The danger for the Conservative Party, and for us Leavers generally, is a 55:45 result for In, followed by a Leaver become leader, and another referendum within five years that ends up with a 60:40 for In because voters don't like being asked the same question twice.
Yes. We will have to be very, very careful on calling a second referendum and the circumstances will have to have changed sufficiently to provide an obvious casus belli for it.
Remember: I never said I wanted this referendum. I wouldn't have called it without double-digit leads in the country for Leave, and a Leave leader willing to lead the country Out.
Two thoughts. I would caution the principle that the public don't like to be asked the same question twice. If in close proximity yes, if a long time has passed no. Don't forget in 2005 Tony Blair was still PM after having won this third consecutive landslide majority. Who could have dreamt then that not only would Labour be out of power next time but that a decade later it would be led by Jeremy Corbyn and be expected to be out of power for another DECADE? A second referendum in the next Parliament could be possible.
I agree completely on the need for a new casus belli though years of playing Paradox Grand Strategy games has taught that if you want a casus belli hard enough you can create one.
The most obvious casus belli to me would be us triggering a review under Cameron's deal and the rest of the EU ignoring it. Though the irony of that then is that if the EU don't want to give us a casus belli they'd have to concede during any reviews we call. Meaning that far from being meaningless these reviews would be tremendously powerful but only under the right leadership.
There is no causus belli now. The only reason we are having this referendum is because Dave was spooked by UKIP and a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012.
There is a casus belli now. Unlike for most of continental Europe and Ireland we have had no referendum on the changes to the EEC we voted on in 1975 since then. So now we are belatedly having one. Had we had a referendum like Labour broke their promise from the 2005 manifesto on then we wouldn't be having a new one now.
As a eurosceptic Tory I simply do not recognise your description of the man or the situation. I disagree with Cameron on this. It is not the end of the world and I will still be a Tory when it is over, when Cameron has retired and when Osborne is PM.
You make sense but really you should not be surprised at the endless rubbish you are replying to.
A question on pensions for sages here. I'm turning 34 this year and haven't saved a penny dedicated to a pension scheme yet.
Which is not to say I'm not saving, I've saved something of my income for a rainy day since I was doing part time work at 17 and saved properly since I graduated from my MSc and got full time work at 22.
But savings for pensions seems to be dead and insecure money and I've looked to be more productive with my income. Paying off debts, saving for a mortgage (not as easy as it used to be) paying down the mortgage and then saving to invest in a business. Now I have a mortgaged house, and a mortgaged business and am looking to pay down those debts first. Plus I save a little each month for my daughter as who knows what uni fees or mortgage deposits will be when she grows up.
The way I view it is that whether it is saving for a pension or saving for something else doesn't matter that much and it is better to be more secure by getting out of debt and I can put away pension savings later on. Besides anything the business is worth when I retire I'd hope to sell it for.
Is that super risky? Should I not ignore pension savings?
sounds sensible to me - auto enrolment is designed to draw people in to some modest pension savings at least so you get the 'free' employer monies paid in with your and certainly you would be sensible to at least do that when it becomes available to you (if not already)
As a eurosceptic Tory I simply do not recognise your description of the man or the situation. I disagree with Cameron on this. It is not the end of the world and I will still be a Tory when it is over, when Cameron has retired and when Osborne is PM.
Well said DavidL. The only thing worse than being governed by the Tories is being governed by others.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.
A lay of the Tories - Most GE Seats at 1.36 is equivalent to decimal odds of 3.63 net of Betfair's 5% commission. This is approximately 4.4% less than the best odds of 11/4 (or 3.75 decimal) available from the major bookmakers. This marginally inferior return is worthwhile in my opinion, given the advantage of being able to trade out one's bet with Betfair at some stage or other over the next 4yrs and 2 months.
Alastair is recommending laying the Tories, not backing Labour.
A question on pensions for sages here. I'm turning 34 this year and haven't saved a penny dedicated to a pension scheme yet.
Which is not to say I'm not saving, I've saved something of my income for a rainy day since I was doing part time work at 17 and saved properly since I graduated from my MSc and got full time work at 22.
But savings for pensions seems to be dead and insecure money and I've looked to be more productive with my income. Paying off debts, saving for a mortgage (not as easy as it used to be) paying down the mortgage and then saving to invest in a business. Now I have a mortgaged house, and a mortgaged business and am looking to pay down those debts first. Plus I save a little each month for my daughter as who knows what uni fees or mortgage deposits will be when she grows up.
The way I view it is that whether it is saving for a pension or saving for something else doesn't matter that much and it is better to be more secure by getting out of debt and I can put away pension savings later on. Besides anything the business is worth when I retire I'd hope to sell it for.
Is that super risky? Should I not ignore pension savings?
sounds sensible to me - auto enrolment is designed to draw people in to some modest pension savings at least so you get the 'free' employer monies paid in with your and certainly you would be sensible to at least do that when it becomes available to you (if not already)
Though since I am my own employer would even that help? I suppose it's a way to tax free take money out of the business if it's running a profit by then.
As a new, small employer we only start auto enrolment next year.
3. Large parts of the centre ground are largely empty it's only been 10 months since the Conservative Party captured this centre ground to form an overall majority with no sign of any party being able to lay automatic claim to a space where the largest chunk of voters sit with no sign of any meaningful recovery by the Liberal Democrats. Far from anyone seeking to occupy the space, it is becoming more deserted meaning, what, am feeling very alone and unloved in my version of the political centre? .
Speaking as a centrist currently in the Conservative orbit I think Alastair is right about this.
Labour are so far from the centre as to be out of sight. The Conservatives have made a move towards the centre as expressed in Cameron's last conference speech. There has been some tangible work in government too - I think particularly of Gove's dismantling of Grayling's legacy at the MoJ. But if the same Grayling (or someone of his stamp) is the next Conservative leader, that's the end of the Conservative occupation of any part of the centre ground.
I expect to see more of the same in a couple of weeks when the pension benefits of the super rich will be curtailed to protect public spending from the consequences of disappointing growth.
"Super rich" = salaried people working very hard, in high-stress jobs, to build their careers and provide for their families who earn between £40k and £75k.
If Osborne steals my pension, I will hound him to his grave.
No super rich means people like a friend of mine who paid £100k into his pension fund from capital last year and saved £20k of tax that mugs like me has to pay.
Then that would be fine. But he won't save much money just targeting them.
I have no source of income other than my salary (which I work bloody hard for) and my pensions savings are entirely dependent upon my PAYE contributions of 5% employer and 5% employee (me) each month, and the tax relief I get on that.
Just 5%, Mr Royale. You ain't saving enough. Double that and add a bit, then you might be comfortable in retirement and able to maintain your standard of living.
Alternatively, take up drinking, smoking and hard drugs when you hit 60. You'll be through your savings within five years of retirement, but - boy - will you have had a good time.
Swap soft drugs for hard. You can easily grow your own and have a great time for much longer.
Oh Notme, Notme, where do I begin? Does a link to "LMGTFY" pass as sophisticated where you come from? That search engine you linked to doesn't use natural language, so your suggested search indicates wetness behinds the ears. Don't you think I searched for a while before posting? My point that British trade is up the creek, and in any case relies largely on "invisible" exports, because Britain doesn't produce much that's visibly exportable any more, stands. John_M observed that Britain is the 11th largest manufacturer in the world. I should imagine someone here has its rankings as an exporter and importer of manufactured goods at their fingertips and could access them much quicker than even a person like me who is skilled with websearch engines could, let alone however long long a time you'd take, Notme.
I'm not embarrassed to ask for info from those who might have it at their fingertips. Why should I be?
Britain's balance of payments is up the creek, as the skyscrapers in the City get taller and taller. It's obvious how it's going to end.
But still, if someone can post the country's rankings as exporter and importer of manufactured goods, or even better, with actual £ figures, I'd be be grateful.
I am afraid you are wrong about export numbers relying on invisibles. According to the Pink Book for 2014 (the last year we have numbers for) export of goods amounts for considerably more of our GDP than export of services.
Yep. Kind of puts the lie to John's claim that "British trade is up the creek, and in any case relies largely on "invisible" exports, because Britain doesn't produce much that's visibly exportable any more.
A question on pensions for sages here. I'm turning 34 this year and haven't saved a penny dedicated to a pension scheme yet.
Which is not to say I'm not saving, I've saved something of my income for a rainy day since I was doing part time work at 17 and saved properly since I graduated from my MSc and got full time work at 22.
But savings for pensions seems to be dead and insecure money and I've looked to be more productive with my income. Paying off debts, saving for a mortgage (not as easy as it used to be) paying down the mortgage and then saving to invest in a business. Now I have a mortgaged house, and a mortgaged business and am looking to pay down those debts first. Plus I save a little each month for my daughter as who knows what uni fees or mortgage deposits will be when she grows up.
The way I view it is that whether it is saving for a pension or saving for something else doesn't matter that much and it is better to be more secure by getting out of debt and I can put away pension savings later on. Besides anything the business is worth when I retire I'd hope to sell it for.
Is that super risky? Should I not ignore pension savings?
sounds sensible to me - auto enrolment is designed to draw people in to some modest pension savings at least so you get the 'free' employer monies paid in with your and certainly you would be sensible to at least do that when it becomes available to you (if not already)
Though since I am my own employer would even that help? I suppose it's a way to tax free take money out of the business if it's running a profit by then.
As a new, small employer we only start auto enrolment next year.
Usually makes sense to so after taking mix of salary and dividends up to 40% threshold - then can make employer contributions if profits allow as reduces the corporation tax bill
BUT need emergency fund either within business as retained profit or outside in cash savings as of course pensions locked up for 30 years+ so wouldn't recommend material pension savings until you know business is established and you have a solid base to lock up monies. currently company could pay £40pa in to a pension for you so plenty of time to catch up.
currently.... George needs to stop buggering with pensions for a while.
Oh Notme, Notme, where do I begin? Does a link to "LMGTFY" pass as sophisticated where you come from? That search engine you linked to doesn't use natural language, so your suggested search indicates wetness behinds the ears. Don't you think I searched for a while before posting? My point that British trade is up the creek, and in any case relies largely on "invisible" exports, because Britain doesn't produce much that's visibly exportable any more, stands. John_M observed that Britain is the 11th largest manufacturer in the world. I should imagine someone here has its rankings as an exporter and importer of manufactured goods at their fingertips and could access them much quicker than even a person like me who is skilled with websearch engines could, let alone however long long a time you'd take, Notme.
I'm not embarrassed to ask for info from those who might have it at their fingertips. Why should I be?
Britain's balance of payments is up the creek, as the skyscrapers in the City get taller and taller. It's obvious how it's going to end.
But still, if someone can post the country's rankings as exporter and importer of manufactured goods, or even better, with actual £ figures, I'd be be grateful.
Why do you think this one increasingly small segment of our trade is particularly important to our children's future? I linked to David Smith's column this morning where he mentioned in passing that our exports of services doubled between 2006 and 2014. When you think about how the Internet is already dominating our lives we seem very well set for continued growth in exports and faster growth than most of the rest of the EU, including Germany.
Your view of our future prospects is excessively pessimistic and those sky scrapers in London will play an important part in that future.
Smith also adds ... ''Germany has been a notable success, from within the EU, in selling to the world. Only China and America, with much larger populations, export more.''
A question on pensions for sages here. I'm turning 34 this year and haven't saved a penny dedicated to a pension scheme yet.
Which is not to say I'm not saving, I've saved something of my income for a rainy day since I was doing part time work at 17 and saved properly since I graduated from my MSc and got full time work at 22.
But savings for pensions seems to be dead and insecure money and I've looked to be more productive with my income. Paying off debts, saving for a mortgage (not as easy as it used to be) paying down the mortgage and then saving to invest in a business. Now I have a mortgaged house, and a mortgaged business and am looking to pay down those debts first. Plus I save a little each month for my daughter as who knows what uni fees or mortgage deposits will be when she grows up.
The way I view it is that whether it is saving for a pension or saving for something else doesn't matter that much and it is better to be more secure by getting out of debt and I can put away pension savings later on. Besides anything the business is worth when I retire I'd hope to sell it for.
Is that super risky? Should I not ignore pension savings?
We must be almost exactly the same age. I also turn 34 this year.
I prioritise my mortgage and repaying debts too, but have always paid the minimum 5% into a pension to ensure I get the employer "bonus" contributions.
The scale of delusion that some people seem to have about another referendum is astonishing. For the vast majority of people voting in this referendum the "deal" will be an irrelevance. Those who vote to leave have "rejected" it anyway (assuming any realistic achievable agreement would have made much difference). And those voting remain will do so for more fundamental reasons than whether people are or are not allowed to send Child benefit abroad. After a remain vote the issue will be dead for a generation, and any Conservative politician with serious ambition will realise that.
'And the trends are such that services will exceed goods in a relatively short time. They are probably under recorded too. '
Yes, almost certainly.
Which also means the current account deficit is overstated. Something that changes in the stocks of overseas assets and liabilities also suggests. If the deficit had really been as bad as it appears to be, the UK net external asset position would probably be considerably worse.
I am afraid you are wrong about export numbers relying on invisibles. According to the Pink Book for 2014 (the last year we have numbers for) export of goods amounts for considerably more of our GDP than export of services.
Thanks but what I meant was that goods trade is heavily in the red and invisible trade is heavily in the black. This has been so for many years. The overall balance of trade is in the red, but it would be much deeper in the red if it weren't for invisibles.
Oh apologies. On that I agree with you entirely. What is worrying is that the service trade surplus is no longer able to compensate for the massive goods trade deficit.
3. Large parts of the centre ground are largely empty it's only been 10 months since the Conservative Party captured this centre ground to form an overall majority with no sign of any party being able to lay automatic claim to a space where the largest chunk of voters sit with no sign of any meaningful recovery by the Liberal Democrats. Far from anyone seeking to occupy the space, it is becoming more deserted meaning, what, am feeling very alone and unloved in my version of the political centre? .
Speaking as a centrist currently in the Conservative orbit I think Alastair is right about this.
Labour are so far from the centre as to be out of sight. The Conservatives have made a move towards the centre as expressed in Cameron's last conference speech. There has been some tangible work in government too - I think particularly of Gove's dismantling of Grayling's legacy at the MoJ. But if the same Grayling (or someone of his stamp) is the next Conservative leader, that's the end of the Conservative occupation of any part of the centre ground.
I expect to see more of the same in a couple of weeks when the pension benefits of the super rich will be curtailed to protect public spending from the consequences of disappointing growth.
"Super rich" = salaried people working very hard, in high-stress jobs, to build their careers and provide for their families who earn between £40k and £75k.
If Osborne steals my pension, I will hound him to his grave.
No super rich means people like a friend of mine who paid £100k into his pension fund from capital last year and saved £20k of tax that mugs like me has to pay.
Then that would be fine. But he won't save much money just targeting them.
I have no source of income other than my salary (which I work bloody hard for) and my pensions savings are entirely dependent upon my PAYE contributions of 5% employer and 5% employee (me) each month, and the tax relief I get on that.
Just 5%, Mr Royale. You ain't saving enough. Double that and add a bit, then you might be comfortable in retirement and able to maintain your standard of living.
Alternatively, take up drinking, smoking and hard drugs when you hit 60. You'll be through your savings within five years of retirement, but - boy - will you have had a good time.
Swap soft drugs for hard. You can easily grow your own and have a great time for much longer.
I've just nibbled a bit more at Cruz because after Super Tuesday here's only going to be two people standing and Rubio isn't one of them.
The complete list of states won by Cruz that Santorum didn't win:
Rubio is going to drop from the race before Cruz and all that "Please, please, please anyone but Trump please" money in the betting markets fed by people betting with heart rather than head will have to go somewhere.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Any comparisons with Thatcher are spurious. Thatcher was going "on and on". Cameron is leaving before the next election anyway. It will be pointless and counterproductive for anyone to try and move against him early.
Off topic - unless there was a betting market in it - but the telegraph has a headline ... ''Iran elections: Hassan Rouhani hails 'new chapter' as first results show sweeping gains for moderates''
3. Large parts of the centre ground are largely empty it's only been 10 months since the Coned meaning, what, am feeling very alone and unloved in my version of the political centre? .
Speaking as a centrist currently in the Conservative orbit I think Alastair is right about this.
Labour are so far from the centre as to be out of sight. The Conservatives have made a move towards the centre as expressed in Cameron's last conference speech. There has been some tangible work in government too - I think particularly of Gove's dismantling of Grayling's legacy at the MoJ. But if the same Grayling (or someone of his stamp) is the next Conservative leader, that's the end of the Conservative occupation of any part of the centre ground.
I expect to see more of the same in a couple of weeks when the pension benefits of the super rich will be curtailed to protect public spending from the consequences of disappointing growth.
"Super rich" = salaried people working very hard, in high-stress jobs, to build their careers and provide for their families who earn between £40k and £75k.
If Osborne steals my pension, I will hound him to his grave.
No super rich means people like a friend of mine who paid £100k into his pension fund from capital last year and saved £20k of tax that mugs like me has to pay.
Then that would be fine. But he won't save much money just targeting them.
I have no source of income other than my salary (which I work bloody hard for) and my pensions savings are entirely dependent upon my PAYE contributions of 5% employer and 5% employee (me) each month, and the tax relief I get on that.
Just 5%, Mr Royale. You ain't saving enough. Double that and add a bit, then you might be comfortable in retirement and able to maintain your standard of living.
Alternatively, take up drinking, smoking and hard drugs when you hit 60. You'll be through your savings within five years of retirement, but - boy - will you have had a good time.
Swap soft drugs for hard. You can easily grow your own and have a great time for much longer.
In prison you mean?
You'll only get prison time if you start growing a lot. You can easily grow enough for personal use in a small cupboard these days.
The Tory party won't split. They are united on Europe being either soft eurosceptic or hard eurosceptic. The only split is between the tiny Cameroon elite and everyone else.
Cameron will win his referendum by bullying the British people into voting REMAIN. Then everyone will turn on him and his allies. Quite rightly. The man is a [moderated] and a traitor. He is Heath times nine, with a dash of Etonian dislikeabilty.
Incidentally the Sunday Times (£££) makes fascinating reading today. Apparently Cameron is amazed and surprised at the opposition to his "deal" in Tory circles. Also, Lynton Crosby told him he was rushing the negotiation, therefore getting nothing, and he should reject it and wait until 2017.
That was good advice. Cameron should have taken it. Now he is doomed.
I also think that the Tories will remain united, but the harder Cameron pushes for Remain the harder it will be to maintain that unity even in the face of Corbyn.
Cameron may have made a reckless high risk move with his failed renegotiation, but it's too early to say if the Tories will sacrifice him to maintain unity. However the more he pushes it, the more likely it is that he will be sacrificed.
That's genuinely interesting. Why go for a half-hearted, rushed, negotiation, which you surely could have guessed would be badly received by your own side?
Who is around Cameron since the GE? Were there any eurosceptics? His sole party chairman is a Chairman that is the most detached from the members. His main chief of staff Llewelyn is a europhile and is heavily involved in the negotiations. The Europe minister Liddington is a well known europhile. And then there is Osborne who took the lead cabinet role on the renegotiations (on a part time basis) along with his part time job as Chancellor and part time job as the COO/CEO of Govt. No sign of a eurosceptic in this cosy group. Just people with the same mind set oblivious to the views of the bulk of their party. Now what could go wrong with that? Oh, just to really eff it up, ignore the advice of Crosby.
That was the first sign of contempt for the membership, who he knows are far from convinced by the EU. He has members of Blair's and Brown's inner circle in his negotiating team - but no party sceptics. He has gone out on a limb - and proceeded to start sawing away at that limb.
Sorry, but even as a natural lefty I can see that the Government are doing a decent job of trying to appear moderate. The living wage and the tax credit U-turn spring to mind. Of course anyone with an interest can see that people are being made to suffer, particularly the unemployed and/or disabled. But the big picture for most people is that of a steady hand on the tiller.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Funny, I nearly posted just that thought half an hour ago then thought "hmm, not sure about this".
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.
Oh Notme, Notme, where do I begin? Does a link to "LMGTFY" pass as sophisticated where you come from? That search engine you linked to doesn't use natural language, so your suggested search indicates wetness behinds the ears. Don't you think I searched for a while before posting? My point that British trade is up the creek, and in any case relies largely on "invisible" exports, because Britain doesn't produce much that's visibly exportable any more, stands. John_M observed that Britain is the 11th largest manufacturer in the world. I should imagine someone here has its rankings as an exporter and importer of manufactured goods at their fingertips and could access them much quicker than even a person like me who is skilled with websearch engines could, let alone however long long a time you'd take, Notme.
I'm not embarrassed to ask for info from those who might have it at their fingertips. Why should I be?
Britain's balance of payments is up the creek, as the skyscrapers in the City get taller and taller. It's obvious how it's going to end.
But still, if someone can post the country's rankings as exporter and importer of manufactured goods, or even better, with actual £ figures, I'd be be grateful.
Why do you think this one increasingly small segment of our trade is particularly important to our children's future? I linked to David Smith's column this morning where he mentioned in passing that our exports of services doubled between 2006 and 2014. When you think about how the Internet is already dominating our lives we seem very well set for continued growth in exports and faster growth than most of the rest of the EU, including Germany.
Your view of our future prospects is excessively pessimistic and those sky scrapers in London will play an important part in that future.
I'd always be careful about David Smith and especially when he doesn't give actual data.
The UK's exports of services increased from £146bn in 2006 to £220bn in 2014 - so more like a 50% increase. The UK's surplus in services though did double, from £43bn in 2006 to £89bn in 2014.
The UK's continual trade deficit isn't the fault of exporters, either of services or goods (which are higher than services exports and which have also increased during that period), but because the UK's debt fuelled overconsumption of imported consumer tat.
I would warn against assuming that the UK will continue to register trade surpluses in services - as you say the internet is increasingly dominating lives and there's no reason why services shouldn't be increasingly provided by countries with lower cost bases and lower regulation than the UK.
3. Large parts of the centre ground are largely empty it's only been 10 months since the Coned meaning, what, am feeling very alone and unloved in my version of the political centre? .
Speaking as a centrist currently in the Conservative orbit I think Alastair is right about this.
Labour are so far from the centre as to be out of sight. The Conservatives have made a move towards the centre as expressed in Cameron's last conference speech. There has been some tangible work in government too - I think particularly of Gove's dismantling of Grayling's legacy at the MoJ. But if the same Grayling (or someone of his stamp) is the next Conservative leader, that's the end of the Conservative occupation of any part of the centre ground.
I expect to see more of the same in a couple of weeks when the pension benefits of the super rich will be curtailed to protect public spending from the consequences of disappointing growth.
"Super rich" = salaried people working very hard, in high-stress jobs, to build their careers and provide for their families who earn between £40k and £75k.
If Osborne steals my pension, I will hound him to his grave.
No super rich means people like a friend of mine who paid £100k into his pension fund from capital last year and saved £20k of tax that mugs like me has to pay.
Then that would be fine. But he won't save much money just targeting them.
I have no source of income other than my salary (which I work bloody hard for) and my pensions savings are entirely dependent upon my PAYE contributions of 5% employer and 5% employee (me) each month, and the tax relief I get on that.
In prison you mean?
You'll only get prison time if you start growing a lot. You can easily grow enough for personal use in a small cupboard these days.
Thanks for the valuable information .... a small cupboard eh? And I always thought those little beauties required daylight.
We must have a quiet chat together at PB.com's next evening of liquid refreshment. Speaking of which, what's happened to Fat (he's thin really) Steve?
I've just nibbled a bit more at Cruz because after Super Tuesday here's only going to be two people standing and Rubio isn't one of them.
The complete list of states won by Cruz that Santorum didn't win:
Rubio is going to drop from the race before Cruz and all that "Please, please, please anyone but Trump please" money in the betting markets fed by people betting with heart rather than head will have to go somewhere.
So long as Cruz wins Texas?
You make a good point. There is a reality-isn't-real thing going on in the betting markets concerning Trump.
Sorry, but even as a natural lefty I can see that the Government are doing a decent job of trying to appear moderate. The living wage and the tax credit U-turn spring to mind. Of course anyone with an interest can see that people are being made to suffer, particularly the unemployed and/or disabled. But the big picture for most people is that of a steady hand on the tiller.
I agree with that. The Government is doing OK. It's made all kinds of political difficulties for itself but it's ... OK.
Usually makes sense to so after taking mix of salary and dividends up to 40% threshold - then can make employer contributions if profits allow as reduces the corporation tax bill
BUT need emergency fund either within business as retained profit or outside in cash savings as of course pensions locked up for 30 years+ so wouldn't recommend material pension savings until you know business is established and you have a solid base to lock up monies. currently company could pay £40pa in to a pension for you so plenty of time to catch up.
currently.... George needs to stop buggering with pensions for a while.
Thanks this is very helpful advice. Is that £40[k] pa that the company can pay in addition to the 40% threshold? I'm assuming you didn't mean £40. I wasn't aware of that possibility.
If I could take a decade to set up my business and get out of debt and be profitable enough to pay this much then I'm guessing we could then from the age of 43 start [assuming no changes] put £40k pa away for both my wife and I for 22 years to take through to me being 65. That would be £1.76m between us without accounting for any compound interest or inflation, or the value of the business itself.
As a eurosceptic Tory I simply do not recognise your description of the man or the situation. I disagree with Cameron on this. It is not the end of the world and I will still be a Tory when it is over, when Cameron has retired and when Osborne is PM.
Surely the only way Osborne gets to Number 10 now is with a very big Remain win. And that is extremely unlikely.
I think we will look back on the Euro Referendum like we do the last two and say "Did we really think this would affect politics in any serious way?"
That's genuinely interesting. Why go for a half-hearted, rushed, negotiation, which you surely could have guessed would be badly received by your own side?
Who is around Cameron since the GE? Were there any eurosceptics? His sole party chairman is a Chairman that is the most detached from the members. His main chief of staff Llewelyn is a europhile and is heavily involved in the negotiations. The Europe minister Liddington is a well known europhile. And then there is Osborne who took the lead cabinet role on the renegotiations (on a part time basis) along with his part time job as Chancellor and part time job as the COO/CEO of Govt. No sign of a eurosceptic in this cosy group. Just people with the same mind set oblivious to the views of the bulk of their party. Now what could go wrong with that? Oh, just to really eff it up, ignore the advice of Crosby.
If he had followed the (alleged) advice of Crosby to walk away from negotiation and delay the referendum until 2017, he would have just had months of criticism arising from a suspicion that he was going to ditch the referendum. It would have made it far more likely that the Eurosceptics would have tried to depose him. It would have also made it far more difficult to make exaggerated claims about any 'deal' from future summits - hardly sensible if he knew he was going to strongly recommend remain. It would have annoyed other European leaders who didn't want every European summit dominated by the issue. And one more thing that leavers should contemplate. An early referendum means Out means out. And an Out negotiated on Tory terms, no prospect of Labour/Libs getting involved and or trying to derail the process during a general election.
The danger for the Conservative Party, and for us Leavers generally, is a 55:45 result for In, followed by a Leaver become leader, and another referendum within five years that ends up with a 60:40 for In because voters don't like being asked the same question twice.
Yes. We will have to be very, very careful on calling a second referendum and the circumstances will have to have changed sufficiently to provide an obvious casus belli for it.
Remember: I never said I wanted this referendum. I wouldn't have called it without double-digit leads in the country for Leave, and a Leave leader willing to lead the country Out.
Two thoughts. I would caution the principle that the public don't like to be asked the same question twice. If in close proximity yes, if a long time has passed no. Don't forget in 2005 Tony Blair was still PM after having won this third consecutive landslide majority. Who could have dreamt then that not only would Labour be out of power next time but that a decade later it would be led by Jeremy Corbyn and be expected to be out of power for another DECADE? A second referendum in the next Parliament could be possible.
I agree completely on the need for a new casus belli though years of playing Paradox Grand Strategy games has taught that if you want a casus belli hard enough you can create one.
The most obvious casus belli to me would be us triggering a review under Cameron's deal and the rest of the EU ignoring it. Though the irony of that then is that if the EU don't want to give us a casus belli they'd have to concede during any reviews we call. Meaning that far from being meaningless these reviews would be tremendously powerful but only under the right leadership.
There is no causus belli now. The only reason we are having this referendum is because Dave was spooked by UKIP and a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012.
There is a casus belli now. Unlike for most of continental Europe and Ireland we have had no referendum on the changes to the EEC we voted on in 1975 since then. So now we are belatedly having one. Had we had a referendum like Labour broke their promise from the 2005 manifesto on then we wouldn't be having a new one now.
A few people *really* want a referendum. The general clamour is less apparent. We all have our own causi belli (?) but we need to be careful about inflicting them on others. You can perhaps get away with it once, but you are pushing it if you try again.
On another note, if you own your own business isn't that your pension? Make that successful and you're sorted. I wish you luck and really hope you pull it off. We need lots more people like you.
The scale of delusion that some people seem to have about another referendum is astonishing. For the vast majority of people voting in this referendum the "deal" will be an irrelevance. Those who vote to leave have "rejected" it anyway (assuming any realistic achievable agreement would have made much difference). And those voting remain will do so for more fundamental reasons than whether people are or are not allowed to send Child benefit abroad. After a remain vote the issue will be dead for a generation, and any Conservative politician with serious ambition will realise that.
The point about the deal as a casus belli is not to ask people again because they care about that, but because that justifies it (same as the SNP are looking desperately for a casus belli and will take a UK Leave vote as one).
If Cameron was today recommending a Leave vote then Leave would be the overwhelming favourite. If in a second (actually third) referendum the PM of the day was recommending a specific case for Leave (eg specifically Leave to go into the EFTA, or Leave but to sign a Free Trade Agreement) then it would be a completely different referendum to this one.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Funny, I nearly posted just that thought half an hour ago then thought "hmm, not sure about this".
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.</p>
It may partly be down to whether the EU give Cameron any breathing space after a Remain win. If they quickly try to push ahead with something against the UK's interests - especially if it is migrant related - Cameron is going to be friendless...
A few people *really* want a referendum. The general clamour is less apparent. We all have our own causi belli (?) but we need to be careful about inflicting them on others. You can perhaps get away with it once, but you are pushing it if you try again.
On another note, if you own your own business isn't that your pension? Make that successful and you're sorted. I wish you luck and really hope you pull it off. We need lots more people like you.
You're likely right, that's why I think there would need to be a clear casus belli next time.
Well, some would say their working with the Tories in the IndyRef hastened their downfall, which is majorly significant for British politics. But other than that... I think even if Leave won, Dave would struggle on until the replacement treaties etc were in place.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
I've just nibbled a bit more at Cruz because after Super Tuesday here's only going to be two people standing and Rubio isn't one of them.
The complete list of states won by Cruz that Santorum didn't win:
Rubio is going to drop from the race before Cruz and all that "Please, please, please anyone but Trump please" money in the betting markets fed by people betting with heart rather than head will have to go somewhere.
So long as Cruz wins Texas?
You make a good point. There is a reality-isn't-real thing going on in the betting markets concerning Trump.
Oh yeah, if Cruz does not come first in Texas then every single penny I've put on him is wasted as his price will springboard to 1000.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Funny, I nearly posted just that thought half an hour ago then thought "hmm, not sure about this".
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.</p>
It may partly be down to whether the EU give Cameron any breathing space after a Remain win. If they quickly try to push ahead with something against the UK's interests - especially if it is migrant related - Cameron is going to be friendless...
Provided it's one he can win, surely a post-Remain showdown with the EU would be good for Cameron (or whoever else is the Tory leader)?
As a eurosceptic Tory I simply do not recognise your description of the man or the situation. I disagree with Cameron on this. It is not the end of the world and I will still be a Tory when it is over, when Cameron has retired and when Osborne is PM.
Surely the only way Osborne gets to Number 10 now is with a very big Remain win. And that is extremely unlikely.
I think we will look back on the Euro Referendum like we do the last two and say "Did we really think this would affect politics in any serious way?"
If Ozzie balances the books with a really significant finish to this parliament he will be able to point to the sunlit uplands and say let me take you there.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Funny, I nearly posted just that thought half an hour ago then thought "hmm, not sure about this".
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.</p>
It may partly be down to whether the EU give Cameron any breathing space after a Remain win. If they quickly try to push ahead with something against the UK's interests - especially if it is migrant related - Cameron is going to be friendless...
Provided it's one he can win, surely a post-Remain showdown with the EU would be good for Cameron (or whoever else is the Tory leader)?
The EU won't be in a mood to back down though. We've had our shot at being given special treatment.
And Dave will be surrounded by people saying "we f****** told you so...."
I am afraid you are wrong about export numbers relying on invisibles. According to the Pink Book for 2014 (the last year we have numbers for) export of goods amounts for considerably more of our GDP than export of services.
Thanks but what I meant was that goods trade is heavily in the red and invisible trade is heavily in the black. This has been so for many years. The overall balance of trade is in the red, but it would be much deeper in the red if it weren't for invisibles.
Oh apologies. On that I agree with you entirely. What is worrying is that the service trade surplus is no longer able to compensate for the massive goods trade deficit.
'And the trends are such that services will exceed goods in a relatively short time. They are probably under recorded too. '
Yes, almost certainly.
Which also means the current account deficit is overstated. Something that changes in the stocks of overseas assets and liabilities also suggests. If the deficit had really been as bad as it appears to be, the UK net external asset position would probably be considerably worse.
We do need to bear in mind that our overseas investments will provide smaller returns if the rest of the world is performing badly and foreign investment in the UK will be profitable if our economy is doing well. Our outward investments are important components of our balance of payments and perversely if we are successful in attracting inward investments then the 'export' of those profits make the balance look worse even if it is providing employment and prosperity.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Funny, I nearly posted just that thought half an hour ago then thought "hmm, not sure about this".
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.</p>
It may partly be down to whether the EU give Cameron any breathing space after a Remain win. If they quickly try to push ahead with something against the UK's interests - especially if it is migrant related - Cameron is going to be friendless...
Provided it's one he can win, surely a post-Remain showdown with the EU would be good for Cameron (or whoever else is the Tory leader)?
The EU won't be in a mood to back down though. We've had our shot at being given special treatment.
And Dave will be surrounded by people saying "we f****** told you so...."
I highly doubt that when the EU has just signed a deal to give us special treatment, whether you think they mean it or not, and we agree to continue to stay based on that they will immediately turn around and say "nah we didn't mean it suckers". If anything would give a casus belli to re-open this wound it would be that.
I've just nibbled a bit more at Cruz because after Super Tuesday here's only going to be two people standing and Rubio isn't one of them.
The complete list of states won by Cruz that Santorum didn't win:
Rubio is going to drop from the race before Cruz and all that "Please, please, please anyone but Trump please" money in the betting markets fed by people betting with heart rather than head will have to go somewhere.
So long as Cruz wins Texas?
You make a good point. There is a reality-isn't-real thing going on in the betting markets concerning Trump.
Oh yeah, if Cruz does not come first in Texas then every single penny I've put on him is wasted as his price will springboard to 1000.
When you say "after Super Tuesday there's only going to be two people standing and Rubio isn't one of them" - you think Rubio is pulling out before Florida?
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Isn't that a result that the fine for 3 points has recently gone up. I believe it used to be less.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Isn't that a result that the fine for 3 points has recently gone up. I believe it used to be less.
The cost includes the mental anguish of the course.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Isn't that a result that the fine for 3 points has recently gone up. I believe it used to be less.
Yes, it used to be £60 as a fixed penalty. I would have thought that the conditional offer would have gone up at the same time to say £125 or whatever. Osborne may have missed a trick there.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Funny, I nearly posted just that thought half an hour ago then thought "hmm, not sure about this".
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.</p>
It may partly be down to whether the EU give Cameron any breathing space after a Remain win. If they quickly try to push ahead with something against the UK's interests - especially if it is migrant related - Cameron is going to be friendless...
Provided it's one he can win, surely a post-Remain showdown with the EU would be good for Cameron (or whoever else is the Tory leader)?
The EU won't be in a mood to back down though. We've had our shot at being given special treatment.
And Dave will be surrounded by people saying "we f****** told you so...."
I highly doubt that when the EU has just signed a deal to give us special treatment, whether you think they mean it or not, and we agree to continue to stay based on that they will immediately turn around and say "nah we didn't mean it suckers". If anything would give a casus belli to re-open this wound it would be that.
The deal will be stuck to to the letter. But then they will do all the stuff they've been wanting to do that upsets us, but have been holding back due to referendum. Extra banking regulation, Eurozone president etc etc.
I've just nibbled a bit more at Cruz because after Super Tuesday here's only going to be two people standing and Rubio isn't one of them.
The complete list of states won by Cruz that Santorum didn't win:
Rubio is going to drop from the race before Cruz and all that "Please, please, please anyone but Trump please" money in the betting markets fed by people betting with heart rather than head will have to go somewhere.
So long as Cruz wins Texas?
You make a good point. There is a reality-isn't-real thing going on in the betting markets concerning Trump.
Oh yeah, if Cruz does not come first in Texas then every single penny I've put on him is wasted as his price will springboard to 1000.
It'll deserve to go to 1000 if he doesn't win Texas.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Isn't that a result that the fine for 3 points has recently gone up. I believe it used to be less.
Yes, it used to be £60 as a fixed penalty. I would have thought that the conditional offer would have gone up at the same time to say £125 or whatever. Osborne may have missed a trick there.
Does Osborne take the cost of the course? I thought it went elsewhere, eg to the running of the course etc and was not supposed to be ran at a profit.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Funny, I nearly posted just that thought half an hour ago then thought "hmm, not sure about this".
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.</p>
It may partly be down to whether the EU give Cameron any breathing space after a Remain win. If they quickly try to push ahead with something against the UK's interests - especially if it is migrant related - Cameron is going to be friendless...
Provided it's one he can win, surely a post-Remain showdown with the EU would be good for Cameron (or whoever else is the Tory leader)?
The EU won't be in a mood to back down though. We've had our shot at being given special treatment.
And Dave will be surrounded by people saying "we f****** told you so...."
I highly doubt that when the EU has just signed a deal to give us special treatment, whether you think they mean it or not, and we agree to continue to stay based on that they will immediately turn around and say "nah we didn't mean it suckers". If anything would give a casus belli to re-open this wound it would be that.
The deal will be stuck to to the letter. But then they will do all the stuff they've been wanting to do that upsets us, but have been holding back due to referendum. Extra banking regulation, Eurozone president etc etc.
Usually makes sense to so after taking mix of salary and dividends up to 40% threshold - then can make employer contributions if profits allow as reduces the corporation tax bill
BUT need emergency fund either within business as retained profit or outside in cash savings as of course pensions locked up for 30 years+ so wouldn't recommend material pension savings until you know business is established and you have a solid base to lock up monies. currently company could pay £40pa in to a pension for you so plenty of time to catch up.
currently.... George needs to stop buggering with pensions for a while.
Thanks this is very helpful advice. Is that £40[k] pa that the company can pay in addition to the 40% threshold? I'm assuming you didn't mean £40. I wasn't aware of that possibility.
If I could take a decade to set up my business and get out of debt and be profitable enough to pay this much then I'm guessing we could then from the age of 43 start [assuming no changes] put £40k pa away for both my wife and I for 22 years to take through to me being 65. That would be £1.76m between us without accounting for any compound interest or inflation, or the value of the business itself.
Would that work and be enough for a couple?
Sorry yes the annual allowance is currently £40k pa AND there's the 3 year carry forward too which can allow a much larger contribution IF profits allow.
Yup and I'm doing that with some clients currently... actually the closer to age 55 for really putting in v large sums as it means less political risk whilst 'locked in' - those 55 or over can at least act if things are set to change.
Those of us with 10+ years to go are still having to take some risk of the goalposts moving again despite George's freedoms but my view is monies in now are likely to be 'safer' against those risks.
At the risk of writing a tautology, here's a prediction: Cameron will seem invulnerable right up to the moment he is brought down, then it will seem inevitable. Just like Thatcher in 1990.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.</p>
Funny, I nearly posted just that thought half an hour ago then thought "hmm, not sure about this".
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.</p>
It may partly be down to whether the EU give Cameron any breathing space after a Remain win. If they quickly try to push ahead with something against the UK's interests - especially if it is migrant related - Cameron is going to be friendless...
Provided it's one he can win, surely a post-Remain showdown with the EU would be good for Cameron (or whoever else is the Tory leader)?
The EU won't be in a mood to back down though. We've had our shot at being given special treatment.
And Dave will be surrounded by people saying "we f****** told you so...."
I highly doubt that when the EU has just signed a deal to give us special treatment, whether you think they mean it or not, and we agree to continue to stay based on that they will immediately turn around and say "nah we didn't mean it suckers". If anything would give a casus belli to re-open this wound it would be that.
The deal will be stuck to to the letter. But then they will do all the stuff they've been wanting to do that upsets us, but have been holding back due to referendum. Extra banking regulation, Eurozone president etc etc.
Doubt it on extra banking regulation as that would be an immediate thing for us to review using our new power of review and I doubt they'd want to do something that would immediately show the review to be useless. Again that would immediately embarrass everyone involved with the negotiations and give people a right to demand a new referendum. Better to kick that into the long grass.
Eurozone President has nothing to do with us. Couldn't care less if that goes ahead.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Isn't that a result that the fine for 3 points has recently gone up. I believe it used to be less.
Yes, it used to be £60 as a fixed penalty. I would have thought that the conditional offer would have gone up at the same time to say £125 or whatever. Osborne may have missed a trick there.
As a eurosceptic Tory I simply do not recognise your description of the man or the situation. I disagree with Cameron on this. It is not the end of the world and I will still be a Tory when it is over, when Cameron has retired and when Osborne is PM.
Surely the only way Osborne gets to Number 10 now is with a very big Remain win. And that is extremely unlikely.
I think we will look back on the Euro Referendum like we do the last two and say "Did we really think this would affect politics in any serious way?"
If Ozzie balances the books with a really significant finish to this parliament he will be able to point to the sunlit uplands and say let me take you there.
Indeed.
Imagine this though: Remain wins by about 7 points. Dave steps down at Christmas. Next autumn, we enter a 2008-style crash with George as PM. The public then has to decide whether to support a party who promised security through reform and delivered neither, (and Europe would need financial help), a pacifist party whose response is to nationalise the banks with printed money AGAIN, the Lib Dems who increasingly resemble a small charitable society, and a tired, one dimensional UKIP party embittered by their defeat and riven with recriminations.
We would probably end up with Boris as s Trump-like response
I wonder how bad things would have to be for Rubio for him to decide to pull out after Tuesday.
Cruz and Rubio are pinning all on a 'brokered' convention. And you have to be in it to win it...
To be on the nomination ballot you have to win at least 8 contests, where is Rubio going to win 8 contests ? Likewise Cruz needs another 6 with Iowa and Texas.
If I was a Eurosceptic voting on purely Eurosceptic grounds last person I'd want to be next Tory leader is Boris. I suspect if this came around again then if Boris were PM he'd be pro-Remain. He's only just pro-Leave when he's jockeying for position, if he had that position already he'd definitely "go native".
I'm not embarrassed to ask for info from those who might have it at their fingertips. Why should I be?
Britain's balance of payments is up the creek, as the skyscrapers in the City get taller and taller. It's obvious how it's going to end.
But still, if someone can post the country's rankings as exporter and importer of manufactured goods, or even better, with actual £ figures, I'd be be grateful.
Why do you think this one increasingly small segment of our trade is particularly important to our children's future? I linked to David Smith's column this morning where he mentioned in passing that our exports of services doubled between 2006 and 2014. When you think about how the Internet is already dominating our lives we seem very well set for continued growth in exports and faster growth than most of the rest of the EU, including Germany.
Your view of our future prospects is excessively pessimistic and those sky scrapers in London will play an important part in that future.
I'd always be careful about David Smith and especially when he doesn't give actual data.
The UK's exports of services increased from £146bn in 2006 to £220bn in 2014 - so more like a 50% increase. The UK's surplus in services though did double, from £43bn in 2006 to £89bn in 2014.
The UK's continual trade deficit isn't the fault of exporters, either of services or goods (which are higher than services exports and which have also increased during that period), but because the UK's debt fuelled overconsumption of imported consumer tat.
I would warn against assuming that the UK will continue to register trade surpluses in services - as you say the internet is increasingly dominating lives and there's no reason why services shouldn't be increasingly provided by countries with lower cost bases and lower regulation than the UK.
So our surplus did double. Are you we he getting caught on semantics? As for debt fuelled tat - you need to make your mind up: either this debt is fuelling a housing bubble or it is buying tat. ''Britain is not in the grip of a "debt-fuelled recovery" the Governor of the Bank of England has said, stressing the UK's economic growth remains sustainable.'' (Telegraph Jan 2016)
We should remember that we are currently exporting a vast array of high end expensive motor cars. For instance massive inward investment by TATA is resulting in billions worth of exports. We should be wary of upsetting our popularity for inward investment.
I wonder how bad things would have to be for Rubio for him to decide to pull out after Tuesday.
Cruz and Rubio are pinning all on a 'brokered' convention. And you have to be in it to win it...
To be on the nomination ballot you have to win at least 8 contests, where is Rubio going to win 8 contests ? Likewise Cruz needs another 6 with Iowa and Texas.
I wonder how bad things would have to be for Rubio for him to decide to pull out after Tuesday.
Cruz and Rubio are pinning all on a 'brokered' convention. And you have to be in it to win it...
To be on the nomination ballot you have to win at least 8 contests, where is Rubio going to win 8 contests ? Likewise Cruz needs another 6 with Iowa and Texas.
Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico...
That's 3, so another 3 for Cruz or 5 for Rubio missing.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
1 mph too high. 68 and you would have walked...
Is that true? I thought that was an urban legend.
+10% + 2mph is the charging threshold, recommended by ACPO. At 68 it'd be a coin-toss.
I pointed out to @another_richard yesterday that household debt has gone down every year in the UK very signficantly and the pace of household debt going down is increasing not slowing yet he's still banging on about a "debt fueled overconsumption of imported consumer tat".
Shows a general ignorance anyway as anyone who understood first year undergraduate economics knows that imports are a negative not a positive in calculating GDP.
Then again a first year undergraduate economics student who posted that government spending was going up under this government based on nominal figures over time without taking into account inflation would fail their coursework anyway. Any first year student should understand you need to look at real figures or proportion of GDP when making comparison over time and that nominal figures are meaningless.
I've just nibbled a bit more at Cruz because after Super Tuesday here's only going to be two people standing and Rubio isn't one of them.
The complete list of states won by Cruz that Santorum didn't win:
Rubio is going to drop from the race before Cruz and all that "Please, please, please anyone but Trump please" money in the betting markets fed by people betting with heart rather than head will have to go somewhere.
So long as Cruz wins Texas?
You make a good point. There is a reality-isn't-real thing going on in the betting markets concerning Trump.
Oh yeah, if Cruz does not come first in Texas then every single penny I've put on him is wasted as his price will springboard to 1000.
When you say "after Super Tuesday there's only going to be two people standing and Rubio isn't one of them" - you think Rubio is pulling out before Florida?
He'll continue to Florida put he'll be a candidate in name only after Tuesday.
!!! How many free commuter papers can the market hold ? They have to be careful or else they might end up like the Independent being swallowed by the i.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
1 mph too high. 68 and you would have walked...
Is that true? I thought that was an urban legend.
+10% + 2mph is the charging threshold, recommended by ACPO. At 68 it'd be a coin-toss.
There were recent reports that one police force were talking about ignoring those & fine for +1 mph above...I can imagine the lawyers would love for them to try to implement that & make pro sections stick.
I wonder how bad things would have to be for Rubio for him to decide to pull out after Tuesday.
Cruz and Rubio are pinning all on a 'brokered' convention. And you have to be in it to win it...
To be on the nomination ballot you have to win at least 8 contests, where is Rubio going to win 8 contests ? Likewise Cruz needs another 6 with Iowa and Texas.
All rules are malleable. I wouldn't put much store in them. If the GOP think they can stop Trump without imploding, they might.
Or run an Ind. GOP candidate against him in the general, if they can't.
!!! How many free commuter papers can the market hold ? They have to be careful or else they might end up like the Independent being swallowed by the i.
It isn't another freemium model. They are trying to hook people with free then discounted, but It will eventually be 50p.
As a eurosceptic Tory I simply do not recognise your description of the man or the situation. I disagree with Cameron on this. It is not the end of the world and I will still be a Tory when it is over, when Cameron has retired and when Osborne is PM.
Surely the only way Osborne gets to Number 10 now is with a very big Remain win. And that is extremely unlikely.
I think we will look back on the Euro Referendum like we do the last two and say "Did we really think this would affect politics in any serious way?"
If Ozzie balances the books with a really significant finish to this parliament he will be able to point to the sunlit uplands and say let me take you there.
Indeed.
Imagine this though: Remain wins by about 7 points. Dave steps down at Christmas. Next autumn, we enter a 2008-style crash with George as PM. The public then has to decide whether to support a party who promised security through reform and delivered neither, (and Europe would need financial help), a pacifist party whose response is to nationalise the banks with printed money AGAIN, the Lib Dems who increasingly resemble a small charitable society, and a tired, one dimensional UKIP party embittered by their defeat and riven with recriminations.
We would probably end up with Boris as s Trump-like response
I'm not a Boris fan, but if Boris is our Trump we are in good shape.
Speaking as a centrist currently in the Conservative orbit I think Alastair is right about this.
Labour are so far from the centre as to be out of sight. The Conservatives have made a move towards the centre as expressed in Cameron's last conference speech. There has been some tangible work in government too - I think particularly of Gove's dismantling of Grayling's legacy at the MoJ. But if the same Grayling (or someone of his stamp) is the next Conservative leader, that's the end of the Conservative occupation of any part of the centre ground.
I expect to see more of the same in a couple of weeks when the pension benefits of the super rich will be curtailed to protect public spending from the consequences of disappointing growth.
"Super rich" = salaried people working very hard, in high-stress jobs, to build their careers and provide for their families who earn between £40k and £75k.
If Osborne steals my pension, I will hound him to his grave.
No super rich means people like a friend of mine who paid £100k into his pension fund from capital last year and saved £20k of tax that mugs like me has to pay.
Then that would be fine. But he won't save much money just targeting them.
I have no source of income other than my salary (which I work bloody hard for) and my pensions savings are entirely dependent upon my PAYE contributions of 5% employer and 5% employee (me) each month, and the tax relief I get on that.
Just 5%, Mr Royale. You ain't saving enough. Double that and add a bit, then you might be comfortable in retirement and able to maintain your standard of living.
Alternatively, take up drinking, smoking and hard drugs when you hit 60. You'll be through your savings within five years of retirement, but - boy - will you have had a good time.
And, annuities are very good value if you do so.
Is it possible to take up excessive drinking, smoking, drug taking and multiple extreme sports immediately before you convert your pension fund into an annuity.
And then give them all up as soon as your annuity rate has been agreed ?
I predict it will be free in a couple of years...free from clogging up the news stands that is....
How does The Mirror offering a free - or pennyworth cheap - alternative to er.. The Mirror help sales of ummm... The Mirror?
No idea. It is totally bonkers. All the other papers are trying to work out how to make digital work for them & the mirror thinks the shrinking dead tree market is prime for a new title.
I wonder how bad things would have to be for Rubio for him to decide to pull out after Tuesday.
Cruz and Rubio are pinning all on a 'brokered' convention. And you have to be in it to win it...
To be on the nomination ballot you have to win at least 8 contests, where is Rubio going to win 8 contests ? Likewise Cruz needs another 6 with Iowa and Texas.
All rules are malleable. I wouldn't put much store in them. If the GOP think they can stop Trump without imploding, they might.
Or run an Ind. GOP candidate against him in the general, if they can't.
I know, I read their proposal to put Rick Perry as the Ind.GOP candidate, the GOP establishment reeks of incompetence and out of touchness.
'And the trends are such that services will exceed goods in a relatively short time. They are probably under recorded too. '
Yes, almost certainly.
Which also means the current account deficit is overstated. Something that changes in the stocks of overseas assets and liabilities also suggests. If the deficit had really been as bad as it appears to be, the UK net external asset position would probably be considerably worse.
Agreed. I have never really bought the idea we are so much better at investing overseas than overseas are here. It is illogical that such a trend could continue indefinitely.
Completely off topic. Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60 I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85. The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100. Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
Isn't that a result that the fine for 3 points has recently gone up. I believe it used to be less.
Yes, it used to be £60 as a fixed penalty. I would have thought that the conditional offer would have gone up at the same time to say £125 or whatever. Osborne may have missed a trick there.
Don't give him ideas....
The courses are run by people like the AA. They take the money. Clearly the courses do not run themselves or come for free. Don't fines go to the police?
As an aside, our current account and trade deficits will fall markedly in the next two years almost irrespective of any government actions thanks to the drops in the price of commodities. By contrast, the Middle East, Russia, Canada, Australia and Latin America will all swing from surplus to deficit.
Comments
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan 5h5 hours ago
Spurs now winning.
Of course they are.
I was just wondering how my day could possibly get worse.
The chances of him standing down at a time of his choosing (like, Autumn 2019) are now <50%, IMHO.
goods trade: deficit £124bn;
services trade: surplus £89bn.
This imbalance has been present for many years.
I'd love to know the import and export figures for manufactured goods in particular (not all goods), over the years, but am still searching.
As a new, small employer we only start auto enrolment next year.
BUT need emergency fund either within business as retained profit or outside in cash savings as of course pensions locked up for 30 years+ so wouldn't recommend material pension savings until you know business is established and you have a solid base to lock up monies. currently company could pay £40pa in to a pension for you so plenty of time to catch up.
currently.... George needs to stop buggering with pensions for a while.
I prioritise my mortgage and repaying debts too, but have always paid the minimum 5% into a pension to ensure I get the employer "bonus" contributions.
Yes, almost certainly.
Which also means the current account deficit is overstated. Something that changes in the stocks of overseas assets and liabilities also suggests. If the deficit had really been as bad as it appears to be, the UK net external asset position would probably be considerably worse.
''Iran elections: Hassan Rouhani hails 'new chapter' as first results show sweeping gains for moderates''
You can easily grow enough for personal use in a small cupboard these days.
To retire at a moment of his own choosing Cameron needs a Remain win. Some say that it needs to be a strong win but I'm not entirely convinced by that. If Cameron has just been endorsed by the electorate then it doesn't seem that likely, to me, that his party will immediately ditch him.
But , then, he would need to survive until whatever date or set of circumstances he has in mind. OK, that is <50%.
Btw, I wouldn't say Thatcher looked unassailable right to the end. After Lawson's resignation she was clearly vulnerable, iirc.
The UK's exports of services increased from £146bn in 2006 to £220bn in 2014 - so more like a 50% increase. The UK's surplus in services though did double, from £43bn in 2006 to £89bn in 2014.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/tradeingoodsmretsallbopeu2013timeseriesspreadsheet
The UK's continual trade deficit isn't the fault of exporters, either of services or goods (which are higher than services exports and which have also increased during that period), but because the UK's debt fuelled overconsumption of imported consumer tat.
I would warn against assuming that the UK will continue to register trade surpluses in services - as you say the internet is increasingly dominating lives and there's no reason why services shouldn't be increasingly provided by countries with lower cost bases and lower regulation than the UK.
NBC
Tennessee
GOP
Trump 40
Cruz 22
Rubio 19
Carson 9
Kasich 6
Dems
Clinton 60
Sanders 44
Texas
GOP
Cruz 39
Trump 26
Rubio 16
Carson 8
Kasich 6
Dems
Clinton 59
Sanders 28
Georgia
GOP
Trump 30
Rubio 23
Cruz 23
Kasich 9
Carson 9
Dems
Clinton 64
Sanders 30
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/polls-trump-clinton-ahead-super-tuesday-states-n527256
You make a good point. There is a reality-isn't-real thing going on in the betting markets concerning Trump.
Thanks for the valuable information .... a small cupboard eh? And I always thought those little beauties required daylight.
We must have a quiet chat together at PB.com's next evening of liquid refreshment. Speaking of which, what's happened to Fat (he's thin really) Steve?
If I could take a decade to set up my business and get out of debt and be profitable enough to pay this much then I'm guessing we could then from the age of 43 start [assuming no changes] put £40k pa away for both my wife and I for 22 years to take through to me being 65. That would be £1.76m between us without accounting for any compound interest or inflation, or the value of the business itself.
Would that work and be enough for a couple?
Virginia
GOP
Trump 40
Rubio 27
Cruz 22
Kasich 6
Carson 4
Dems
Clinton 59
Sanders 39
Texas
GOP
Cruz 42
Trump 31
Rubio 19
Kasich 4
Carson 4
Dems
Clinton 61
Sanders 37
Georgia
GOP
Trump 40
Cruz 29
Rubio 22
Carson 7
Kasich 2
Dems
Clinton 63
Sanders 35
http://www.cbsnews.com/feature/cbs-news-polls/
Yes, we must.
Was Fat Steve ever fat?
Tall Steve would be far more accurate
On another note, if you own your own business isn't that your pension? Make that successful and you're sorted. I wish you luck and really hope you pull it off. We need lots more people like you.
If Cameron was today recommending a Leave vote then Leave would be the overwhelming favourite. If in a second (actually third) referendum the PM of the day was recommending a specific case for Leave (eg specifically Leave to go into the EFTA, or Leave but to sign a Free Trade Agreement) then it would be a completely different referendum to this one.
Thank you.
Got zapped for speeding last month, doing 69 in a 60
I have had to book myself onto a 'speed awareness course' today which costs £85.
The alternative is 3 points and a fine of £100.
Seems a bit odd to me that the cost of not taking the points is less than the cost of taking them.
And Dave will be surrounded by people saying "we f****** told you so...."
I would have thought that the conditional offer would have gone up at the same time to say £125 or whatever.
Osborne may have missed a trick there.
Trump 368 (52%)
Cruz 183 (26%)
Rubio 105 (15%)
Carson 22 (3%)
Kasich 20 (3%)
Oths 7 (1%)
Yup and I'm doing that with some clients currently... actually the closer to age 55 for really putting in v large sums as it means less political risk whilst 'locked in' - those 55 or over can at least act if things are set to change.
Those of us with 10+ years to go are still having to take some risk of the goalposts moving again despite George's freedoms but my view is monies in now are likely to be 'safer' against those risks.
Eurozone President has nothing to do with us. Couldn't care less if that goes ahead.
Imagine this though: Remain wins by about 7 points. Dave steps down at Christmas. Next autumn, we enter a 2008-style crash with George as PM. The public then has to decide whether to support a party who promised security through reform and delivered neither, (and Europe would need financial help), a pacifist party whose response is to nationalise the banks with printed money AGAIN, the Lib Dems who increasingly resemble a small charitable society, and a tired, one dimensional UKIP party embittered by their defeat and riven with recriminations.
We would probably end up with Boris as s Trump-like response
As for debt fuelled tat - you need to make your mind up: either this debt is fuelling a housing bubble or it is buying tat.
''Britain is not in the grip of a "debt-fuelled recovery" the Governor of the Bank of England has said, stressing the UK's economic growth remains sustainable.''
(Telegraph Jan 2016)
We should remember that we are currently exporting a vast array of high end expensive motor cars. For instance massive inward investment by TATA is resulting in billions worth of exports.
We should be wary of upsetting our popularity for inward investment.
Like they didn't notice the endorsements to Rubio from every elected official and local press these few months.
Shows a general ignorance anyway as anyone who understood first year undergraduate economics knows that imports are a negative not a positive in calculating GDP.
Then again a first year undergraduate economics student who posted that government spending was going up under this government based on nominal figures over time without taking into account inflation would fail their coursework anyway. Any first year student should understand you need to look at real figures or proportion of GDP when making comparison over time and that nominal figures are meaningless.
How many free commuter papers can the market hold ?
They have to be careful or else they might end up like the Independent being swallowed by the i.
Or run an Ind. GOP candidate against him in the general, if they can't.
And then give them all up as soon as your annuity rate has been agreed ?