My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fair. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
The Uber driver must be a relatively short lived phenomenon - in 10 or 15 years they will be replaced by driver-less taxis I would have thought.
What if the public decide they'd rather be driven by a real person who is familiar with the area they're working in, as opposed to a real person who doesn't know, or a driverless vehicle?
Those companies and organisations whose products and services facilitate criminal and terrorist activity should cooperate fully with police and intelligence services.
Do you specialise in fatuous tosh, or is it more of a sideline ? What this proposal does is allows the police and secret agencies to go on fishing expeditions without asking a Minister first, something that was explicitly guaranteed, and in fact throwing in my face by Tory loyalists when I criticized an early draft of this law... or do you think everything should be visible to the police without judicial oversight ?
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
Is Heathrow expansion the same as airport expansion. I'm for the latter in London - but no desire to see it at LHR which is a nightmare to get to or connect with.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fair. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
The Uber driver must be a relatively short lived phenomenon - in 10 or 15 years they will be replaced by driver-less taxis I would have thought.
What if the public decide they'd rather be driven by a real person who is familiar with the area they're working in, as opposed to a real person who doesn't know, or a driverless vehicle?
I think directory inquiry services are all done for once the current lot of OAPs snuff it.
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
@PolhomeEditor: Labour's slogan for the local govt elections will be 'Standing Up, Not Standing By', I'm told. A source said: "I don't know what it means."
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fair. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
The Uber driver must be a relatively short lived phenomenon - in 10 or 15 years they will be replaced by driver-less taxis I would have thought.
What if the public decide they'd rather be driven by a real person who is familiar with the area they're working in, as opposed to a real person who doesn't know, or a driverless vehicle?
I think directory inquiry services are all done for once the current lot of OAPs snuff it.
Even my old folks have smart phones / ipads. They google everything.
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fare. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you. But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
Yes, their expensive bespoke vehicles and regulations have made them uncompetitive. Uber with drivers is though just a temporary threat. When driverless rental cars come into operation well within the next 10 years, black cabs are finished...
@PolhomeEditor: Labour's slogan for the local govt elections will be 'Standing Up, Not Standing By', I'm told. A source said: "I don't know what it means."
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
Galloway?
UKIP, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the BNP and George Galloway all also oppose a third runway at Heathrow. George Galloway supports a new runway at Gatwick.
I'm not sure about Winston McKenzie, the Women's Equality Party, Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol, the Communist League or Britain First.
Two Afghan migrants are arrested for 'sexually assaulting' two young girls at a German swimming pool where a group of schoolgirls had previously been molested by refugees
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
@PolhomeEditor: Labour's slogan for the local govt elections will be 'Standing Up, Not Standing By', I'm told. A source said: "I don't know what it means."
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fare. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you. But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
Yes, their expensive bespoke vehicles and regulations have made them uncompetitive. Uber with drivers is though just a temporary threat. When driverless rental cars come into operation well within the next 10 years, black cabs are finished...
When did the NHS decide to appoint itself as an urban planner? Many people would have been hoping the scope of the NHS would reduce in size if anything, not increase. I can't remember this being in any party's manifesto.
"“Healthy towns” housing nearly 200,000 people will be built across the country as the NHS starts urban planning for the first time."
Apparently Sadiq Khan AND Zac Goldsmith have now come out against Uber
The writer of this piece is quite correct: it's utterly stupid politics. Londoners LOVE uber. It is transformative. It helps less-well-off people more than anyone: single mothers with kids, nightworkers, lateworkers, people in poorer parts of town with bad public transport.
Pair of pillocks. Lets cut the supply of Uber, and as a result increase the price of private hire. I wonder what old man Goldsmith would have made of this?
There are currently 50,000 uber drivers in London, apparently. 21,000 black cabs.
I suppose mini-cab drivers are coming to Uber as the freedom they get seems to be attractive.
I see people in the taxi queue at stations and feel like shouting at them to walk 20yds down the street and get an uber for 1/x the price.
I love uber.
I feel sorry for black cab drivers. I've recently seen lines of them at Paddington: queueing an hour to get a fair. It must be awful to see your career collapse all around you.
But then I feel sorry for my fellow journalists and photographers. And musicians. And I felt sorry for Cornish tin miners. And typewriter makers. And farriers. And wet nurses. And town criers. And costermongers. And running footmen. And the Neanderthals.
The Uber driver must be a relatively short lived phenomenon - in 10 or 15 years they will be replaced by driver-less taxis I would have thought.
What if the public decide they'd rather be driven by a real person who is familiar with the area they're working in, as opposed to a real person who doesn't know, or a driverless vehicle?
I think directory inquiry services are all done for once the current lot of OAPs snuff it.
As a quite OAP I don't know anyone who uses Directory Inquirie now.Or the phone book come to that. Can't read it anyway; print's too small. My wife and her friends from student days communicate via their iPads.I do have two cousins in the 90's with to whom I make phone calls.
Just caught R5 presenter get shirty about the fact only 1 in 7 Blue Plaques are women. Her reasoning for this was that it must be modern day sexism, because women must be being nominated and rejected. Her impartial educated informed stance was it was a disgrace.
Look, luv, if it'll keep you quiet, you can have your own blue plaque for services to washing up.
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
Is Heathrow expansion the same as airport expansion. I'm for the latter in London - but no desire to see it at LHR which is a nightmare to get to or connect with.
Brand new Gatwick Express trains, seen on test at Crewe the other day:
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
Is Heathrow expansion the same as airport expansion. I'm for the latter in London - but no desire to see it at LHR which is a nightmare to get to or connect with.
Brand new Gatwick Express trains, seen on test at Crewe the other day:
Just caught R5 presenter get shirty about the fact only 1 in 7 Blue Plaques are women. Her reasoning for this was that it must be modern day sexism, because women must be being nominated and rejected. Her impartial educated informed stance was it was a disgrace.
Look, luv, if it'll keep you quiet, you can have your own blue plaque for services to washing up.
What?
The fact that the majority of famous UK historical figures are male, meaning there will be far more blue plaques for men, seemed to be lost on her. I am surprised she didn't also say it is a disgrace not enough were for those of black, asians ethnicity etc.
Heywood confirms to Bernard Jenkin that the restrictions only apply to briefing and speeches and Bernard Jenkin seemed taken aback and pleasantly surprised saying that it looks like it will be a short select committee meeting. Norman Smith follows up on BBC by saying that leave's hope that this would be a source of complaint against remain is no longer an issue
My colleagues are also lamenting the mayoral election. All are basically 'pro growth', and all have said that they cannot support someone who opposed Heathrow expansion.
That counts Khan and Goldsmith out. What are the alternative options?
Is Heathrow expansion the same as airport expansion. I'm for the latter in London - but no desire to see it at LHR which is a nightmare to get to or connect with.
Brand new Gatwick Express trains, seen on test at Crewe the other day:
Just caught R5 presenter get shirty about the fact only 1 in 7 Blue Plaques are women. Her reasoning for this was that it must be modern day sexism, because women must be being nominated and rejected. Her impartial educated informed stance was it was a disgrace.
Look, luv, if it'll keep you quiet, you can have your own blue plaque for services to washing up.
What?
The fact that the majority of famous UK historical figures are male, meaning there will be far more blue plaques for men, seemed to be lost on her. I am surprised she didn't also say it is a disgrace not enough were for those of black, asians ethnicity etc.
Slackers. They should have all been pulling their finger out years ago and finding Radium and shit like that. How difficult could it be?
So Gove is absolutely correct but would he really want us in a single market where the French could give indirect financial assistance, where the Germans can use quality standards to exclude competition or where the Italians do what Italians do best? Surely not. I want to Leave but I have never understood the obsession of Kippers with the CJE.
Denmark 1992 would be a fair bet.
Promises made to Denmark in 1992 were broken. EU leaders pledged that EU citizenship would “not in any way take the place of national citizenship”. Less than a decade later, the ECJ declared that EU citizenship would “be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States”. That claim has now been repeated by EU courts on 80 occasions, most recently in a case concerning the government’s faltering attempts to deport Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law.
Denmark was also promised that it would remain in control of Danish citizenship. Yet the ECJ has said it can decide the conditions under which a person loses Danish citizenship. Our Supreme Court said last year that the ECJ’s decisions fly “in the face of the clear language” of the promises made to Denmark in 1992.
That isn't a bit of tinkering, or "filling in", that is wrecking an agreement made by the Council of Europe.. much like the one Cameron is waving around at the moment in fact
@PolhomeEditor: Labour's slogan for the local govt elections will be 'Standing Up, Not Standing By', I'm told. A source said: "I don't know what it means."
Jeremy Corbyn: Standing up for the EU by, er, mumbling about it on the sidelines.
@thequentinletts: Sir Cover-Up says ALL public body employees - not just civil servants - bound by pro-EU propaganda ruling. That means weather forecasters!
Economic news has been quite a bit more positive than expected in the last 48 hours. GDP numbers out of Europe were surprisingly good, and the PMIs have not been anywhere near as bad as people expected. Essentially, the fear that China's slowdown would infect the world has been receding.
@PippaCrerar: Boris's own report on future of London economy admits leaving EU would be "economic shock" that'd "depress" activity https://t.co/1xp0E62PHH
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
@thequentinletts: Sir Cover-Up says ALL public body employees - not just civil servants - bound by pro-EU propaganda ruling. That means weather forecasters!
Only applies to briefings and speeches - can't see weather forecasters being interested
The Economist gets this wrong (in common with some others). As Philip Thompson pointed out yesterday, the most reliable indicator of euroscepticism is a high level of Conservative voting.
Places like Sandwell and South Tyneside may fit the stereotype of "left-behind" areas. But, places like Bracknell Forest, Peterborough, Swindon, Havering, Bromley, let alone whole counties like Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, are both economically dynamic, and Conservative-voting.
What is meant by Euroscepticism? I know that sounds obvious but as a guess the people for whom it is the number one issue are generally Tories. However if you look at voting patterns in general, poorer areas may be more likely to support Brexit. I suppose we will see.
In this context Eurosceptic = Leave, Europhile = Remain.
I don't agree with the terminology, I think you can be Eurosceptic and for Remain, but that is how YouGov reported it.
@PippaCrerar: Boris's own report on future of London economy admits leaving EU would be "economic shock" that'd "depress" activity https://t.co/1xp0E62PHH
I read that earlier. It's very damaging for LEAVE. If it gets wide traction I think it's almost curtains for the OUTERS.
Notice "economic shock" and "depress" are in quotes.
@PippaCrerar: Mayor's report predicts London economy would grow to £640bn in reformed EU, but under Brexit would be £614 bn - "second best" scenario.
But we don't have a reformed EU (or option to vote for it), so that analysis is null and void.
I suspect London is the part of Britain that would be negatively impacted by Brexit. And I suspect that London (excepting the Kent and Essex borders) will be by far the least Eurosceptic come referendum.
So Gove is absolutely correct but would he really want us in a single market where the French could give indirect financial assistance, where the Germans can use quality standards to exclude competition or where the Italians do what Italians do best? Surely not. I want to Leave but I have never understood the obsession of Kippers with the CJE.
Denmark 1992 would be a fair bet.
Promises made to Denmark in 1992 were broken. EU leaders pledged that EU citizenship would “not in any way take the place of national citizenship”. Less than a decade later, the ECJ declared that EU citizenship would “be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States”. That claim has now been repeated by EU courts on 80 occasions, most recently in a case concerning the government’s faltering attempts to deport Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law.
Denmark was also promised that it would remain in control of Danish citizenship. Yet the ECJ has said it can decide the conditions under which a person loses Danish citizenship. Our Supreme Court said last year that the ECJ’s decisions fly “in the face of the clear language” of the promises made to Denmark in 1992.
That isn't a bit of tinkering, or "filling in", that is wrecking an agreement made by the Council of Europe.. much like the one Cameron is waving around at the moment in fact
You don't even have to cross the sea to Denmark to see ECJ judicial activism in action. Just look at what they did to poor old John Major's Mastricht opt outs.
I afraid the ECJ of David's idea is a very long way from reality.
The Economist gets this wrong (in common with some others). As Philip Thompson pointed out yesterday, the most reliable indicator of euroscepticism is a high level of Conservative voting.
Places like Sandwell and South Tyneside may fit the stereotype of "left-behind" areas. But, places like Bracknell Forest, Peterborough, Swindon, Havering, Bromley, let alone whole counties like Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, are both economically dynamic, and Conservative-voting.
What is meant by Euroscepticism? I know that sounds obvious but as a guess the people for whom it is the number one issue are generally Tories. However if you look at voting patterns in general, poorer areas may be more likely to support Brexit. I suppose we will see.
In this context Eurosceptic = Leave, Europhile = Remain.
I don't agree with the terminology, I think you can be Eurosceptic and for Remain, but that is how YouGov reported it.
That seems very strange. One can easily be eurosceptic while wish to remain in the EU. William Hague while party leader was considered eurosceptic, but his chief slogan was "in Europe but not run by Europe".
A europhile is something else, someone who thinks the project of european integration is a good thing in itself that has not gone far enough, with the nation state being nothing more than an anachronism, best consigned to the dustbin of history.
@PippaCrerar: Mayor's report predicts London economy would grow to £640bn in reformed EU, but under Brexit would be £614 bn - "second best" scenario.
But we don't have a reformed EU (or option to vote for it), so that analysis is null and void.
I suspect London is the part of Britain that would be negatively impacted by Brexit. And I suspect that London (excepting the Kent and Essex borders) will be by far the least Eurosceptic come referendum.
I don't doubt either of those statements. Just pointing out we don't have a reformed EU or any prospect of it incurring. In fact, Cameron's deal might have actually made it worse for London, with the issue of protection of the City in doubt.
Starting to put money on Clinton. She'll win big tonight and therefore be the nominee, barring the FBI. Trump looks certain to be the GOP nominee.
I do hope so:
Back: Hillary Clinton 1.82 £1,151.00 £940.85
Decided to get her to ~0 after ploughing into Trump.
You think Trump will beat Clinton? It seems unlikely to me, but this is such a weird year, who really knows.
One thing we do know is the mud-slinging will be awesome. Clinton team will be digging into every finance record and deal Trump has ever entered into. While Trump will be going after all the old clinton baggage.
I can't see him surviving the debates with her, without turning on her in some kind of petulant tantrum at some point. She'll be coached to egg him on. All good fun!
@PippaCrerar: Boris's own report on future of London economy admits leaving EU would be "economic shock" that'd "depress" activity https://t.co/1xp0E62PHH
I read that earlier. It's very damaging for LEAVE. If it gets wide traction I think it's almost curtains for the OUTERS.
Misleading tweet. Headline of article is "London has nothing to fear from quitting the EU"
@PippaCrerar: Boris's own report on future of London economy admits leaving EU would be "economic shock" that'd "depress" activity https://t.co/1xp0E62PHH
I read that earlier. It's very damaging for LEAVE. If it gets wide traction I think it's almost curtains for the OUTERS.
Scenario 1: London grows to £640bn by 2040 Scenario 2: London grows to £615bn by 2040
Over that timespan that's MoE stuff. Both forecasts showed uncertainty in leaving the EU and staying in it. Both forecasts will be chock a full of assumptions.
What we can conclude is that Brexit doesn't make much difference either way: it's neither a disaster nor a panacea.
London would still be great, the world's financial centre and life would go on.
@PippaCrerar: Boris's own report on future of London economy admits leaving EU would be "economic shock" that'd "depress" activity https://t.co/1xp0E62PHH
I read that earlier. It's very damaging for LEAVE. If it gets wide traction I think it's almost curtains for the OUTERS.
For a lot of voters the referendum isn't about money, it's about identity.
@PippaCrerar: Boris's own report on future of London economy admits leaving EU would be "economic shock" that'd "depress" activity https://t.co/1xp0E62PHH
I read that earlier. It's very damaging for LEAVE. If it gets wide traction I think it's almost curtains for the OUTERS.
Misleading tweet. Headline of article is "London has nothing to fear from quitting the EU"
You expect a non-misleading tweet posted on here from pb.com's arch EUphile in chief?
Starting to put money on Clinton. She'll win big tonight and therefore be the nominee, barring the FBI. Trump looks certain to be the GOP nominee.
I do hope so:
Back: Hillary Clinton 1.82 £1,151.00 £940.85
Decided to get her to ~0 after ploughing into Trump.
You think Trump will beat Clinton? It seems unlikely to me, but this is such a weird year, who really knows.
One thing we do know is the mud-slinging will be awesome. Clinton team will be digging into every finance record and deal Trump has ever entered into. While Trump will be going after all the old clinton baggage.
I can't see him surviving the debates with her, without turning on her in some kind of petulant tantrum at some point. She'll be coached to egg him on. All good fun!
I don't know at this point, I'm just hoping its Trump-Clinton at this point ! (Or Cruz-Clinton unlikely though ); anyone but Rubio/Sanders really !
if you actually read Dr Gerard Lyons’ report, that isn’t what he says at all. The BSE press release arrives at that figure by quoting the section of Lyons’ report about the “best case” scenario of Britain remaining in a reformed EU. They conveniently forget to mention that Lyons concludes the EU has not been reformed by Cameron’s renegotiation.
So what does Lyons actually say? In the scenario of the EU staying unreformed and Britain then deciding to Leave, he predicts London would be £120 billion better off. His personal Twitter account gives a more accurate reflection of his position:
@PippaCrerar: Boris's own report on future of London economy admits leaving EU would be "economic shock" that'd "depress" activity https://t.co/1xp0E62PHH
I read that earlier. It's very damaging for LEAVE. If it gets wide traction I think it's almost curtains for the OUTERS.
Misleading tweet. Headline of article is "London has nothing to fear from quitting the EU"
You expect a non-misleading tweet posted on here from pb.com's arch EUphile in chief?
Starting to put money on Clinton. She'll win big tonight and therefore be the nominee, barring the FBI. Trump looks certain to be the GOP nominee.
I do hope so:
Back: Hillary Clinton 1.82 £1,151.00 £940.85
Decided to get her to ~0 after ploughing into Trump.
You think Trump will beat Clinton? It seems unlikely to me, but this is such a weird year, who really knows.
One thing we do know is the mud-slinging will be awesome. Clinton team will be digging into every finance record and deal Trump has ever entered into. While Trump will be going after all the old clinton baggage.
I can't see him surviving the debates with her, without turning on her in some kind of petulant tantrum at some point. She'll be coached to egg him on. All good fun!
Sanders beats Trump beats Clinton beats RubiCruz beats Sanders.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
So you are taking partial unrepresentative quotes as well. You Eurofanatics must be getting really desperate when you misrepresent a report so comprehensively.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
Well a long term horizon of ~ 20+ years is the correct one to view the merits of in or out of the EU with. Not the next 6 months (Whichever side you're on)
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
@PippaCrerar: Mayor's report predicts London economy would grow to £640bn in reformed EU, but under Brexit would be £614 bn - "second best" scenario.
But we don't have a reformed EU (or option to vote for it), so that analysis is null and void.
I suspect London is the part of Britain that would be negatively impacted by Brexit. And I suspect that London (excepting the Kent and Essex borders) will be by far the least Eurosceptic come referendum.
Interesting. Our euro-centric, services dominated economy perhaps makes membership more vital. Of course there are many of us, often on the left, who wish it wasn't like that and our was more balanced and geared to selling things in growing markets. But it isn't.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
So you are taking partial unrepresentative quotes as well. You Eurofanatics must be getting really desperate when you misrepresent a report so comprehensively.
Excuse me, I quoted - for the purpose of illuminating a point that had come up downthread - an entire paragraph (bar a sentence about who was commissioned to do the work). That quote is not partial. I was careful not to draw a conclusion one side of the line or the other, since there is clearly something for both sides in this particular point.
A retraction is in order, Mr Tyndall. You can't just disregard information you find uncongenial.
"John Denham — The EU referendum is leaving English voters behind The Remain side needs an English-specific campaign to go with its Scottish and Welsh ones – or cede the ground to Leave"
Tom Newton Dunn From Sir Fix It to Sir Climb Down: Jeremy Heywood agrees Brexit ministers can now see "all the facts they want to". Not the original edict.
@faisalislam: Heywood's two fact types: random facts already established -Outer Ministers can ask Civil Service. Can't ask for new Facts in support of Out
Tom Newton Dunn From Sir Fix It to Sir Climb Down: Jeremy Heywood agrees Brexit ministers can now see "all the facts they want to". Not the original edict.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
That's probably correct. But there will never be a "good" time to leave the EU. We have been a member of an economic union for over 40 years.
But, if avoiding any form of economic hiccup is all that matters, we'll never leave.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
So you are taking partial unrepresentative quotes as well. You Eurofanatics must be getting really desperate when you misrepresent a report so comprehensively.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
So you are taking partial unrepresentative quotes as well. You Eurofanatics must be getting really desperate when you misrepresent a report so comprehensively.
Excuse me, I quoted - for the purpose of illuminating a point that had come up downthread - an entire paragraph (bar a sentence about who was commissioned to do the work). That quote is not partial. I was careful not to draw a conclusion one side of the line or the other, since there is clearly something for both sides in this particular point.
A retraction is in order, Mr Tyndall. You can't just disregard information you find uncongenial.
I don't disregard it. I say that in the context of the whole report which strikes a very different tone from the one you are hoping to convey it is highly misleading. Much like many of the comments and statements you make in here.
Business Insider have unearthed a 1987 ITN clip of a dashing Paul Mason handing out the Workers’ Power newspaper and talking about “building revolutionary politics within the Labour Party”. Workers’ Power were a militant Trotskyist entryist group which infiltrated Labour in the eighties when Mason was working as a music teacher – his economics is all self-taught. The same year Mason was distributing their material, they published a pamphlet commemorating the Russian revolution and praising Lenin. It has taken nearly thirty years to achieve his entryist ambitions, now finally Labour’s Shadow Chancellor has signed him up to help with Labour’s economic policy…
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
So you are taking partial unrepresentative quotes as well. You Eurofanatics must be getting really desperate when you misrepresent a report so comprehensively.
Excuse me, I quoted - for the purpose of illuminating a point that had come up downthread - an entire paragraph (bar a sentence about who was commissioned to do the work). That quote is not partial. I was careful not to draw a conclusion one side of the line or the other, since there is clearly something for both sides in this particular point.
A retraction is in order, Mr Tyndall. You can't just disregard information you find uncongenial.
I don't disregard it. I say that in the context of the whole report which strikes a very different tone from the one you are hoping to convey it is highly misleading. Much like many of the comments and statements you make in here.
If you're going to be an odious berk for the next four months, this is going to be a long referendum campaign. But so be it.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
So you are taking partial unrepresentative quotes as well. You Eurofanatics must be getting really desperate when you misrepresent a report so comprehensively.
Excuse me, I quoted - for the purpose of illuminating a point that had come up downthread - an entire paragraph (bar a sentence about who was commissioned to do the work). That quote is not partial. I was careful not to draw a conclusion one side of the line or the other, since there is clearly something for both sides in this particular point.
A retraction is in order, Mr Tyndall. You can't just disregard information you find uncongenial.
I don't disregard it. I say that in the context of the whole report which strikes a very different tone from the one you are hoping to convey it is highly misleading. Much like many of the comments and statements you make in here.
If you're going to be an odious berk for the next four months, this is going to be a long referendum campaign. But so be it.
If you wish to cherrypick from reports to suit your agenda then I'm afraid it is you that will be the berk.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
I haven't got time to read 1,000 comments. Which bone headed candidate(s) have come out and opposed Uber?
Khan. I don't know where the report that Zac is against Uber came from. From what I know he isn't really bothered either way.
Actually I think I might have worked out Sadiq's politicking here. He's got a problem in being seen as the brown/Muslim candidate, so by coming out for maybe the most reactionary white constituency: the trad London cabbie, he's showing he will stick up for Whitey as well - especially as most Uber drivers, who will suffer from his "policy", are Asian/East European, etc.
Still very risky, as Uber is so popular.
Is it? Never met anyone in Britain who mentioned using it, though obviously they exist. Is there data online?
There are over 20,000 Uber drivers in London alone...and Uber predict that will grow to 40,000 in the next year or so. The demand for Uber is huge.
The quote in context about "economic shock" reads as follows:
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
That's probably correct. But there will never be a "good" time to leave the EU. We have been a member of an economic union for over 40 years.
But, if avoiding any form of economic hiccup is all that matters, we'll never leave.
Ever.
Is the important point not that it shows a negative due to economic instability but that it shows no economic positive to leaving the EU?
Comments
That seems very quaint. I doubt they lasted very long either.
I'm not sure about Winston McKenzie, the Women's Equality Party, Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol, the Communist League or Britain First.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3470764/Two-Afghan-migrants-arrested-sexually-assaulting-two-young-girls-German-swimming-pool-group-schoolgirls-previously-molested-refugees.html
"“Healthy towns” housing nearly 200,000 people will be built across the country as the NHS starts urban planning for the first time."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article4702770.ece
Look, luv, if it'll keep you quiet, you can have your own blue plaque for services to washing up.
What?
Here's your coat. Your Uber is outside.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=sunil060902+387/2&title=Special:Search&go=Go&uselang=en
https://www.uber.com/cities/birmingham/
https://www.uber.com/cities/sheffield
Texas (re:Cruz)
Minnesota (re:Rubio)
Second place finishes elsewhere alas not very many active markets/bookies offering this sort of thing.
Political party
English Democrats (2015–present)
UKIP (2009–2015)
Unity Party (2009)
Independent (2008–2009, 2005, 2003–2004)
Conservative (2006–2008)
Veritas (2005)
Liberal Democrats (2002–2003)
Labour (until 2001)
He was even a member of Veritas!
Jeremy Corbyn: Standing up for the EU by, er, mumbling about it on the sidelines.
All the indices are pointing upwards today Economic news has been quite a bit more positive than expected in the last 48 hours. GDP numbers out of Europe were surprisingly good, and the PMIs have not been anywhere near as bad as people expected. Essentially, the fear that China's slowdown would infect the world has been receding.
I don't agree with the terminology, I think you can be Eurosceptic and for Remain, but that is how YouGov reported it.
Bin Laden left $29m inheritance for jihad
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35699349
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/704714830851284993
Back:
Hillary Clinton 1.82 £1,151.00 £940.85
Decided to get her to ~0 after ploughing into Trump.
RCP have Cruz 9% ahead of Trump.
You don't even have to cross the sea to Denmark to see ECJ judicial activism in action. Just look at what they did to poor old John Major's Mastricht opt outs.
I afraid the ECJ of David's idea is a very long way from reality.
That seems very strange. One can easily be eurosceptic while wish to remain in the EU. William Hague while party leader was considered eurosceptic, but his chief slogan was "in Europe but not run by Europe".
A europhile is something else, someone who thinks the project of european integration is a good thing in itself that has not gone far enough, with the nation state being nothing more than an anachronism, best consigned to the dustbin of history.
One thing we do know is the mud-slinging will be awesome. Clinton team will be digging into every finance record and deal Trump has ever entered into. While Trump will be going after all the old clinton baggage.
I can't see him surviving the debates with her, without turning on her in some kind of petulant tantrum at some point. She'll be coached to egg him on. All good fun!
Scenario 2: London grows to £615bn by 2040
Over that timespan that's MoE stuff. Both forecasts showed uncertainty in leaving the EU and staying in it. Both forecasts will be chock a full of assumptions.
What we can conclude is that Brexit doesn't make much difference either way: it's neither a disaster nor a panacea.
London would still be great, the world's financial centre and life would go on.
Yes I would suggest a bit of context might be an idea here.
The '3 million jobs' lie came from picking a few words out of a dense report without actually reading it.
So what does Lyons actually say? In the scenario of the EU staying unreformed and Britain then deciding to Leave, he predicts London would be £120 billion better off. His personal Twitter account gives a more accurate reflection of his position:
http://order-order.com/2016/03/01/spinwatch-bses-boris-brexit-baloney/
Not sure what happens if you add Bloomberg.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/case-against-uber-referred-to-europes-top-court-1437402253
"Leaving the EU would be an economic shock. Most, if not all, economic shocks depress economic activity. Thus economic forecasts that focus on, say, a couple of years ahead would tend to show that leaving the EU is always worse than the alternative. In compiling the Europe Report we felt it would be more meaningful to look at the likely impact longer-term, rather than just the initial shock period. Indeed the very fact that this referendum is taking place, four decade s after the previous referendum, appears to support the case for a longer-term view. We decided to take a 20 year forecasting period, so as to include at least a couple of economic cycles."
So there is a clear recognition that there would be an economic shock and that in the short term it would be expected to depress economic activity. The report argues that this would not matter very much in the long run.
Make of that what you will.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/01/whats_going_on_with_the_republican_race.html
A retraction is in order, Mr Tyndall. You can't just disregard information you find uncongenial.
The Remain side needs an English-specific campaign to go with its Scottish and Welsh ones – or cede the ground to Leave"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12177809/The-EU-referendum-is-leaving-English-voters-behind.html
From Sir Fix It to Sir Climb Down: Jeremy Heywood agrees Brexit ministers can now see "all the facts they want to". Not the original edict.
But, if avoiding any form of economic hiccup is all that matters, we'll never leave.
Ever.
Income tax receipts from highest earners up £8bn to 28% of total paid in 1st year of 45p top rate, @HMRCgovuk stats released today show
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34733862
I like eating in expensive restaurants and drinking decent plonk, but doesn't mean that Nando's and Weatherspoons aren't extremely popular.
Is the important point not that it shows a negative due to economic instability but that it shows no economic positive to leaving the EU?