It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
With about 10% of the vote in I predicted last night:
OK Prediction:
Sanders 48 Clinton 38 Cruz 39 Trump 3
Sanders beat the polling slightly that was based on, but "not quite" proportional allocation (Thresholds) mean Clinton has outperformed her raw vote number to delegate conversion (The result being a wash !)
And Trump has outperformed relatively in CDs 3 and 7 to land 6 rather than 3 delegates.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Mr. Quidder, same thing happens if you write the wrong word but know what you meant. It's why people checking their own work can miss that, or even when they skip words entirely and sentences don't actually make sense.
If you're either an establishment GOPer or very conservative or very evangelical, Cruz makes perfect sense. He's reliably conservative, genuinely God-worshipping and not mad. Trump is none of these things.
Sanders won big because of huge youth turnout - students standing in line for over 2 hours to vote. The "mobilise the people who don't vote much" strategy is working for him, and Labour should be studying how he does it.
New York may be decisive for both races. Cruz clearly has the momentum now and if he wins in NY he may wrap up nearly all the remaining states and leave Trump looking like a hopeless loser by the time of the convention. Similarly, Sanders really need to win in NY to break the "respectable second place" meme. I think Cruz has the better chance of the two - the polls can change quickly if a rival campaign looks shambolic. The closed primary in NY helps Clinton, as does the somewhat larger black vote, her Senate record and the fact that Wall Street staff (not a trivial number) actually get to vote here against the anti-Wall Street candidate.
Sanders didn't help himself with a lot of endearingly honest "I don't know" replies to a high-profile review - not sure how he'd restructure the banks, not sure where he'd hold prisoners if not Guantanamo, etc. Clinton is not hugely liked, but she is really the only seriously competent Presidential candidate out there apart from Kasich.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
I don't have time to explain all the reasons as I have to dash but as with a lot of vehicles that tax dodgers use there is often legitimate reasons they exist in the first place & why it is difficult for government / authorities just to say because you have a company in BVI you are a tax dodger etc. Same with transfer pricing that lots of companies exploit to.lower their tax expose there are legit uses for that, then there are companies taking the piss.
I find it amusing that people who are against Trump in the GOP are trying to unite behind Ted Cruz. The guy is completely insane, between Trump and Cruz I would definitely pick Trump. Out of all the candidates Kasich seems the most sound and most likely to win (the GE), but is also the most middle of the road candidate so won't appeal to the batshit crazy types in the GOP.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
There really is no reason to use Panama - the Isle of Man, Guernsey etc can all be used in this way.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
"In spite of a late poll showing him 10% in the lead Donald Trump was soundly beaten by Ted Cruz in the Wisconsin primary. All the delegates bar three go to Cruz. "
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
So they don't adhere to the concept of global taxation? Seems like a decent place to do business!
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Of all the candidates in the race for president, the only one I could conceivably vote for is Sanders. And that staggers me.
The question then arises: would a Sanders presidency actually be able to do anything?
It depends on the Senate. It is currently R54 D46 (including two independents one of whom is Sanders). Democrats need four more Senators to make it 50/50 with a Democrat VP having the casting vote.
There are 10 Democrat seats and 24 Republican seats up for grabs this time. Most of them are safe. But a few aren't.
In order of probability of Democrat gain, the weakest Republican seats are:
Wisconsin: 4% D poll lead according to RCP. Illinois: 3% D poll lead Ohio: 1% R lead. Rob Portman defending but a statistical deadheat. Arizona: 1% R lead. John McCain struggling here. Florida: No polls but Marco Rubio not standing again. A toss up. New Hampshire: 5% R lead. Kelly Ayotte doing well here and will probably hold on. Pennsylvania: 9% R lead. But the gap is narrowing. Latest poll was 5% R lead. Probably a Republican hold.
Only risky Democrat seat is Nevada where Harry Reid is retiring. No polls. Should be a Democrat hold.
My current best guess is the new Senate will be 49D, 51 R but I'm monitoring this closely as new polls come out. I haven't found any Senate betting opportunities yet. I guess that will come later.
Crucial intervention in #juniorcontract from Patients Association.As one of their members,I support their stance on contractual imposition.As I understand it,the employer has to be fair and reasonable and contractual imposition is neither.Bog standard contract law includes the key word "consent" and as the BMA has not given consent in acting for its members,NHS employers are in clear breach of contract.I'd start crowdfunding for the cost of 35,000 E.T. applications immediately. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/junior-doctors-strike-patients-association-says-it-is-glad-to-see-contract-imposition-being-a6970411.html
So, what plausible obstacles are there to a Hillary Presidency?
Sanders. I think she does need to win NY and bring to an end this series of second places, even though they haven't harmed her a lot in delegate count. She needs to change the narrative in other words. But she is very likely to win NY and will resume the undisputed front-runner mantle.
The GOP. Kasich made no headway last night. They are going to nominate Trump or Cruz. Hillary will beat either of them.
I find it amusing that people who are against Trump in the GOP are trying to unite behind Ted Cruz. The guy is completely insane, between Trump and Cruz I would definitely pick Trump. Out of all the candidates Kasich seems the most sound and most likely to win (the GE), but is also the most middle of the road candidate so won't appeal to the batshit crazy types in the GOP.
Where Trumps wins over Cruz is that I can't ever see Trump using nukes "because God told me to do it..." Cruz on the other hand.....yikes.
Me too. I honestly can't think of anything about Cruz that's attractive, looking like the offspring of Grandpa Munster doesn't help either. He's just creepy.
I'm looking forward to a sane knowledgeable discussion on here after enduring endless ill informed Never Trump stuff everywhere else. I want to throw things at the British media. It's so incredibly tedious.
That many are talking up Cruz is beyond me. Do they know anything about his political positioning?
Didn't Trump get 2 districts?
I agree. I am no fan of Trump but given a forced choice between him and Lyin' Ted I would vote Trump in a heart beat.
Cruz appeals to the kind of American who would cut her wrists before she'd fly into Heathrow. There are lots of them.
Is that so she could experience the NHS up close and personal?
Cut wrists would count as emergency treatment so Ms Yankee-Doodle would probably get quite a good deal out of the NHS.
A friend visiting the UK from Guernsey had a nasty accident - the NHS treated him superbly and saved his life - once he was stable they politely asked how he was going to pay - fortunately his company insurance covered the hundreds of thousands involved.....
Was it a motor vehicle accident? These have been chargeable by the NHS for a long time.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Unless Trump withdraws I can't see Cruz winning New York. It is Con Gain Bootle surely?
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
There really is no reason to use Panama - the Isle of Man, Guernsey etc can all be used in this way.
So does anyone have any info on today's referendum in the Netherlands on the EU-Ukraine deal. I don't really get what the fuss is about, but apparently the people are going to vote it down and the EU-Ukraine deal is then dead in the water as the Dutch government is going to respect the will of the people and rescind their ratification.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
Remain isn't making an argument. Feeble doesn't begin to cover it. The only reason they aren't fifteen points behind is that the Leave campaign is just as feeble.
"Despite losing the state on Feb. 20 in the caucus, Bernie Sanders' campaign swarmed the Clark County caucus and probably flipped two delegates from Hillary Clinton's camp.
Clinton was presumed to have a 20-15 delegate edge after the caucus based on her 5 percentage point win in the caucuses. But because the caucus process allows some delegates to be unbound, 12 of those were up for grabs at the 17 county conventions Saturday. Sanders had 600 more delegates in Clark on Saturday despite losing the state's most populous county by nearly 10 percentage points.
That is expected to switch two delegates to Sanders, giving Clinton an 18-17 lead in Nevada, but that is still pending the results of the state convention next month when those 12 slots could again change. (Sanders also dominated in Washoe and did well elsewhere.) Ah, the caucus process."
Marquee Mark said But the republicans are so screwed if they are going in to bat for Cruz. It would be like the Conservatives having their Last Great Hope as John Redwood.....
It pains me to say it, as someone who stood twice against JR, but I think he would be far more palatable than Cruz. In terms of rightwingnuttery, if Thatcher is the sun, John Redwood would be Mercury and Cruz would be Jupiter - much larger, greater ability to suck people into his orbit, and much much further out.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
It's virtually impossible for Trump to go to the convention as the loser (though coming out of it is a different story). He's +250 at the moment so Cruz is going to have to make progress in NY, NJ and CA, all of which he's currently way behind in.
Crucial intervention in #juniorcontract from Patients Association.As one of their members,I support their stance on contractual imposition.As I understand it,the employer has to be fair and reasonable and contractual imposition is neither.Bog standard contract law includes the key word "consent" and as the BMA has not given consent in acting for its members,NHS employers are in clear breach of contract.I'd start crowdfunding for the cost of 35,000 E.T. applications immediately. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/junior-doctors-strike-patients-association-says-it-is-glad-to-see-contract-imposition-being-a6970411.html
Patients' Association? Are they significant? I've never heard of them.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
Outside of the notion of Kasich being Trump's Veep pick, it may just be that Kasich can't abide the idea of either Cruz being the Republican candidate - or seeing somebody who has won no delegates, and has had no scrutiny from the primary process, being parachuted in as candidate. It doesn't, you know, feel right... And Kasich does seem like a decent guy. A bit underwhelming, but probably the one in the field who you would trust to look after your kids for an afternoon or invest your pension pot.....
Marquee Mark said But the republicans are so screwed if they are going in to bat for Cruz. It would be like the Conservatives having their Last Great Hope as John Redwood.....
It pains me to say it, as someone who stood twice against JR, but I think he would be far more palatable than Cruz. In terms of rightwingnuttery, if Thatcher is the sun, John Redwood would be Mercury and Cruz would be Jupiter - much larger, greater ability to suck people into his orbit, and much much further out.
So that great big red spot on Cruz would be proof of that National Enquirer story being true!
Remain isn't making an argument. Feeble doesn't begin to cover it. The only reason they aren't fifteen points behind is that the Leave campaign is just as feeble.
Can't agree. Remain is making an argument: leaving is an economic leap in the dark.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
So do you think that Trump will offer Kasich the VP spot (and a free run at 2020) if it goes to a contested convention?
Remain isn't making an argument. Feeble doesn't begin to cover it. The only reason they aren't fifteen points behind is that the Leave campaign is just as feeble.
Marquee Mark said But the republicans are so screwed if they are going in to bat for Cruz. It would be like the Conservatives having their Last Great Hope as John Redwood.....
It pains me to say it, as someone who stood twice against JR, but I think he would be far more palatable than Cruz. In terms of rightwingnuttery, if Thatcher is the sun, John Redwood would be Mercury and Cruz would be Jupiter - much larger, greater ability to suck people into his orbit, and much much further out.
Taking on Redwood is not a task I envy. He is a formidable campaigner and has one of the most solid majorities in the HoC. Even in 1997 he got more than 50% of the vote I believe.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess.
Remain isn't making an argument. Feeble doesn't begin to cover it. The only reason they aren't fifteen points behind is that the Leave campaign is just as feeble.
It's more Shock and Awful than Shock and Awe
It's almost as if Remain thought they couldn't lose and Leave thought they couldn't win - and have put in the intellectual effort accordingly.
Ah, The Telegraph, owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, residents of Sark for tax avoidance purposes.
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
Outside of the notion of Kasich being Trump's Veep pick, it may just be that Kasich can't abide the idea
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
So do you think that Trump will offer Kasich the VP spot (and a free run at 2020) if it goes to a contested convention?
Kasich as Trump's VP provides some stability and moderation to the ticket. Kasich also polls very well against Clinton. However the VP pick usually is of very limited value. The usual notion is "do no harm". In that Kasich is a safe and IMO a modestly useful choice.
Nevertheless in the final analysis Clinton will defeat Trump with ease.
European Commission to unveil new EU asylum options
The European Commission is expected to suggest either a modest change that preserves the current system but adds a "fairness" provision so a country struggling to cope can get help.
A second, more radical option would be to scrap the existing rules and distribute refugees around Europe.
@MarqueeMark - the three arguments Remain are putting forward are (1) sensible, moderate people back Remain, like David Cameron, whom you trust (2) better the devil you know and, (3) if that doesn't grab you, the seven horsemen of the apocalypse will
I think that'll be enough for the centrist "haves", in social groups AB in particular, to vote Remain but the question is whether it's enough to overcome those who "have not", or are so disillusioned with the EU that their high motivation to turn out, and apathy elsewhere, just tips it over the edge.
The key thing is whether the desire for change overcomes the fear of risk.
I think the only conclusion the Remain campaign reaches on any of these sort of poll findings is that the solution is "More Fear".
Marquee Mark said But the republicans are so screwed if they are going in to bat for Cruz. It would be like the Conservatives having their Last Great Hope as John Redwood.....
It pains me to say it, as someone who stood twice against JR, but I think he would be far more palatable than Cruz. In terms of rightwingnuttery, if Thatcher is the sun, John Redwood would be Mercury and Cruz would be Jupiter - much larger, greater ability to suck people into his orbit, and much much further out.
I have high regard for Redwood's intellect. And he is well regarded in his constituency. But as for the wider world, he is liberally doused in voter repellant...
Mr. Urquhart, they tried distribution before. It didn't work practically and countries like the Czech Republic and Hungary are unlikely to go along with it.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
If Trump is 30 short, say, are there enough unbound delegates available in the 1st round who might back him to get him over the line to settle this quickly?
So does anyone have any info on today's referendum in the Netherlands on the EU-Ukraine deal. I don't really get what the fuss is about, but apparently the people are going to vote it down and the EU-Ukraine deal is then dead in the water as the Dutch government is going to respect the will of the people and rescind their ratification.
The polls indicate it will be voted down today triggering a crisis in the EU. The EU, as only they could, apparently have said the result is only advisory so no doubt they will prevaricate and in the end ignore the result. The problem for the EU is that every time they refuse the democratic will of an individual Country they tighten the rope round their own neck and advance the cause of the right and it may also have a considerable influence on Brexit. These are very interesting times and I am finding it increasingly difficult to come to a decision on how I will vote in June.
If Mrs B is who I think she must be, she managed two very respectable second places against Redwood, with Labour a long way behind in third. In a constituency with Wokingham's demographic and economic makeup, that's a pretty formidable achievement in itself.
David Cameron, his wife and their children will not benefit from offshore funds or trusts in the future, a spokesman has said in a further statement this morning.
Presuming all this is true, PR department at No. 10 wants shooting. 4 different statements over 3 days have kept this story running. They could have shut it down on day 1, the "its a private matter" was the dumbest of the lot of them.
It's baffling. Why is quote working for some posts and not others?
The main point I wish to make is; that remark is grossly unfair and defamatory. I suggest you withdraw it before everyone who has been certified sues for libel.
So does anyone have any info on today's referendum in the Netherlands on the EU-Ukraine deal. I don't really get what the fuss is about, but apparently the people are going to vote it down and the EU-Ukraine deal is then dead in the water as the Dutch government is going to respect the will of the people and rescind their ratification.
The polls indicate it will be voted down today triggering a crisis in the EU. The EU, as only they could, apparently have said the result is only advisory so no doubt they will prevaricate and in the end ignore the result. The problem for the EU is that every time they refuse the democratic will of an individual Country they tighten the rope round their own neck and advance the cause of the right and it may also have a considerable influence on Brexit. These are very interesting times and I am finding it increasingly difficult to come to a decision on how I will vote in June.
One complication is that it under Dutch law it is only advisory and that is especially so if turnout is under 30%. I know pro-ratification Dutch who are abstaining rather than voting in favour as they think the best way to "win" is to not turnout so the 30% threshold isn't met.
David Cameron, his wife and their children will not benefit from offshore funds or trusts in the future, a spokesman has said in a further statement this morning.
If Mrs B is who I think she must be, she managed two very respectable second places against Redwood, with Labour a long way behind in third. In a constituency with Wokingham's demographic and economic makeup, that's a pretty formidable achievement in itself.
I'm amused by the name of the 2010 UKIP candidate in Wokingham.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
If Trump is 30 short, say, are there enough unbound delegates available in the 1st round who might back him to get him over the line to settle this quickly?
If Trump is just shy then it will be the weeks leading to the convention that will be critical. Will the GOP establishment attempt to deny him in such circumstance? - if so, it'll be a political bloodbath.
The pressure on the swing unbound delegates from all sides to carry Trump over or deny him will be huge. The clear winner will be Clinton.
David Cameron, his wife and their children will not benefit from offshore funds or trusts in the future, a spokesman has said in a further statement this morning.
Have they in the past? That's the missing tense.
We had this discussion last night, I don't think he can answer that with a definite No, because by benefit what do we mean. Any money / gifts he ever got from his father could potentially be classed as such, his wife was part of a sale of a company where she had shares in and potential that the deal was setup to be tax efficient etc etc etc.
The reality is that everybody will probably have "befitted" from some sort of tax efficiency / minimization somewhere, be it 2nd / 3rd / 4th hand and you probably never know because you aren't privy to all your relatives financial dealings.
Also, if you really want to nit pick, the statement says him, his wife, his kids, we know his brother and sisters already got left the keys to the families homes before his fathers death and got more in the will.
The key thing is whether the desire for change overcomes the fear of risk.
I think the only conclusion the Remain campaign reaches on any of these sort of poll findings is that the solution is "More Fear".
My biggest criticism of Leave is that they have not yet framed the argument as there being no safe, comfortable status quo. In reality, we are being offered two choices - out of the EU, or absorbed more deeply into it. Both are a leap into the dark. As was mentioned earlier - do you feel lucky punk? (Hint: one of these outcomes requires the French to play nice with us for untold decades....)
It was a politically motivated attempt to force the country’s most famous confectionery company to crumble. After Tunnock’s branded its classic snack product as the “Great British Tea Cake”, Scottish nationalists responded with fury and called for a boycott.
But it has emerged that the campaign backfired spectacularly, with sales soaring following the controversy.
The Lanarkshire company has revealed that it struggled to cope with demand and sold hundreds of thousands more biscuits after they were branded “traitors” by irate cybernats.
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
If Trump is 30 short, say, are there enough unbound delegates available in the 1st round who might back him to get him over the line to settle this quickly?
If Trump is just shy then it will be the weeks leading to the convention that will be critical. Will the GOP establishment attempt to deny him in such circumstance? - if so, it'll be a political bloodbath.
The pressure on the swing unbound delegates from all sides to carry Trump over or deny him will be huge. The clear winner will be Clinton.
What's interesting is that we've sort of been here before: back in 2008 with the Democrat race all the talk was of how all the superdelegates were for Hillary, and would take her over the line.
In the end they decided to follow the democrat will and plump for Obama.
Doesn't mean the Republicans will be similarly sensible, of course.
It was a politically motivated attempt to force the country’s most famous confectionery company to crumble. After Tunnock’s branded its classic snack product as the “Great British Tea Cake”, Scottish nationalists responded with fury and called for a boycott.
But it has emerged that the campaign backfired spectacularly, with sales soaring following the controversy.
The Lanarkshire company has revealed that it struggled to cope with demand and sold hundreds of thousands more biscuits after they were branded “traitors” by irate cybernats.
The key thing is whether the desire for change overcomes the fear of risk.
I think the only conclusion the Remain campaign reaches on any of these sort of poll findings is that the solution is "More Fear".
My biggest criticism of Leave is that they have not yet framed the argument as there being no safe, comfortable status quo. In reality, we are being offered two choices - out of the EU, or absorbed more deeply into it. Both are a leap into the dark. As was mentioned earlier - do you feel lucky punk? (Hint: one of these outcomes requires the French to play nice with us for untold decades....)
They have four weeks to get their act together. After which all Hell will break loose.
Ah, The Telegraph, owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, residents of Sark for tax avoidance purposes.
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
You make a good point. I wonder whether the Barrclay Brothers in particular are feeling a little uneasy at the direction their paper is going with this. They have a reputation among the Sarkese for walking away if things aren't to their liking
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
If Trump is 30 short, say, are there enough unbound delegates available in the 1st round who might back him to get him over the line to settle this quickly?
If Trump is just shy then it will be the weeks leading to the convention that will be critical. Will the GOP establishment attempt to deny him in such circumstance? - if so, it'll be a political bloodbath.
The pressure on the swing unbound delegates from all sides to carry Trump over or deny him will be huge. The clear winner will be Clinton.
What's interesting is that we've sort of been here before: back in 2008 with the Democrat race all the talk was of how all the superdelegates were for Hillary, and would take her over the line.
In the end they decided to follow the democrat will and plump for Obama.
Doesn't mean the Republicans will be similarly sensible, of course.
Iirc, in 2008 Hillary moved Obama's nomination. It's a little hard to see Cruz (or Trump!) doing that.
O/T Last night I chaired the EU Referendum meeting I've mentioned previously. The participants were local (rural/village or small town) Conservative Party members, mostly prosperous, middle-age upwards, and including a number of local councillors. I'd written a non-partisan briefing paper* describing the options (which I'd checked with some Leavers to try to ensure it was balanced). After a brief introduction we had one member explaining why he was going to vote Leave, and I explained why I was going to vote Remain. We then had a good discussion amongst all the members. As you'd expect, all of the arguments were ones we've rehearsed here, but nonetheless some interesting points emerged:
1. The universal view was that people felt very uninformed about the issues; many participants said that my paper was the first clear account they had seen. There was criticism of both campaigns, and of the government, and of the media, for not explaining the issues properly. (And bear in mind that these are politically engaged and generally well-informed people, who are reliable voters).
2. We held a straw poll at the end of the evening. The result, rather to my surprise, split almost equally three ways between Remain, Leave and Undecided. Leave was the winner, but only just. The bit that most surprised me was the large number who are still undecided.
3. There was absolutely no bitterness or animosity towards those on the other side of the argument, or towards the leadership (although some are not Cameron fans!). At least on this sample the party is split but not at war.
4. I also asked for a show of hands on a secondary question: "Irrespective of whether you support Remain or Leave, if the result is Leave would you prefer an EEA-style deal retaining freedom of movement, or a looser deal where we are not subject to freedom of movement but would be taking a greater economic risk". The result was overwhelmingly in favour of the latter.
I've no idea how representative any of this is, of course.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
O/T Last night I chaired the EU Referendum meeting I've mentioned previously. The participants were local (rural/village or small town) Conservative Party members, mostly prosperous, middle-age upwards, and including a number of local councillors. I'd written a non-partisan briefing paper* describing the options (which I'd checked with some Leavers to try to ensure it was balanced). After a brief introduction we had one member explaining why he was going to vote Leave, and I explained why I was going to vote Remain. We then had a good discussion amongst all the members. As you'd expect, all of the arguments were ones we've rehearsed here, but nonetheless some interesting points emerged:
1. The universal view was that people felt very uninformed about the issues; many participants said that my paper was the first clear account they had seen. There was criticism of both campaigns, and of the government, and of the media, for not explaining the issues properly. (And bear in mind that these are politically engaged and generally well-informed people, who are reliable voters).
2. We held a straw poll at the end of the evening. The result, rather to my surprise, split almost equally three ways between Remain, Leave and Undecided. Leave was the winner, but only just. The bit that most surprised me was the large number who are still undecided.
3. There was absolutely no bitterness or animosity towards those on the other side of the argument, or towards the leadership (although some are not Cameron fans!). At least on this sample the party is split but not at war.
4. I also asked for a show of hands on a secondary question: "Irrespective of whether you support Remain or Leave, if the result is Leave would you prefer an EEA-style deal retaining freedom of movement, or a looser deal where we are not subject to freedom of movement but would be taking a greater economic risk". The result was overwhelmingly in favour of the latter.
I've no idea how representative any of this is, of course.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And when has a BBC talking head ever been wrong...Even on the secrecy aspect, that does not equal anything illegal or immoral....
Panama has other advantages. It is the cross roads of North America / Latin America, while being stable (and unofficially protected by the US). It uses the USD. It is easy to get people who are bilingual. I don't fancy wanting to base my business in Columbia thanks, when I can do it in Panama.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And when has a BBC talking head ever been wrong...Even on the secrecy aspect, that does not equal anything illegal or immoral....
Panama has other advantages. It is the cross roads of North America / Latin America, while being stable (and unofficially protected by the US). It uses the USD. It is easy to get people who are bilingual. I don't fancy wanting to base my business in Columbia thanks, when I can do it in Panama.
The BBC are unlikely to wheel out a tax expert who disagrees with their meme. They have form.
Ramon Fonseca said the leak was not an "inside job" - the company had been hacked by servers based abroad.
The company has accused media organisations reporting the leak of having "unauthorised access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company" and of presenting this information out of context.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
It seems the Sanders campaign is finally seeing the writing on the wall: Hillary has won more votes AND more pledged delegates in this election -- her lead in both is nearly insurmountable.
So this morning, Bernie’s campaign manager claimed the convention could be an “open convention,” and declared they’re going to try and flip delegates’ votes, overturning the will of the voters. "
Ramon Fonseca said the leak was not an "inside job" - the company had been hacked by servers based abroad.
The company has accused media organisations reporting the leak of having "unauthorised access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company" and of presenting this information out of context.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
It's only fairly recently that places such as Guernsey and Switzerland (under pressure from the UK and EU) have started to insist on disclosure, isn't it? Anonymous accounts and companies controlled via bearer shares used to be commonplace in many jurisdictions.
Ramon Fonseca said the leak was not an "inside job" - the company had been hacked by servers based abroad.
The company has accused media organisations reporting the leak of having "unauthorised access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company" and of presenting this information out of context.
Ah, The Telegraph, owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, residents of Sark for tax avoidance purposes.
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
You make a good point. I wonder whether the Barrclay Brothers in particular are feeling a little uneasy at the direction their paper is going with this. They have a reputation among the Sarkese for walking away if things aren't to their liking
The newspapers are loathe to print unfavourable reports on the personal lives or financial affairs of their respective owners, for obvious reasons.
"Sanders didn't help himself with a lot of endearingly honest "I don't know" replies."
Therein lies a problem. We shouldn't elect politicians because of their knowledge of a particular aspect of a subject. We should elect them on their judgement. Get the best advice, and judge the alternatives.
Ed Balls wouldn't be a good Chancellor because he had a third of a degree in economics, nor would Osborne because he can hang a roll of wallpaper.
You suggest we elect the best bluffers, and unfortunately, you're right.
Jezza may be honest but he'll never admit he doesn't know anything, even if he struggles to do up his own buttons. And even worse, he'll ask only people who agree with him (I think that button goes there ... oops).
Ramon Fonseca said the leak was not an "inside job" - the company had been hacked by servers based abroad.
The company has accused media organisations reporting the leak of having "unauthorised access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company" and of presenting this information out of context.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
Indonesia destroyed 23 foreign fishing boats on Tuesday, as worsening relations over the disputed South China Sea drive countries to take tougher action to defend their maritime sovereignty.
Maritime and Fisheries Minister Susi Pudjiastuti said her agency sank 10 Malaysian and 13 Vietnamese boats that were caught fishing illegally in Indonesian waters.
She vowed to mete out the same punishment to any vessel found poaching, no matter its origin. “If there is an illegal fishing boat from America, we will also sink it,” Ms. Pudjiastuti said.
European Commission to unveil new EU asylum options
The European Commission is expected to suggest either a modest change that preserves the current system but adds a "fairness" provision so a country struggling to cope can get help.
A second, more radical option would be to scrap the existing rules and distribute refugees around Europe.
Comments
OK Prediction:
Sanders 48 Clinton 38
Cruz 39 Trump 3
Sanders beat the polling slightly that was based on, but "not quite" proportional allocation (Thresholds) mean Clinton has outperformed her raw vote number to delegate conversion (The result being a wash !)
And Trump has outperformed relatively in CDs 3 and 7 to land 6 rather than 3 delegates.
Hillary and Trump got more delegates than they might have expected to based off the raw vote numbers.
KASICH GOT SMOKED
It's why proofreading is hell.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
@Roger is quite right.
However going after Cameron for what his Dad did is just as fetid as the attacks on Ed regarding Ralf.
Wrong !
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
There are 10 Democrat seats and 24 Republican seats up for grabs this time. Most of them are safe. But a few aren't.
In order of probability of Democrat gain, the weakest Republican seats are:
Wisconsin: 4% D poll lead according to RCP.
Illinois: 3% D poll lead
Ohio: 1% R lead. Rob Portman defending but a statistical deadheat.
Arizona: 1% R lead. John McCain struggling here.
Florida: No polls but Marco Rubio not standing again. A toss up.
New Hampshire: 5% R lead. Kelly Ayotte doing well here and will probably hold on.
Pennsylvania: 9% R lead. But the gap is narrowing. Latest poll was 5% R lead. Probably a Republican hold.
Only risky Democrat seat is Nevada where Harry Reid is retiring. No polls. Should be a Democrat hold.
My current best guess is the new Senate will be 49D, 51 R but I'm monitoring this closely as new polls come out. I haven't found any Senate betting opportunities yet. I guess that will come later.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/junior-doctors-strike-patients-association-says-it-is-glad-to-see-contract-imposition-being-a6970411.html
Sanders. I think she does need to win NY and bring to an end this series of second places, even though they haven't harmed her a lot in delegate count. She needs to change the narrative in other words. But she is very likely to win NY and will resume the undisputed front-runner mantle.
The GOP. Kasich made no headway last night. They are going to nominate Trump or Cruz. Hillary will beat either of them.
The FBI. Emails, whatever.
She has a hand on the trophy.
Says something about her judgement, to back the wrong horse.
I hope it's true.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/04/gove-tops-our-future-tory-leader-survey-for-the-first-time.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/05/panama-papers-david-cameron-forced-to-declare-tax-affairs-amid-o/
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
Looks like Sanders has won Nevada !
"Despite losing the state on Feb. 20 in the caucus, Bernie Sanders' campaign swarmed the Clark County caucus and probably flipped two delegates from Hillary Clinton's camp.
Clinton was presumed to have a 20-15 delegate edge after the caucus based on her 5 percentage point win in the caucuses. But because the caucus process allows some delegates to be unbound, 12 of those were up for grabs at the 17 county conventions Saturday. Sanders had 600 more delegates in Clark on Saturday despite losing the state's most populous county by nearly 10 percentage points.
That is expected to switch two delegates to Sanders, giving Clinton an 18-17 lead in Nevada, but that is still pending the results of the state convention next month when those 12 slots could again change. (Sanders also dominated in Washoe and did well elsewhere.) Ah, the caucus process."
But the republicans are so screwed if they are going in to bat for Cruz. It would be like the Conservatives having their Last Great Hope as John Redwood.....
It pains me to say it, as someone who stood twice against JR, but I think he would be far more palatable than Cruz. In terms of rightwingnuttery, if Thatcher is the sun, John Redwood would be Mercury and Cruz would be Jupiter - much larger, greater ability to suck people into his orbit, and much much further out.
In effect, asking, do you feel lucky punk? :-)
Relatively polite, Democratic, well run...
Enter Nevada:
http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/bernie-sanders-wins-nevada-flips-clark-county-convention-las-vegas-delegates-arrested-clinton-videos/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSGSMbD-EVk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu4MqqKGl0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYj39mmgOQ0
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
Nevertheless in the final analysis Clinton will defeat Trump with ease.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/05/angela-eagle-could-become-first-lgbt-labour-leader-following-corbyn-coup/
The European Commission is expected to suggest either a modest change that preserves the current system but adds a "fairness" provision so a country struggling to cope can get help.
A second, more radical option would be to scrap the existing rules and distribute refugees around Europe.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35974982
I think that'll be enough for the centrist "haves", in social groups AB in particular, to vote Remain but the question is whether it's enough to overcome those who "have not", or are so disillusioned with the EU that their high motivation to turn out, and apathy elsewhere, just tips it over the edge.
The key thing is whether the desire for change overcomes the fear of risk.
I think the only conclusion the Remain campaign reaches on any of these sort of poll findings is that the solution is "More Fear".
Oh no, that's the status quo.
If Mrs B is who I think she must be, she managed two very respectable second places against Redwood, with Labour a long way behind in third. In a constituency with Wokingham's demographic and economic makeup, that's a pretty formidable achievement in itself.
Presuming all this is true, PR department at No. 10 wants shooting. 4 different statements over 3 days have kept this story running. They could have shut it down on day 1, the "its a private matter" was the dumbest of the lot of them.
The main point I wish to make is; that remark is grossly unfair and defamatory. I suggest you withdraw it before everyone who has been certified sues for libel.
I'll get my coat because I need a haircut.
Time for bed.
I can only assume this dreadful weather has been caused by the possibility of the Netherlands voting against the EU deal.
The pressure on the swing unbound delegates from all sides to carry Trump over or deny him will be huge. The clear winner will be Clinton.
Sleazy broken Nats on the slide/Con surge
Constituency:
SNP 56% (-4), Lab 19% (-2), Con 15% (+2), Lib Dem 6% (+2)
Region:
SNP 47% (-8), Lab 21% (0), Con 15% (+2), Lib Dem 6% (+2), Green 8% (+2)
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/press-release/large-preference-scotland-remaining-eu-many-still-unsure
Geert Wilders hair is better than trumps
The reality is that everybody will probably have "befitted" from some sort of tax efficiency / minimization somewhere, be it 2nd / 3rd / 4th hand and you probably never know because you aren't privy to all your relatives financial dealings.
Also, if you really want to nit pick, the statement says him, his wife, his kids, we know his brother and sisters already got left the keys to the families homes before his fathers death and got more in the will.
In the end they decided to follow the democrat will and plump for Obama.
Doesn't mean the Republicans will be similarly sensible, of course.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7052818/Jeremy-Corbyn-spends-taxpayers-cash-for-daily-delivery-of-Morning-Star.html
Once Coburn really starts his charm offensive, these 30% DK/WVs are in the bag.
REMAIN 44%
LEAVE 43%
DK 13%
I hope they are prepared for that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35960029
Really? This is precisely what Cameron claimed he couldn't do on Lisbon, right?
1. The universal view was that people felt very uninformed about the issues; many participants said that my paper was the first clear account they had seen. There was criticism of both campaigns, and of the government, and of the media, for not explaining the issues properly. (And bear in mind that these are politically engaged and generally well-informed people, who are reliable voters).
2. We held a straw poll at the end of the evening. The result, rather to my surprise, split almost equally three ways between Remain, Leave and Undecided. Leave was the winner, but only just. The bit that most surprised me was the large number who are still undecided.
3. There was absolutely no bitterness or animosity towards those on the other side of the argument, or towards the leadership (although some are not Cameron fans!). At least on this sample the party is split but not at war.
4. I also asked for a show of hands on a secondary question: "Irrespective of whether you support Remain or Leave, if the result is Leave would you prefer an EEA-style deal retaining freedom of movement, or a looser deal where we are not subject to freedom of movement but would be taking a greater economic risk". The result was overwhelmingly in favour of the latter.
I've no idea how representative any of this is, of course.
* Downloadable here: http://www.microapl.com/download/EUReferendumBriefingPaper.pdf
Panama has other advantages. It is the cross roads of North America / Latin America, while being stable (and unofficially protected by the US). It uses the USD. It is easy to get people who are bilingual. I don't fancy wanting to base my business in Columbia thanks, when I can do it in Panama.
The company has accused media organisations reporting the leak of having "unauthorised access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company" and of presenting this information out of context.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35975503
" Friend --
It seems the Sanders campaign is finally seeing the writing on the wall: Hillary has won more votes AND more pledged delegates in this election -- her lead in both is nearly insurmountable.
So this morning, Bernie’s campaign manager claimed the convention could be an “open convention,” and declared they’re going to try and flip delegates’ votes, overturning the will of the voters. "
"Sanders didn't help himself with a lot of endearingly honest "I don't know" replies."
Therein lies a problem. We shouldn't elect politicians because of their knowledge of a particular aspect of a subject. We should elect them on their judgement. Get the best advice, and judge the alternatives.
Ed Balls wouldn't be a good Chancellor because he had a third of a degree in economics, nor would Osborne because he can hang a roll of wallpaper.
You suggest we elect the best bluffers, and unfortunately, you're right.
Jezza may be honest but he'll never admit he doesn't know anything, even if he struggles to do up his own buttons. And even worse, he'll ask only people who agree with him (I think that button goes there ... oops).
Indonesia destroyed 23 foreign fishing boats on Tuesday, as worsening relations over the disputed South China Sea drive countries to take tougher action to defend their maritime sovereignty.
Maritime and Fisheries Minister Susi Pudjiastuti said her agency sank 10 Malaysian and 13 Vietnamese boats that were caught fishing illegally in Indonesian waters.
She vowed to mete out the same punishment to any vessel found poaching, no matter its origin. “If there is an illegal fishing boat from America, we will also sink it,” Ms. Pudjiastuti said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/indonesia-blows-up-23-foreign-fishing-boats-to-send-a-message-1459852007