and they are focussed on even shorter timescales than most senior executives.
That's the issue with manufacturing you have to think in 3-5 year time horizons not 3-5 months. But the rewards are also commensurate when done right,
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
Actually ineligible or Rod's special spurious ineligible?
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
There is a fairly easy solution for that, Mr. Norfolk. We even have a chance to take it in a few months time.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
You would have thought that if Corbyn had been true to his beliefs he would be for leave because by supporting the EU his idea of nationalising the railways is dead in the water.
Would it be illegal for the UK government to set up a company, wholly owned by the government, that placed bids for the franchises?
That is possible as far as I understand but the government franchise cannot rely on state subsidy and under a labour government with strong union involvement they would almost certainly fail to be competitive
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
Not a chance, Haley hates Trump and the feeling is mutual, she has attacked Trump publicly again and again and desperately pushed for Rubio in S.Carolina. I think you can cross off the list anyone who endorsed Marco Rubio.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
LOL it might be but that doesn't stop our continental neighbours paying it.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
You would have thought that if Corbyn had been true to his beliefs he would be for leave because by supporting the EU his idea of nationalising the railways is dead in the water.
Would it be illegal for the UK government to set up a company, wholly owned by the government, that placed bids for the franchises?
No. But they will have to be arms length and funded on a commercial basis.
I know a couple of them receive in work benefits but those are not due to the level of wages I pay but due to the fact they are single parents who have children and the government has chosen to give extra welfare to those with children and have a low family income.
I dare say your business is employing well skilled people in a moderately high end business. Lower down the food chain things get messy. The problem comes when a person needs £7/hr to live, but is only capable of producing goods or services worth £5 after expenses. At the moment that gap is filled by the government. Education will help in the long term, but for the bottom third of society it's not going to help very much, as they are the people that struggle at school and leave as soon as they can anyway.
One of the problems of our political discourse is that it always focuses on finding a way to top up income, rather than looking at ways to drive down the cost of living, to the benefit of everyone.
Good point, and well presented. I wish more people would think like this!
Most of the cost of living is indirectly paying other people's wages ( and by extension their taxes), so the two are completely intertwined.
For example, in the UK you pay about £2 for a 1.75L of Coca Cola. Here I pay about 60p for an identical bottle of same drink. It is bottled about a mile from where I live. The workers in the bottling plant probably make around £8 per day, the delivery trucks less, the people working in the shops that sell it, less still. The equipment used here is probably the same or very similar to that used in the UK.. the key difference is labour cost. If you workforce is expensive, then your cost of living is going to tend to be expensive.
Ergo if you want to drive down the cost of living, you need to either pay people less, or employ less people, the first is just as vicious circle to the poor house, the second is alright if the market will bear the cost of mechanisation, and you have somewhere else to employ the displaced employees. You can also cut taxes, but that requires governments to do less, as in just stopping doing whole things completely... Asian governments mostly do MUCH less, but I can't see it being popular in the UK.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
There is a fairly easy solution for that, Mr. Norfolk. We even have a chance to take it in a few months time.
Why hasn't that appeared on the list of reasons for Leave before ? Seems obvious in retrospect.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
Welder ? Machine operative ? banker ?
Ah, HA! Mr Brooke is here, now we have a real subject expert in place. Have you read the discussion mssrs. Indigo, Thompson and myself have been having over the past 45 minutes or so on the subject of manufacturing in the UK, Mr. B.? I so what is your take on it?
too many people are stuck in the 70s. This country has some excellent businesses and there is no reason why we cant have more. Our political classes however have no concept of how to nurture that growth,
Thanks, Mr. Brooke. I suspect that one of the reasons why our politicians have no clue is time scale. The average politician might think as far ahead as the next GE, though I am sure ministers work on much shorter time scales, to build a good business I think one has to look much further ahead and plan accordingly/
A few years ago I was at a dinner and was seated next to the 40-something year old CEO of a large, long-lived, successful but still family owned business. He was thinking about where his company needed to be in 20 or thirty years time and what actions he needed to take now to put it on the right course. He saw his role as a steward with a duty to hand over the company in a better condition than it was when he received it and on course for the future. Most people I spoke to on those occasions talked about current share prices, the next set of results and their bonuses.
I am firmly of the belief that unless we can raise the sights of the strategic management in our major companies up from their bonuses and onto the long term, then the UK will continue to decline in absolute and relative terms. Unfortunately the only people who can make that happen are HMG and they are focussed on even shorter timescales than most senior executives.
That's the issue with manufacturing you have to think in 3-5 year time horizons not 3-5 months. But the rewards are also commensurate when done right,
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
She was born in the US though?
A 14th Amendment citizen, like Rubio, which we know is not a natural born citizen.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..." Minor v Happersett (1874), approved US v Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
If we had any sense, our Government would make an offer to Redcar or Port Talbot to say
"steel is not viable long-term. But we will invest a billion pounds to make you the world leader in graphene experimentation, production and marketing..."
State aid is illegal under EU law.
And you wonder why I'm for Leave? Although I'm sure creative minds in France or Germany would find a way round it....
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
It doesnt matter if people end up in the poor house, so long as everyone is in the poor house together... much better than having some in a terrace and others in a detached house in half an acre.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
She was born in the US though?
A 14th Amendment citizen
"All persons born or naturalized". In her case born, not naturalized.
Anyone want to guess what Sajid Javid's career was before he entered politics ?
He seems hugely overrated to me. I can't see why people keep touting him as a future leader.
And I have a somewhat jaundiced view of the bank at which he used to work.
How can I put this without getting into trouble?
Let's just say this: if there were to be a Venn diagram of bankers who had spent time there and moved on and bankers who come to my attention, there would be a heavy overlap between the two circles.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
She was born in the US though?
A 14th Amendment citizen
"All persons born or naturalized". In her case born, not naturalized.
Eligible.
Are you deaf, or just obtuse?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
It doesnt matter if people end up in the poor house, so long as everyone is in the poor house together... much better than having some in a terrace and others in a detached house in half an acre.
The bankers are taking the biggest slice of the cake and ensure everyone else argues about the crumbs.Crumbs from the rich man's table is not the answer.We need to take over the bakery.
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
It doesnt matter if people end up in the poor house, so long as everyone is in the poor house together... much better than having some in a terrace and others in a detached house in half an acre.
Perdix - piracy is precisely the spirit of business. It's an honorable piracy when practiced well.
Indigo - and thus they practice their own piracy, but less honestly than in business.
It is not for the PM or LotO to criticise each other's appearance in the Chamber. That is the Speaker's job. I trust Cammo has lobbied Bercow.
Surely because of what you say in your first two sentences you should hope that John Bercow reprimands David Cameron for undermining the Speaker's office?
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
It doesnt matter if people end up in the poor house, so long as everyone is in the poor house together... much better than having some in a terrace and others in a detached house in half an acre.
The bankers are taking the biggest slice of the cake and ensure everyone else argues about the crumbs.Crumbs from the rich man's table is not the answer.We need to take over the bakery.
No, this isnt true, not be any measure. You could claim they take a slice of the cake they dont deserve. And the more they grow the cake the more they take, but they do make the cake bigger.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
She was born in the US though?
A 14th Amendment citizen
"All persons born or naturalized". In her case born, not naturalized.
Eligible.
Are you deaf, or just obtuse?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
It's clear that the Constitution including its Amendments adequately defines US citizenship in exactly two classes: born (or natural born) and naturalized. A line from a court ruling over a century ago doesn't change that.
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
It doesnt matter if people end up in the poor house, so long as everyone is in the poor house together... much better than having some in a terrace and others in a detached house in half an acre.
The bankers are taking the biggest slice of the cake and ensure everyone else argues about the crumbs.Crumbs from the rich man's table is not the answer.We need to take over the bakery.
Leaving the EU would not necessarily damage the UK economy, fund manager Neil Woodford has reiterated.
But Mr Woodford argued it was very difficult to build a credible economic argument for the UK either staying in or leaving the union. Rather, the debate was a political argument about issues such as immigration and sovereignty, he
For me it's a very simple argument - iI'll be voting Leave - and I made my mind up about 2 years ago. It was the treatment of Ireland and Greece and the way their citizens meant nothing during the crisis that made me think it was an organisation I didn't want to be part of.
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
It doesnt matter if people end up in the poor house, so long as everyone is in the poor house together... much better than having some in a terrace and others in a detached house in half an acre.
The bankers are taking the biggest slice of the cake and ensure everyone else argues about the crumbs.Crumbs from the rich man's table is not the answer.We need to take over the bakery.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
She was born in the US though?
A 14th Amendment citizen
"All persons born or naturalized". In her case born, not naturalized.
Eligible.
Are you deaf, or just obtuse?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
It's clear that the Constitution including its Amendments adequately defines US citizenship in exactly two classes: born (or natural born) and naturalized. A line from a court ruling over a century ago doesn't change that.
Has is crossed your mind that the SCOTUS, speaking through the Chief Justice, only six years after those words were inserted into the Constitution, might have a more "clear" understanding of the matter than some nonentity spouting about it over a hundred years later?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
From our perspective, it is impossible for everyone to get a bigger slice, because the super-rich don't only have the biggest slices of the cakes already made, they're also hogging all the ingredients and refusing to give anyone else even a chance to make their own.
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
I think that'd be a reasonable guess as to who he's making eyes at. Despite him saying he has no idea I think he's clearly playing a serenade here towards someone or other. I don't know US politics well enough to work out who though. I can't believe it's not really obvious to US observers though. Any US observers care to say?
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
She was born in the US though?
A 14th Amendment citizen
"All persons born or naturalized". In her case born, not naturalized.
Eligible.
Are you deaf, or just obtuse?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
It's clear that the Constitution including its Amendments adequately defines US citizenship in exactly two classes: born (or natural born) and naturalized. A line from a court ruling over a century ago doesn't change that.
Has is crossed your mind that the SCOTUS, speaking through the Chief Justice, only six years after those words were inserted into the Constitution, might have a more "clear" understanding of the matter than some nonentity spouting about it over a hundred years later?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
Anybody can be wrong. A "nonentity", as you unflatteringly call yourself, can be just as wrong as a judge.
Does anyone else feel there are some debates they would like to respond to on here, but don't because some of the individuals are just so obnoxious about it?
Hearing after Gove's interview, No 10 has told officials at Ministry of Justice to stop showing him documents that relate to the EU
It can only be a matter of hours before he's fired from government for good. It's not a fashionable idea on here but I find Gove and his wife more duplicitous than even Boris. Her article in this mornings Mail was pure Iago.
You were calling her Lady Macbeth the other day. Why do you feel the need to blame Gove's wife for Gove's decision?
Because that's what her article suggested to me. 'The hours of heartache and soul-searching..... ever since he was a child he's been wrestling with this...' Call me a cynic but the only other article I've read by her was the one where she does a character assassination on MRS Ed Miliband and that was brutal
A former, friendly, ex-colleague of mine, a Dutchman, put the English attitude to business as resulting from our heritage of piracy! Historically, our politicians have mostly argued about how to divide up the cake, rather than how to make it bigger. Politicians need to encourage all actors in the economy to work together.
Left wing politicians on the whole seem to prefer making the cake smaller. If there is any suggestion some of the slices are bigger than others, the automatic reaction to to start confiscating bits of the bigger slices, rather than making the cake bigger so everyone gets a bigger slice.
It doesnt matter if people end up in the poor house, so long as everyone is in the poor house together... much better than having some in a terrace and others in a detached house in half an acre.
The bankers are taking the biggest slice of the cake and ensure everyone else argues about the crumbs.Crumbs from the rich man's table is not the answer.We need to take over the bakery.
Rafael "Ted" Cruz listed his wife's profession as 'baker', which sounded rather sweet. But alas it was just a careless typo, she is in fact a highly-paid banker with Goldman Sachs.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
Seeing the 'Natural Born Citizen' argument playing out yet again, I have to ask why, if there is indeed even the slightest ambiguity on the subject (and even if one accepts the NBC argument displayed, it must be accepted matters are deemed ambiguous, or else those 'obviously' ineligible would not have run and continue to run for president), why in the name of christ has it not been sorted out definitively long before now? Is the prospect of someone born to american parents but overseas such a terrible thing that even if the rules still prohibit it, technically, it should not be clarified to state that of course it is ok? What horror is being risked? And if there is no horror at the prospect, what is the problem with getting rid of the prohibition or just ignoring it (if indeed there is such a prohibition)?
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
The Tories if they want boundary changes are surely going to have to start over and do it again with the full 650 seats.
Does anyone else feel there are some debates they would like to respond to on here, but don't because some of the individuals are just so obnoxious about it?
Yes, a bit, and I expect others feel it more. But there's a consolation - if your critic is clearly obnoxious, you can win over bystanders to your side by answering reasonably even if you're entirely wrong :-). The scary opponents are the reasonable ones - if SeanT calls you a slimy piece of pond life, meh, that's SeanT, but if David Herdson says he thinks you're unfortunately mistaken, then you probably are...
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
There will probably be enough retirements and elevations to cover the shortfall.
Eastern - down 1 East Midlands - down 2 London - down 5 North East - down 4 North West - down 7 South East - down 1 (***) South West - down 2 West Midlands - down 6 Yorkshire - down 4
Total - down 32
(***) Includes Isle of Wight which GAINS one seat. So REST of South East loses 2.
Hearing after Gove's interview, No 10 has told officials at Ministry of Justice to stop showing him documents that relate to the EU
It can only be a matter of hours before he's fired from government for good. It's not a fashionable idea on here but I find Gove and his wife more duplicitous than even Boris. Her article in this mornings Mail was pure Iago.
You were calling her Lady Macbeth the other day. Why do you feel the need to blame Gove's wife for Gove's decision?
Because that's what her article suggested to me. 'The hours of heartache and soul-searching..... ever since he was a child he's been wrestling with this...' Call me a cynic but the only other article I've read by her was the one where she does a character assassination on MRS Ed Miliband and that was brutal
Too long in Provence old chum, come home and get some culture
Eastern - down 1 East Midlands - down 2 London - down 5 North East - down 4 North West - down 7 South East - down 1 (***) South West - down 2 West Midlands - down 6 Yorkshire - down 4
Total - down 32
(***) Includes Isle of Wight which GAINS one seat. So REST of South East loses 2.
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
The Tories if they want boundary changes are surely going to have to start over and do it again with the full 650 seats.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I think with AV the public impression was that it was only being offered as a sop to Nick Clegg and they reacted accordingly.
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
There will probably be enough retirements and elevations to cover the shortfall.
Well, that will surely depend on where those retirements are.
If a Tory MP in North Wales sees their seat disappear, a retirement / open seat in Hampshire won't be much use to them.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
Yes they can as if she became President she would not be the first, nor the second to be President under those circumstances. You can keep harping on to a fictional rule you've made up from a fictional misunderstanding from an ambiguity three centuries ago.
In real life the law is crystal clear. The serving President is eligible because he is the President. No ifs, no buts.
On topic, I think Leave atm are heading for a clear defeat (I'd say, 57:43) but it won't be a landslide because the EU is a visceral issue that creates strong passions. Many have firm, fixed views on it so I don't expect hugely wild swings back to Remain. I think the truth is somewhere between the online and phone polls, probably in the phone polls favour.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
It's too early to call because this is one subject where events tend to change the electoral mood.
I'm also far from convinced that many people truly understand, or are engaged, with this.
For all Tories who are wishfully thinking the boundary review is a fait accompli - are Tory MPs who are going to be affected by this really going to happily vote themselves into redundancy?
The Tories if they want boundary changes are surely going to have to start over and do it again with the full 650 seats.
Their Lordships as they will be known.....
Enough sweeties to push around.
But if the Tories' neutering of the House of Lords goes through, why would Tory MPs want to go there?
By his standards, he hasn't been that rude about Chris Christie.
If I was going to guess, one name would be Nickki Haley, the governor of south Carolina, is in with a shot.
She's ineligible...
She was born in the US though?
A 14th Amendment citizen
"All persons born or naturalized". In her case born, not naturalized.
Eligible.
Are you deaf, or just obtuse?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
It's clear that the Constitution including its Amendments adequately defines US citizenship in exactly two classes: born (or natural born) and naturalized. A line from a court ruling over a century ago doesn't change that.
Has is crossed your mind that the SCOTUS, speaking through the Chief Justice, only six years after those words were inserted into the Constitution, might have a more "clear" understanding of the matter than some nonentity spouting about it over a hundred years later?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
Anybody can be wrong. A "nonentity", as you unflatteringly call yourself, can be just as wrong as a judge.
The problem is, 14 years after Minor, the SCOTUS in Wong quoted and approved the same statement.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
I suppose they must be wrong too, and only 21st Century keyboard warriors can possibly be right...
Comments
If the government is giving welfare to people with children then that is a matter for the government, it has nothing to do with the businesses that even at minimum wage levels still has to pay Employers NI and everything else I mentioned.
That respectable ex-MP Nick Palmer would hardly hang around here
Anyone who gets up Roger's nose this much is alright by me.
https://twitter.com/costareports/status/702564752011034628
And I have a somewhat jaundiced view of the bank at which he used to work.
How can I put this without getting into trouble?
Let's just say this: if there were to be a Venn diagram of bankers who had spent time there and moved on and bankers who come to my attention, there would be a heavy overlap between the two circles.
The madman act is just to win among Republicans
Please.
But of course Richard N and the other spinners will still assure us the government is being 100% honest, has nothing to hide and behaves entirely in good faith. As do all the other EU governments. And George Washington never told a lie.
And I suspect I have come to your attention.
Just, hopefully, for the right reasons...
:-)
They are certainly no authors.
For example, in the UK you pay about £2 for a 1.75L of Coca Cola. Here I pay about 60p for an identical bottle of same drink. It is bottled about a mile from where I live. The workers in the bottling plant probably make around £8 per day, the delivery trucks less, the people working in the shops that sell it, less still. The equipment used here is probably the same or very similar to that used in the UK.. the key difference is labour cost. If you workforce is expensive, then your cost of living is going to tend to be expensive.
Ergo if you want to drive down the cost of living, you need to either pay people less, or employ less people, the first is just as vicious circle to the poor house, the second is alright if the market will bear the cost of mechanisation, and you have somewhere else to employ the displaced employees. You can also cut taxes, but that requires governments to do less, as in just stopping doing whole things completely... Asian governments mostly do MUCH less, but I can't see it being popular in the UK.
even me !
A few years ago I was at a dinner and was seated next to the 40-something year old CEO of a large, long-lived, successful but still family owned business. He was thinking about where his company needed to be in 20 or thirty years time and what actions he needed to take now to put it on the right course. He saw his role as a steward with a duty to hand over the company in a better condition than it was when he received it and on course for the future. Most people I spoke to on those occasions talked about current share prices, the next set of results and their bonuses.
I am firmly of the belief that unless we can raise the sights of the strategic management in our major companies up from their bonuses and onto the long term, then the UK will continue to decline in absolute and relative terms. Unfortunately the only people who can make that happen are HMG and they are focussed on even shorter timescales than most senior executives.
News: Brian Sandoval, Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted for SupremeCourt, @mikedebonis @eilperin scoop http://wpo.st/QRDF1
Philip Rucker @PhilipRucker 60m60 minutes ago Minnesota, USA
It would be interesting to see if Republican senators refuse hearings on a Sandoval SCOTUS nomination https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?
Sandoval endorsed Rubio yesterday, and yes Sandoval said he would like to be on the Supreme Court.
Rubio will need some explaining to do.
Say, book it under the name of Mr. P. Nesshead, for example?
I think you can cross off the list anyone who endorsed Marco Rubio.
And yes I know over several examples.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..." Minor v Happersett (1874), approved US v Wong Kim Ark (1898).
It doesnt matter if people end up in the poor house, so long as everyone is in the poor house together... much better than having some in a terrace and others in a detached house in half an acre.
Eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
So them words you quoted from the Constitution can't possibly be relevant, can they?
Indigo - and thus they practice their own piracy, but less honestly than in business.
Leaving the EU would not necessarily damage the UK economy, fund manager Neil Woodford has reiterated.
But Mr Woodford argued it was very difficult to build a credible economic argument for the UK either staying in or leaving the union.
Rather, the debate was a political argument about issues such as immigration and sovereignty, he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35647771
Somebody speaking some sense...
Oh....
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
Number of constituencies:
England - 501 - down 32
Scotland - 53 - down 6
Wales - 29 - down 11
Northern Ireland - 17 - down 1
Total - 600 - down 50
Scottish press release gives totals for each country:
http://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/2018_Westminster/start_review/Start_Review_News_Release.pdf
But alas it was just a careless typo, she is in fact a highly-paid banker with Goldman Sachs.
In fact, many of those who vote Remain will be eurosceptic with no love for the EU but simply be terrified of economic meltdown. Further, I think many London based commentators are overestimating the latent appeal, for Remain because of where they reside and who they mix with, so I don't think Remain are on course for 70% or anything like that.
On the other hand, most people didn't give a shit about AV. Once they'd clocked on it was bull, they rapidly shifted to "NO".
I understand at least the arguments on some other issues about the law being what the original framers intended, there is usually a problem with interpreting things differently, some perceived negative consequence to deviating from that interpretation. But what is the downside here?
The Tories if they want boundary changes are surely going to have to start over and do it again with the full 650 seats.
Eastern - down 1
East Midlands - down 2
London - down 5
North East - down 4
North West - down 7
South East - down 1 (***)
South West - down 2
West Midlands - down 6
Yorkshire - down 4
Total - down 32
(***) Includes Isle of Wight which GAINS one seat. So REST of South East loses 2.
http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BCEreviewlaunchpressrelease.pdf
Telling people we're odds on to join the Euro in the next decade or two, if we vote to Remain, is guaranteed to produce a clear victory for Leave.
http://www.ludlow.org.uk/events2.asp?Month=3
Enough sweeties to push around.
Eastern, East Midlands, South East and South West - very heavy Con areas - only lose a grand total of 6 seats between them.
If a Tory MP in North Wales sees their seat disappear, a retirement / open seat in Hampshire won't be much use to them.
In real life the law is crystal clear. The serving President is eligible because he is the President. No ifs, no buts.
I'm also far from convinced that many people truly understand, or are engaged, with this.
It's the law that it's 600 - would require Act of Parliament to change - that won't happen.
So either these changes go through (Statutory Instrument vote in late 2018) or current boundaries used again in 2020.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens."
I suppose they must be wrong too, and only 21st Century keyboard warriors can possibly be right...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LR6EA91zLo