I am happy that there is some regulation of animal husbandry to a minimal standard. I would be happier if those standards were far higher, but am quite able to apply those standards in my own life. I do this mostly by eating less meat, and am vegetarian most days (very affordable in the UK).
Obesity is very much a class issue, it would serve poor people as much as anyone else to eat less food and be more selective in what they eat.
So to clarify, you are happy that British farmers are forced to observe minimum standards, but you are also happy that inferior food products that fall *well* below that standard can be imported and compete without labelling.
Unless born of a simple malevolence toward British food production, how do you justify this position?
It is an utterly idiotic statement by Foxinsox anyway given that UK animal husbandry standards were significantly higher than those on the continent. Animal crating, forced feeding, battery farming and the rules governing the transport of animals are all subject to far, far higher control and standards in the UK - or indeed outright banned - compared to the continent.
I agree on the whole, though it's not true of animal policy in general - for instance, there is much more public scrutiny and challenge of animal experiments in Sweden than Britain, and one of the most controversial projects in primate research moved to Britain after being banned in Berlin. I suspect that farmers are a much less powerful lobby in Britain than experimenters, while the opposite is true in, say, France.
I would also be keen that the UK continues to push for higher standards of animal husbandry in the EU, via our continued membership.
I am happy that there is some regulation of animal husbandry to a minimal standard. I would be happier if those standards were far higher, but am quite able to apply those standards in my own life. I do this mostly by eating less meat, and am vegetarian most days (very affordable in the UK).
Obesity is very much a class issue, it would serve poor people as much as anyone else to eat less food and be more selective in what they eat.
So to clarify, you are happy that British farmers are forced to observe minimum standards, but you are also happy that inferior food products that fall *well* below that standard can be imported and compete without labelling.
Unless born of a simple malevolence toward British food production, how do you justify this position?
It is an utterly idiotic statement by Foxinsox anyway given that UK animal husbandry standards were significantly higher than those on the continent. Animal crating, forced feeding, battery farming and the rules governing the transport of animals are all subject to far, far higher control and standards in the UK - or indeed outright banned - compared to the continent.
I agree on the whole, though it's not true of animal policy in general - for instance, there is much more public scrutiny and challenge of animal experiments in Sweden than Britain, and one of the most controversial projects in primate research moved to Britain after being banned in Berlin. I suspect that farmers are a much less powerful lobby in Britain than experimenters, while the opposite is true in, say, France.
Agreed. I spent a great amount of time when I was at University campaigning on behalf of the BUAV and it was always very slow going. But the point we were discussing was on animal husbandry standards and we are well ahead of most of the rest of Europe and of EU standards as a whole on that subject.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
And let me guess, you were saying similar back in 2011 when Osborne was proclaiming the 'March of the Makers'.
£172bn of overborrowing later and with the current account deficit at the highest on record ...
No - This is new in that if remain wins, the vote of confidence in the UK will be substantial and many opportunities will open to both UK companies and those looking for inward investment. Ultimately the only way to address the current account deficit is to grow through business investment and innovation
Again, we've heard similar so many times before.
£172bn of overborrowing and the largest current account deficit on record are by comparison facts not bluster.
Trump currently has 848 delegates, and needs 1,237 to secure the nomination prior to the convention. However 1,200+ should see the nomination in his hands on the first vote.
We can make a fair number of assumptions about states still to come:
Trump wins Delaware (16 delegates)
Trump wins Pennsylvania (17 bound delegates)
Trump loses Nebraska
Trump wins West Virginia (direct election, 34 delegates)
Trump loses Montana
Trump wins New Jersey (51 delegates)
Trump loses South Dakota
That puts Trump on 964 and leaves just eight states up for grabs.
In two, Washington and Oregon, we have no polling. However both are proportional and are therefore no particularly sensitive to vote shares. We can safely assume for the purpose of argument that Trump wins 35% and fifteen and ten delegates respectively. A similar result in New Mexico would be consistent with the only polling there, netting Trump a further eight delegates. All these estimates are slightly under 538's experts, but there you go - also note that New Mexico votes right at the end of the process and is more vulnerable to swings designed to put Trump in or keep him out.
That leaves Trump on 997, therefore needing 240 from the five remaining states of which the first three are in just three days' time.
Two polls put Trump on 48% and 50%, with leads of 20% and 24% over Kasich. That would be enough to win Trump all five congressional districts, a total of 15 delegates. Trump is likely to secure over 50% in the polls (since 15% are undecideds) and therefore get all of the remaining 13, too. Otherwise he will win six. However I'm going with all 28 here - the movement in New York was to Trump compared to the polls; it's a closed primary which favours Trump and he has the momentum to carry into this contest.
Maryland (38 delegates)
Polls put Trump on 43 to 47%, a lead of 15% to 20% over Kasich. Therefore we can be confident of a statewide win for Trump (14 delegates) plus most of the direct elections in CDs, if not all. I've counted in 35 which would allow for one CD to go against Trump, seven to go with him.
Rhode Island (19 delegates)
This is a two stage proportional state. Each of the three candidates is likely to score over 10% and under 67% in each of the state's two CDs, therefore each candidate will scoop two. A lack of polling hinders a precise figure; 50 to 60% is likely for Trump, approximately seven further delegates - a total of nine.
Round 1 would therefore net Trump 72 delegates, leaving just two states likely to decide the nomination: Indiana (57 delegates) and California (172 delegates) - Trump would need 168 between them.
Indiana is easier to call. The state votes on May 3 - there are no roadbumps for Trump on the calendar before then. Both recent polls put Trump on a small lead in the state, which I believe is achievable. The days of a late swing to Cruz will be gone. Thirty delegates go the winner, and the CDs are winner-takes all, with Trump likely to secure 5 of 9 (if he does win the state). Therefore he will leave Indiana with a haul of 45.
Trump would need 123 delegates out of California. In March the consensus polling position was a single digit lead for Trump, which looked likely to falter at the ballot box. Now polling puts him 18 or even 27 points up, and likely to secure 123 delegates from the state. This is more difficult to call because Californians (well, Republicans, since it's a closed primary) will know that they can make or break Trump.
Therefore I rate Trump's chance of winning before the Convention as highly as 50%; his chance on the first ballot 80%; and have bet accordingly.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
My view is that the government will pass legislation in the next four years.
Government by concession. They'll have trouble passing wind at the rate they're going.
If Blair could continue governing after Iraq then the Tories - a far less ideologically and far more power-grasping amalgamation - can soldier on after this. MPs will be far less bothered than the diehards on here anyway. There'll be careers to enhance and seats to retain. Things will cary on like before. Sorry to disappoint.
Blairs had majorities of 167 and then 66. Cameron has a working majority of 18.
The numbers speak for themselves. Cameron's already had trouble scraping votes through, and with a few more 'loons and fruitcakes' to vote against him, it's not looking great.
10 Angry backbenchers. That's all it takes.
Do we know how many Tory MPs are planning to retire at the end of this Parliament?
No idea. It will be interesting to see if CCHQ manage to change the rules as they proposed to remove power from the constituency parties to choose candidates.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
Will the fitter in that new plant earn significantly, more than he did in his last job, probably not. So how does he feel any benefit. The shareholders I am sure will get a good return on their investment, and the company will probably employ the usual atrocious British managers for "market rates" which will be substantially more than the 3/- their skills frequently tend to suggest would be value!
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
I am happy that there is some regulation of animal husbandry to a minimal standard. I would be happier if those standards were far higher, but am quite able to apply those standards in my own life. I do this mostly by eating less meat, and am vegetarian most days (very affordable in the UK).
Obesity is very much a class issue, it would serve poor people as much as anyone else to eat less food and be more selective in what they eat.
So to clarify, you are happy that British farmers are forced to observe minimum standards, but you are also happy that inferior food products that fall *well* below that standard can be imported and compete without labelling.
Unless born of a simple malevolence toward British food production, how do you justify this position?
It is an utterly idiotic statement by Foxinsox anyway given that UK animal husbandry standards were significantly higher than those on the continent. Animal crating, forced feeding, battery farming and the rules governing the transport of animals are all subject to far, far higher control and standards in the UK - or indeed outright banned - compared to the continent.
I agree on the whole, though it's not true of animal policy in general - for instance, there is much more public scrutiny and challenge of animal experiments in Sweden than Britain, and one of the most controversial projects in primate research moved to Britain after being banned in Berlin. I suspect that farmers are a much less powerful lobby in Britain than experimenters, while the opposite is true in, say, France.
I would also be keen that the UK continues to push for higher standards of animal husbandry in the EU, via our continued membership.
So changed your tune then. Gone from claiming EU membership forces Britain to adopt higher standards of animal husbandry to saying that we should stay in to male the EU adopt our standards.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
Will the fitter in that new plant earn significantly, more than he did in his last job, probably not. So how does he feel any benefit. The shareholders I am sure will get a good return on their investment, and the company will probably employ the usual atrocious British managers for "market rates" which will be substantially more than the 3/- their skills frequently tend to suggest would be value!
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
On topic, this theory about the EU being all ready to remake themselves in the form of a vague incoherent British Conservative alternative has already been tested several times and failed each time. The reason it fails every time isn't because the time wasn't right or the PM didn't try hard enough, it's because it was never going to happen in the first place.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
Will the fitter in that new plant earn significantly, more than he did in his last job, probably not. So how does he feel any benefit. The shareholders I am sure will get a good return on their investment, and the company will probably employ the usual atrocious British managers for "market rates" which will be substantially more than the 3/- their skills frequently tend to suggest would be value!
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
What growth?
I'm loathe to mention this, but unlike one of his predecessors Osborne has failed to abolish the economic cycle and we're heading towards the 'bust' part.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
Will the fitter in that new plant earn significantly, more than he did in his last job, probably not. So how does he feel any benefit. The shareholders I am sure will get a good return on their investment, and the company will probably employ the usual atrocious British managers for "market rates" which will be substantially more than the 3/- their skills frequently tend to suggest would be value!
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
Because all the immense talent on the Leave side will start spending their time more productively?
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
My view is that the government will pass legislation in the next four years.
Government by concession. They'll have trouble passing wind at the rate they're going.
If Blair could continue governing after Iraq then the Tories - a far less ideologically and far more power-grasping amalgamation - can soldier on after this. MPs will be far less bothered than the diehards on here anyway. There'll be careers to enhance and seats to retain. Things will cary on like before. Sorry to disappoint.
Blairs had majorities of 167 and then 66. Cameron has a working majority of 18.
The numbers speak for themselves. Cameron's already had trouble scraping votes through, and with a few more 'loons and fruitcakes' to vote against him, it's not looking great.
10 Angry backbenchers. That's all it takes.
In 12 Angry Men it needed one to see the truth and build a consensus.
True but that was only a matter of life and death. This is something far more serious :-)
Threat: A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done:
Now unless you feel being consigned to the back of the queue is not intended as a damaging act - and clearly the Remainders do - then I would suggest the use of the word treat is absolutely correct.
I say again, where do you normally join a queue?
I didn't realise my local supermarket were threatening me every time they served a customer before me.
Maybe I need to demand a safe space in which to complete my shopping.
What queue? The US pursues multiple trade negotiations with multiple countries all the time. Contrary to popular belief American officials are able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
It would have to start from scratch though, and indeed Brexit may well mean that significant parts of the (r)EU-USA deal may need revision. It would probly delay implementation for all 3 blocs.
Seems unlikely, the US only has one trade agreement. TTIP is just TTP with a few rough edges knocked off because the EU made a fuss. If we went along after a Leave vote they would just pull the standard trade agreement out of the drawer, change the title, make a few cosmetic changes, and that would be that.
If it was so easy then why has it taken so long?
Because the EU doesnt like what they are selling, or least feels it is politically unpopular so has to be seen to be pushing against it. I would be very surprised if much ends up changing after all the posturing, its rather more likely that one party walks away from the table. Not that it matters much, its got very little chance of being ratified in the US in the present climate.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
And let me guess, you were saying similar back in 2011 when Osborne was proclaiming the 'March of the Makers'.
£172bn of overborrowing later and with the current account deficit at the highest on record ...
No - This is new in that if remain wins, the vote of confidence in the UK will be substantial and many opportunities will open to both UK companies and those looking for inward investment. Ultimately the only way to address the current account deficit is to grow through business investment and innovation
Forgive me, but this is starting to sound like a CCHQ press release
I thought he had a pager set up regurgitating their propoganda.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
Will the fitter in that new plant earn significantly, more than he did in his last job, probably not. So how does he feel any benefit. The shareholders I am sure will get a good return on their investment, and the company will probably employ the usual atrocious British managers for "market rates" which will be substantially more than the 3/- their skills frequently tend to suggest would be value!
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
New investment and innovation
And why should that happen? Why should companies invest in the UK after a Remain vote when they weren't willing to 3 or 4 years ago? It is simply fanciful. Why should we be more innovative inside a stagnating bloc than outside?
What is far more likely is a gradual move of finance companies from London to Frankfurt as the EU imposes more and more restrictions on non Eurozone trading.
On topic, this theory about the EU being all ready to remake themselves in the form of a vague incoherent British Conservative alternative has already been tested several times and failed each time. The reason it fails every time isn't because the time wasn't right or the PM didn't try hard enough, it's because it was never going to happen in the first place.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
And let me guess, you were saying similar back in 2011 when Osborne was proclaiming the 'March of the Makers'.
£172bn of overborrowing later and with the current account deficit at the highest on record ...
No - This is new in that if remain wins, the vote of confidence in the UK will be substantial and many opportunities will open to both UK companies and those looking for inward investment. Ultimately the only way to address the current account deficit is to grow through business investment and innovation
Forgive me, but this is starting to sound like a CCHQ press release
I thought he had a pager set up regurgitating their propoganda.
Why would anyone listen in CCHQ to me. I am my own person and am prepared to express my view as honestly as possible and hopefully debate with courtesy anyone who does not hold my view. At 72 life is too short to get angry
On topic, this theory about the EU being all ready to remake themselves in the form of a vague incoherent British Conservative alternative has already been tested several times and failed each time. The reason it fails every time isn't because the time wasn't right or the PM didn't try hard enough, it's because it was never going to happen in the first place.
Indeed. It is, I am afraid, a peculiar arrogance of the Europhile British politician that he thinks he can mould the EU in the way he moulded the Empire.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
My view is that the government will pass legislation in the next four years.
Government by concession. They'll have trouble passing wind at the rate they're going.
If Blair could continue governing after Iraq then the Tories - a far less ideologically and far more power-grasping amalgamation - can soldier on after this. MPs will be far less bothered than the diehards on here anyway. There'll be careers to enhance and seats to retain. Things will cary on like before. Sorry to disappoint.
How ?
The leader has announced he is resigning. That's a huge difference from post Iraq
I think that merely advances my point. Dave won't be around for much longer anyway. So why would Tory MPs feel the need to be awkward?
because they will all be jockeying for position and most of them will want to kill off Osborne.
Dave will become increasingly irrelevant in a party he has struggled to manage.
Alan when Cameron goes , do you think he will get fulsome applause from the Conservative parliamenterians as Blair did in 2007 ?
I am happy that there is some regulation of animal husbandry to a minimal standard. I would be happier if those standards were far higher, but am quite able to apply those standards in my own life. I do this mostly by eating less meat, and am vegetarian most days (very affordable in the UK).
Obesity is very much a class issue, it would serve poor people as much as anyone else to eat less food and be more selective in what they eat.
So to clarify, you are happy that British farmers are forced to observe minimum standards, but you are also happy that inferior food products that fall *well* below that standard can be imported and compete without labelling.
Unless born of a simple malevolence toward British food production, how do you justify this position?
It is an utterly idiotic statement by Foxinsox anyway given that UK animal husbandry standards were significantly higher than those on the continent. Animal crating, forced feeding, battery farming and the rules governing the transport of animals are all subject to far, far higher control and standards in the UK - or indeed outright banned - compared to the continent.
I agree on the whole, though it's not true of animal policy in general - for instance, there is much more public scrutiny and challenge of animal experiments in Sweden than Britain, and one of the most controversial projects in primate research moved to Britain after being banned in Berlin. I suspect that farmers are a much less powerful lobby in Britain than experimenters, while the opposite is true in, say, France.
I would also be keen that the UK continues to push for higher standards of animal husbandry in the EU, via our continued membership.
So changed your tune then. Gone from claiming EU membership forces Britain to adopt higher standards of animal husbandry to saying that we should stay in to male the EU adopt our standards.
What price consistency?
I cannot recall arguing that the EU forces better standards of animal husbandry here. Can you quote me saying that?
On topic, this theory about the EU being all ready to remake themselves in the form of a vague incoherent British Conservative alternative has already been tested several times and failed each time. The reason it fails every time isn't because the time wasn't right or the PM didn't try hard enough, it's because it was never going to happen in the first place.
Indeed. It is, I am afraid, a peculiar arrogance of the Europhile British politician that he thinks he can mould the EU in the way he moulded the Empire.
I'd be very surprised if he thought he could either. The renegotiation thing was a device to get Cameron through the last election without telling the voters whether he supported Brexit or the status quo.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
Will the fitter in that new plant earn significantly, more than he did in his last job, probably not. So how does he feel any benefit. The shareholders I am sure will get a good return on their investment, and the company will probably employ the usual atrocious British managers for "market rates" which will be substantially more than the 3/- their skills frequently tend to suggest would be value!
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
New investment and innovation
And why should that happen? Why should companies invest in the UK after a Remain vote when they weren't willing to 3 or 4 years ago? It is simply fanciful. Why shioulod we be more innovative inside a stagnating bloc than outside?
What is far more likely is a gradual move of finance companies from London to Frankfurt as the EU imposes more and more restrictions on non Eurozone trading.
Its no point in discussing facts with faith fanatics.
Big_G has faith that this 'new investment and innovation' will come because the high priests of his faith (the leadership of the Conservative party) have told him it will.
On topic, this theory about the EU being all ready to remake themselves in the form of a vague incoherent British Conservative alternative has already been tested several times and failed each time. The reason it fails every time isn't because the time wasn't right or the PM didn't try hard enough, it's because it was never going to happen in the first place.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
My view is that the government will pass legislation in the next four years.
Government by concession. They'll have trouble passing wind at the rate they're going.
If Blair could continue governing after Iraq then the Tories - a far less ideologically and far more power-grasping amalgamation - can soldier on after this. MPs will be far less bothered than the diehards on here anyway. There'll be careers to enhance and seats to retain. Things will cary on like before. Sorry to disappoint.
How ?
The leader has announced he is resigning. That's a huge difference from post Iraq
I think that merely advances my point. Dave won't be around for much longer anyway. So why would Tory MPs feel the need to be awkward?
because they will all be jockeying for position and most of them will want to kill off Osborne.
Dave will become increasingly irrelevant in a party he has struggled to manage.
Alan when Cameron goes , do you think he will get fulsome applause from the Conservative parliamenterians as Blair did in 2007 ?
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
And let me guess, you were saying similar back in 2011 when Osborne was proclaiming the 'March of the Makers'.
£172bn of overborrowing later and with the current account deficit at the highest on record ...
No - This is new in that if remain wins, the vote of confidence in the UK will be substantial and many opportunities will open to both UK companies and those looking for inward investment. Ultimately the only way to address the current account deficit is to grow through business investment and innovation
The economy can grow but that does not mean the current account deficit will deficit will decrease. For that to happen we must export more and/or import less; GDP per se is irrelevant.
Inward investment is also not a universal good. The likes of Honda setting up a modern car factory here is definitely a good thing. Someone buying a UK business stripping out all the IP and then shutting production also counts as inward investment but is actually harmful.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance a
Forgive me, but this is starting to sound like a CCHQ press release
I thought he had a pager set up regurgitating their propoganda.
Why would anyone listen in CCHQ to me. I am my own person and am prepared to express my view as honestly as possible and hopefully debate with courtesy anyone who does not hold my view. At 72 life is too short to get angry
Big g You should be on the govt payroll vote. At least they would have a loyal lieutentant who believes in their policy especially over the EU. Rather than career advancers , who obviously do not. So all power to your elbow.
Dr. Foxinsox, over recent years we've lost (given away by the smirking charlatan) half the rebate, surrendered vetoes to QMV, seen our contributions rise and... what have we got back, exactly?
On topic, this theory about the EU being all ready to remake themselves in the form of a vague incoherent British Conservative alternative has already been tested several times and failed each time. The reason it fails every time isn't because the time wasn't right or the PM didn't try hard enough, it's because it was never going to happen in the first place.
Indeed. It is, I am afraid, a peculiar arrogance of the Europhile British politician that he thinks he can mould the EU in the way he moulded the Empire.
Isnt that exactly what has happened though? We have witnessed the Thatcherisation of the continent as a direct result of the Single Market. Now State Aid is only allowed under proscribed circumstances and the forced marketisation of whole swathes of the economy, from transport, energy, and whole other areas on top of the more traditional battles during the eighties.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Dr. Foxinsox, over recent years we've lost (given away by the smirking charlatan) half the rebate, surrendered vetoes to QMV, seen our contributions rise and... what have we got back, exactly?
Quite a few things. A decline in the CAP to 38% or budget from over 70%, and that shifting from producer subsidies to stewardship of land and rural development. We drove the expansion of the EU to the East, drove down protectionism across the continent, drove the single market in services. That sort of thing.
On topic, this theory about the EU being all ready to remake themselves in the form of a vague incoherent British Conservative alternative has already been tested several times and failed each time. The reason it fails every time isn't because the time wasn't right or the PM didn't try hard enough, it's because it was never going to happen in the first place.
Indeed. It is, I am afraid, a peculiar arrogance of the Europhile British politician that he thinks he can mould the EU in the way he moulded the Empire.
I'd be very surprised if he thought he could either. The renegotiation thing was a device to get Cameron through the last election without telling the voters whether he supported Brexit or the status quo.
Apologies. I wasn't actually thinking of Cameron in that particular case. I agree that was just him trying to get re-elected. I was thinking of those who advocate full bloodied involvement in the EU and believe we can shape it to our vision.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
My view is that the government will pass legislation in the next four years.
Government by concession. They'll have trouble passing wind at the rate they're going.
If Blair could continue governing after Iraq then the Tories - a far less ideologically and far more power-grasping amalgamation - can soldier on after this. MPs will be far less bothered than the diehards on here anyway. There'll be careers to enhance and seats to retain. Things will cary on like before. Sorry to disappoint.
How ?
The leader has announced he is resigning. That's a huge difference from post Iraq
I think that merely advances my point. Dave won't be around for much longer anyway. So why would Tory MPs feel the need to be awkward?
because they will all be jockeying for position and most of them will want to kill off Osborne.
Dave will become increasingly irrelevant in a party he has struggled to manage.
Alan when Cameron goes , do you think he will get fulsome applause from the Conservative parliamenterians as Blair did in 2007 ?
That was a low point for the Tories wasn't it?
Cameron the disciple, was saluting his mentor.
Cameron read the Unfinished Revoultion by Philip Gould and copied Blair hook line and sinker.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
And let me guess, you were saying similar back in 2011 when Osborne was proclaiming the 'March of the Makers'.
£172bn of overborrowing later and with the current account deficit at the highest on record ...
No - This is new in that if remain wins, the vote of confidence in the UK will be substantial and many opportunities will open to both UK companies and those looking for inward investment. Ultimately the only way to address the current account deficit is to grow through business investment and innovation
Again, we've heard similar so many times before.
£172bn of overborrowing and the largest current account deficit on record are by comparison facts not bluster.
What spending would you like to cut? What taxes would you like to raise?
Makeshift camps will be set up to help the sick if Accident & Emergency departments cannot cope with the first ever full walk-out by junior doctors next week. Hospitals have cancelled more than 125,000 operations and appointments as health officials warned that the service is facing “an unprecedented situation during a time of heightened risk” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/makeshift-nhs-camps-set-up-to-cope-with-casualties-during-strike/
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
My view is that the government will pass legislation in the next four years.
Government by concession. They'll have trouble passing wind at the rate they're going.
If Blair could continue governing after Iraq then the Tories - a far less ideologically and far more power-grasping amalgamation - can soldier on after this. MPs will be far less bothered than the diehards on here anyway. There'll be careers to enhance and seats to retain. Things will cary on like before. Sorry to disappoint.
How ?
The leader has announced he is resigning. That's a huge difference from post Iraq
I think that merely advances my point. Dave won't be around for much longer anyway. So why would Tory MPs feel the need to be awkward?
because they will all be jockeying for position and most of them will want to kill off Osborne.
Dave will become increasingly irrelevant in a party he has struggled to manage.
Alan when Cameron goes , do you think he will get fulsome applause from the Conservative parliamenterians as Blair did in 2007 ?
That was a low point for the Tories wasn't it?
Cameron the disciple, was saluting his mentor.
Dave just wanted to look gracious, knowing he was the one on the way up.
Post referendum, I wonder what nightmares lie in wait for the Government in the HoC.
Will they be able to pass any legislation over the next 4 years?
Nothing they won't deserve. Then it will be my turn to break out the popcorn and enjoy the fight.
As I have said before if the referendum results in a remain vote and subsequently there is a huge boost to investment and Company's locating for low tax rates (corporation tax going down to 17%)
Why would that happen. Its the status quo. At the moment a few companies are holding fire on investment to see which way the wind is blowing, but aside from that why should anyone invest anything new they were not going to invest before. Substitute the word "modest" for the word "huge" and I might be with you, but it won't be enough to save anyone's political bacon, especially since the people benefiting from that investment will be the very well off who vote Tory under any circumstance anyway.
How does Company's relocating to the UK for preferential tax rates just benefit the well off. There could be many thousands of new jobs and taxes as the possibility of Brexit is taken off the table for the foreseeable future. I am certain it will be 'huge' for UKPLC and the angst from leavers in the main will dissipate as the Country moves on
And let me guess, you were saying similar back in 2011 when Osborne was proclaiming the 'March of the Makers'.
£172bn of overborrowing later and with the current account deficit at the highest on record ...
No - This is new in that if remain wins, the vote of confidence in the UK will be substantial and many opportunities will open to both UK companies and those looking for inward investment. Ultimately the only way to address the current account deficit is to grow through business investment and innovation
Again, we've heard similar so many times before.
£172bn of overborrowing and the largest current account deficit on record are by comparison facts not bluster.
What spending would you like to cut? What taxes would you like to raise?
EU Overseas Aid Quangos Pretendy charities HS2 Hinckley C HTB Triple lock pensions
I'd also surcharge Letwin for the Kids Company money and Cameron for the cost of the EU propaganda
Taxes to be increased on consumption of imported tat and housing.
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
New investment and innovation
And why should that happen? Why should companies invest in the UK after a Remain vote when they weren't willing to 3 or 4 years ago? It is simply fanciful. Why shioulod we be more innovative inside a stagnating bloc than outside?
What is far more likely is a gradual move of finance companies from London to Frankfurt as the EU imposes more and more restrictions on non Eurozone trading.
Its no point in discussing facts with faith fanatics.
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
New investment and innovation
And why should that happen? Why should companies invest in the UK after a Remain vote when they weren't willing to 3 or 4 years ago? It is simply fanciful. Why shioulod we be more innovative inside a stagnating bloc than outside?
What is far more likely is a gradual move of finance companies from London to Frankfurt as the EU imposes more and more restrictions on non Eurozone trading.
Its no point in discussing facts with faith fanatics.
Big_G has faith that this 'new investment and innovation' will come because the high priests of his faith (the leadership of the Conservative party) have told him it will.
Dr. Foxinsox, that shift, according to Wikipedia, is from 1984 to 2014. It's still around €58bn. I'd also want to know how the EU budget varied, because if it doubled over that period then the actual amount spent on the CAP has increased rather than declined.
I'd also like to know what we contributed in 1984 or thereabouts (tried searching, couldn't find it).
Day two (or is or is it three) of Obama visit, and still leading Leavers are busy attacking the man and the process:
"the third-rate president of the United States" Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be defined simply as first black president, the rest is a rubbish and he spends more time pissing about on the golf course than all previous presidents put together.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
Day two (or is or is it three) of Obama visit, and still leading Leavers are busy attacking the man and the process:
"the third-rate president of the United States" Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be reminded simply as first black president, the rest is a disaster.
Hmm. Personally sceptical of this poll. We'll see in the coming days.
Me too. There seem to be more negative options than positive ones; it's not anything like a real Likert scale. 'Concerned' should have been an option; this is Project Fear after all. Commissioned by a Leave supporting paper? On the other hand, the annoyed and angered numbers are interesting.
Day two (or is or is it three) of Obama visit, and still leading Leavers are busy attacking the man and the process:
"the third-rate president of the United States" Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be reminded simply as first black president, the rest is a disaster.
Who was the last Democrat you approved of, FU?
There were actually a lot of positives about Clinton time in office. Bonking everything that moved obviously not being one of them.
But Obama has managed to make Bush look sensitive, especially the "stunt" when he did the brief press conference after the American got beheaded and then seen laughing and joking around the links 5 minutes later.
Anyways today or in the next few days York City will be relegated from the Football League. The club are still waiting to go to their new gound away from the city centre. With promises of a new start after years of renegotation ,with the local authority , business and other intrested parties.
Hopefully not a metaphor for how Britian goes over the next few years. An old established club with no debt shafted by owners, who transfered the assets and sold the ground to a holding company.
Makeshift camps will be set up to help the sick if Accident & Emergency departments cannot cope with the first ever full walk-out by junior doctors next week. Hospitals have cancelled more than 125,000 operations and appointments as health officials warned that the service is facing “an unprecedented situation during a time of heightened risk” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/makeshift-nhs-camps-set-up-to-cope-with-casualties-during-strike/
In the meantime Dave's out playing golf with his 'special relationship'.
I'm guessing he was told at the first tee, that Obama was going to win regardless of the score.
Day two (or is or is it three) of Obama visit, and still leading Leavers are busy attacking the man and the process:
"the third-rate president of the United States" Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be defined simply as first black president, the rest is a rubbish and he spends more time pissing about on the golf course than all previous presidents put together.
It doesn't matter whether he is crap POTUS or not, my point is that there is yet another Leave article moaning about Cameron and his tactics (this time using his old basketball buddy Obama). It's all process, process.
Where is the reasoned response to Obama's points about the mythical anglo-saxon trading nirvana that will exist after we leave?
Dr. Foxinsox, that shift, according to Wikipedia, is from 1984 to 2014. It's still around €58bn. I'd also want to know how the EU budget varied, because if it doubled over that period then the actual amount spent on the CAP has increased rather than declined.
I'd also like to know what we contributed in 1984 or thereabouts (tried searching, couldn't find it).
As a list of plus points, it's unpersuasive.
In 1984 we were the 3rd biggest net contributor to the EU budget:
Of course the EU was much smaller then, so you would expect it to have a smaller budget.
Just one of the many changes that we have encouraged in the EU. QMV was something that Thatchers government wanted in order to get past the French veto.
We certainly have had a positive effect on the EU in our 4 decades of membership.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
EDF? In all seriousness there seems to be an awful lot of subsidised industry and not just in the EU (Boeing?) as countries continue to look after what they perceive as their core interests. In the UK, BAe aside, no.
Day two (or is or is it three) of Obama visit, and still leading Leavers are busy attacking the man and the process:
"the third-rate president of the United States" Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be defined simply as first black president, the rest is a rubbish and he spends more time pissing about on the golf course than all previous presidents put together.
It doesn't matter whether he is crap POTUS or not, my point is that there is yet another Leave article moaning about Cameron and his tactics (this time using his old basketball buddy Obama). It's all process, process.
Where is the reasoned response to Obama's points about the mythical anglo-saxon trading nirvana that will exist after we leave?
Silence.
Oh I am sure his "star power" and all the media still fawning over his coolness won't hurt the Remain cause.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be defined simply as first black president, the rest is a rubbish and he spends more time pissing about on the golf course than all previous presidents put together.
The economy can grow but that does not mean the current account deficit will deficit will decrease. For that to happen we must export more and/or import less; GDP per se is irrelevant.
From a straight technical perspective, that's not quite right. GDP is calculated as:
Spending (sometimes called Aggregate Demand) + Exports - Imports
So, if you could lower imports, without lowering aggregate demand, then you would decrease the current account deficit while increasing GDP.
It is also important to know that the one economic measure which correlated almost perfectly with the current account deficit is the savings rate. Countries where people save more (Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands) have current account surpluses; countries where people spend more (us, the US, and Spain and Portugal in the old days) have current account deficits.
Policies that attempt to get the economy moving by suppressing saving - as have happened under various policy moves by our current government - will tend therefore to increase the current account deficit.
A lot of the 'solutions' to solving the current account deficit are attempts to solve the symptoms. Unless we - as a country - collectively save more, we cannot sustainably improve our current account.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
EDF? In all seriousness there seems to be an awful lot of subsidised industry and not just in the EU (Boeing?) as countries continue to look after what they perceive as their core interests. In the UK, BAe aside, no.
EDF is owned (85%) by the French state, but it does not receive cash injections from the French government. It supplies electricity to French businesses and consumers, charges for it, and pays dividends to its shareholders. (Which include the French state.)
A lot of the 'solutions' to solving the current account deficit are attempts to solve the symptoms. Unless we - as a country - collectively save more, we cannot sustainably improve our current account.
Which means saving has to look attractive to the man in the street, and at current interest rates, and with current levels of government meddling with the public finances, it doesn't.
Day two (or is or is it three) of Obama visit, and still leading Leavers are busy attacking the man and the process:
"the third-rate president of the United States" Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be defined simply as first black president, the rest is a rubbish and he spends more time pissing about on the golf course than all previous presidents put together.
Bush (jr) used to take a lot of grief about his golfing habits.
Yet Obama who plays even more seems to take less stick over it, curious.
I should point out that I am not a fan of the Bush presidency, but Obama has been pretty poor also.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
EDF? In all seriousness there seems to be an awful lot of subsidised industry and not just in the EU (Boeing?) as countries continue to look after what they perceive as their core interests. In the UK, BAe aside, no.
EDF is owned (85%) by the French state, but it does not receive cash injections from the French government. It supplies electricity to French businesses and consumers, charges for it, and pays dividends to its shareholders. (Which include the French state.)
Errr hasn't the french govt just put in a whole pile of cash in to EDF ?
So, if you could lower imports, without lowering aggregate demand, then you would decrease the current account deficit while increasing GDP.
It is also important to know that the one economic measure which correlated almost perfectly with the current account deficit is the savings rate. Countries where people save more (Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands) have current account surpluses; countries where people spend more (us, the US, and Spain and Portugal in the old days) have current account deficits.
If you are maintaining aggregate demand and lowering imports then it follows you must be capable of fulfilling that extra demand domestically, which requires domestic manufacturing, which is a bit of a problem for us when the government is strangling any manufacturing it sees, and you need that manufacturing to be competitive with the imported tat so people buy local tat, which isn't going to happen with third world labour rates and idiotic UK energy prices.
I guess the point about saving rates makes sense. If you are putting your money in the bank, you are not spending it on imported tat, so the level of imports should be lower.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
EDF? In all seriousness there seems to be an awful lot of subsidised industry and not just in the EU (Boeing?) as countries continue to look after what they perceive as their core interests. In the UK, BAe aside, no.
EDF is owned (85%) by the French state, but it does not receive cash injections from the French government. It supplies electricity to French businesses and consumers, charges for it, and pays dividends to its shareholders. (Which include the French state.)
Errr hasn't the french govt just put in a whole pile of in to EDF ?
My understanding, and I am by no means an expert on this, is that EDF is having a rights issue, and the French government is excercising its pre-emption rights, as a major shareholder.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
EDF? In all seriousness there seems to be an awful lot of subsidised industry and not just in the EU (Boeing?) as countries continue to look after what they perceive as their core interests. In the UK, BAe aside, no.
EDF is owned (85%) by the French state, but it does not receive cash injections from the French government. It supplies electricity to French businesses and consumers, charges for it, and pays dividends to its shareholders. (Which include the French state.)
Errr hasn't the french govt just put in a whole pile of in to EDF ?
My understanding, and I am by no means an expert on this, is that EDF is having a rights issue, and the French government is excercising its pre-emption rights, as a major shareholder.
So, a clever way of getting around the subsidy rules?
It's a shame other governments cannot follow their lead.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
Implicitly, yes, via trade protection. Which though not very high in the conventional sense i.e. tariffs, remains significant in the form of non-tariff barriers.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
EDF? In all seriousness there seems to be an awful lot of subsidised industry and not just in the EU (Boeing?) as countries continue to look after what they perceive as their core interests. In the UK, BAe aside, no.
EDF is owned (85%) by the French state, but it does not receive cash injections from the French government. It supplies electricity to French businesses and consumers, charges for it, and pays dividends to its shareholders. (Which include the French state.)
Errr hasn't the french govt just put in a whole pile of in to EDF ?
My understanding, and I am by no means an expert on this, is that EDF is having a rights issue, and the French government is excercising its pre-emption rights, as a major shareholder.
well it's one of those fun mysteries is it a rights issue to expand or just bail them out ?
Agreed. I spent a great amount of time when I was at University campaigning on behalf of the BUAV and it was always very slow going. But the point we were discussing was on animal husbandry standards and we are well ahead of most of the rest of Europe and of EU standards as a whole on that subject.
Yes, you're right.
Amazing how often we agree on stuff, isn't it? Shows the limitations of the left-right axis in defining how much people overlap.
By the way, the London postal votes landed today. Jez we Khan!
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
EDF? In all seriousness there seems to be an awful lot of subsidised industry and not just in the EU (Boeing?) as countries continue to look after what they perceive as their core interests. In the UK, BAe aside, no.
EDF is owned (85%) by the French state, but it does not receive cash injections from the French government. It supplies electricity to French businesses and consumers, charges for it, and pays dividends to its shareholders. (Which include the French state.)
Errr hasn't the french govt just put in a whole pile of in to EDF ?
My understanding, and I am by no means an expert on this, is that EDF is having a rights issue, and the French government is excercising its pre-emption rights, as a major shareholder.
If one were being cynical, one might suggest that the whole structure of EDF was set up to skirt carefully around EU procurement and state ownership rules.
The economy can grow but that does not mean the current account deficit will deficit will decrease. For that to happen we must export more and/or import less; GDP per se is irrelevant.
From a straight technical perspective, that's not quite right. GDP is calculated as:
Spending (sometimes called Aggregate Demand) + Exports - Imports
So, if you could lower imports, without lowering aggregate demand, then you would decrease the current account deficit while increasing GDP.
It is also important to know that the one economic measure which correlated almost perfectly with the current account deficit is the savings rate. Countries where people save more (Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands) have current account surpluses; countries where people spend more (us, the US, and Spain and Portugal in the old days) have current account deficits.
Policies that attempt to get the economy moving by suppressing saving - as have happened under various policy moves by our current government - will tend therefore to increase the current account deficit.
A lot of the 'solutions' to solving the current account deficit are attempts to solve the symptoms. Unless we - as a country - collectively save more, we cannot sustainably improve our current account.
Day two (or is or is it three) of Obama visit, and still leading Leavers are busy attacking the man and the process:
"the third-rate president of the United States" Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be reminded simply as first black president, the rest is a disaster.
Who was the last Democrat you approved of, FU?
There were actually a lot of positives about Clinton time in office. Bonking everything that moved obviously not being one of them.
Clinton has wall-to-wall charisma, and the sort of folky way that makes him easy to like. For me the big problem with Clinton were
a) repealing Glass-Steagall (although to be fair it was mostly toothless by the time he got to it) b) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - letting depository and casino banks merge. c) Community Reinvestment Act - pressuring banks to lend to bad credit risks
Day two (or is or is it three) of Obama visit, and still leading Leavers are busy attacking the man and the process:
"the third-rate president of the United States" Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
I don't agree with Heffer on much, but he is right about Obama. His time as president will be reminded simply as first black president, the rest is a disaster.
Who was the last Democrat you approved of, FU?
There were actually a lot of positives about Clinton time in office. Bonking everything that moved obviously not being one of them.
Clinton has wall-to-wall charisma, and the sort of folky way that makes him easy to like. For me the big problem with Clinton were
a) repealing Glass-Steagall (although to be fair it was mostly toothless by the time he got to it) b) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - letting depository and casino banks merge. c) Community Reinvestment Act - pressuring banks to lend to bad credit risks
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
Is there much subsidised industry in the EU anymore?
EDF? In all seriousness there seems to be an awful lot of subsidised industry and not just in the EU (Boeing?) as countries continue to look after what they perceive as their core interests. In the UK, BAe aside, no.
EDF is owned (85%) by the French state, but it does not receive cash injections from the French government. It supplies electricity to French businesses and consumers, charges for it, and pays dividends to its shareholders. (Which include the French state.)
Errr hasn't the french govt just put in a whole pile of in to EDF ?
My understanding, and I am by no means an expert on this, is that EDF is having a rights issue, and the French government is excercising its pre-emption rights, as a major shareholder.
well it's one of those fun mysteries is it a rights issue to expand or just bail them out ?
It would be ridiculous to draw a line between raising capital from the French government qua shareholder and the French government qua national government.
Agreed. I spent a great amount of time when I was at University campaigning on behalf of the BUAV and it was always very slow going. But the point we were discussing was on animal husbandry standards and we are well ahead of most of the rest of Europe and of EU standards as a whole on that subject.
Yes, you're right.
Amazing how often we agree on stuff, isn't it? Shows the limitations of the left-right axis in defining how much people overlap.
By the way, the London postal votes landed today. Jez we Khan!
Edit: the postal voting is SO bloody complicated. Fill in form 1 using this electoral system, then form 2 using that electoral system (personal Assembly vote), then form 3 using a third electoral system (party Assembly vote), then put them all in envelope A, filling out details on the detachable postal voting slip, but do not detach it, then seal envelope A, no you can't seal it by licking the envelope, stupid, that would be too easy, you've got to find the fucking removable adhesive strip contra-intuitively located at the hinge, then carefully insert in envelope B.
Look, I have a PhD in mathematics and I'm a former member of Mensa, but really, if they'd set out to make it a challenge, they'd have done well.
Comments
£172bn of overborrowing and the largest current account deficit on record are by comparison facts not bluster.
Trump currently has 848 delegates, and needs 1,237 to secure the nomination prior to the convention. However 1,200+ should see the nomination in his hands on the first vote.
We can make a fair number of assumptions about states still to come:
- Trump wins Delaware (16 delegates)
- Trump wins Pennsylvania (17 bound delegates)
- Trump loses Nebraska
- Trump wins West Virginia (direct election, 34 delegates)
- Trump loses Montana
- Trump wins New Jersey (51 delegates)
- Trump loses South Dakota
That puts Trump on 964 and leaves just eight states up for grabs.In two, Washington and Oregon, we have no polling. However both are proportional and are therefore no particularly sensitive to vote shares. We can safely assume for the purpose of argument that Trump wins 35% and fifteen and ten delegates respectively. A similar result in New Mexico would be consistent with the only polling there, netting Trump a further eight delegates. All these estimates are slightly under 538's experts, but there you go - also note that New Mexico votes right at the end of the process and is more vulnerable to swings designed to put Trump in or keep him out.
That leaves Trump on 997, therefore needing 240 from the five remaining states of which the first three are in just three days' time.
[Post 1 of 2]
Connecticut (28 delegates)
Two polls put Trump on 48% and 50%, with leads of 20% and 24% over Kasich. That would be enough to win Trump all five congressional districts, a total of 15 delegates. Trump is likely to secure over 50% in the polls (since 15% are undecideds) and therefore get all of the remaining 13, too. Otherwise he will win six. However I'm going with all 28 here - the movement in New York was to Trump compared to the polls; it's a closed primary which favours Trump and he has the momentum to carry into this contest.
Maryland (38 delegates)
Polls put Trump on 43 to 47%, a lead of 15% to 20% over Kasich. Therefore we can be confident of a statewide win for Trump (14 delegates) plus most of the direct elections in CDs, if not all. I've counted in 35 which would allow for one CD to go against Trump, seven to go with him.
Rhode Island (19 delegates)
This is a two stage proportional state. Each of the three candidates is likely to score over 10% and under 67% in each of the state's two CDs, therefore each candidate will scoop two. A lack of polling hinders a precise figure; 50 to 60% is likely for Trump, approximately seven further delegates - a total of nine.
Round 1 would therefore net Trump 72 delegates, leaving just two states likely to decide the nomination: Indiana (57 delegates) and California (172 delegates) - Trump would need 168 between them.
Indiana is easier to call. The state votes on May 3 - there are no roadbumps for Trump on the calendar before then. Both recent polls put Trump on a small lead in the state, which I believe is achievable. The days of a late swing to Cruz will be gone. Thirty delegates go the winner, and the CDs are winner-takes all, with Trump likely to secure 5 of 9 (if he does win the state). Therefore he will leave Indiana with a haul of 45.
Trump would need 123 delegates out of California. In March the consensus polling position was a single digit lead for Trump, which looked likely to falter at the ballot box. Now polling puts him 18 or even 27 points up, and likely to secure 123 delegates from the state. This is more difficult to call because Californians (well, Republicans, since it's a closed primary) will know that they can make or break Trump.
Therefore I rate Trump's chance of winning before the Convention as highly as 50%; his chance on the first ballot 80%; and have bet accordingly.
What price consistency?
I'm loathe to mention this, but unlike one of his predecessors Osborne has failed to abolish the economic cycle and we're heading towards the 'bust' part.
What is far more likely is a gradual move of finance companies from London to Frankfurt as the EU imposes more and more restrictions on non Eurozone trading.
And the EU makes no secret of that.
Big_G has faith that this 'new investment and innovation' will come because the high priests of his faith (the leadership of the Conservative party) have told him it will.
Cameron the disciple, was saluting his mentor.
Inward investment is also not a universal good. The likes of Honda setting up a modern car factory here is definitely a good thing. Someone buying a UK business stripping out all the IP and then shutting production also counts as inward investment but is actually harmful.
Its whether you like this process or not that drives people to choose sides in this referendum.
There is still a lot of subsidised industry in the EU, but under the banner of the single market, and the ECJ insistence that governments do not subsidise in order to give a competitive edge over other member states this has reduced and continues to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/makeshift-nhs-camps-set-up-to-cope-with-casualties-during-strike/
Overseas Aid
Quangos
Pretendy charities
HS2
Hinckley C
HTB
Triple lock pensions
I'd also surcharge Letwin for the Kids Company money and Cameron for the cost of the EU propaganda
Taxes to be increased on consumption of imported tat and housing.
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
New investment and innovation
And why should that happen? Why should companies invest in the UK after a Remain vote when they weren't willing to 3 or 4 years ago? It is simply fanciful. Why shioulod we be more innovative inside a stagnating bloc than outside?
What is far more likely is a gradual move of finance companies from London to Frankfurt as the EU imposes more and more restrictions on non Eurozone trading.
Its no point in discussing facts with faith fanatics.
A lot of the Companies will be high tec high wage ones as UKPLC enters a period of sustained growth with higher tax revenues
Why should remaining in the EU mean we enter a period of higher growth?
New investment and innovation
And why should that happen? Why should companies invest in the UK after a Remain vote when they weren't willing to 3 or 4 years ago? It is simply fanciful. Why shioulod we be more innovative inside a stagnating bloc than outside?
What is far more likely is a gradual move of finance companies from London to Frankfurt as the EU imposes more and more restrictions on non Eurozone trading.
Its no point in discussing facts with faith fanatics.
Big_G has faith that this 'new investment and innovation' will come because the high priests of his faith (the leadership of the Conservative party) have told him it will.
No one tells me anything (apart from Mrs Big G)
I'd also like to know what we contributed in 1984 or thereabouts (tried searching, couldn't find it).
As a list of plus points, it's unpersuasive.
"the third-rate president of the United States"
Heffer in Daily Telegraph.
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/723900840805838848
But Obama has managed to make Bush look sensitive, especially the "stunt" when he did the brief press conference after the American got beheaded and then seen laughing and joking around the links 5 minutes later.
The club are still waiting to go to their new gound away from the city centre.
With promises of a new start after years of renegotation ,with the local authority , business and other intrested parties.
Hopefully not a metaphor for how Britian goes over the next few years.
An old established club with no debt shafted by owners, who transfered the assets and sold the ground to a holding company.
I'm guessing he was told at the first tee, that Obama was going to win regardless of the score.
Where is the reasoned response to Obama's points about the mythical anglo-saxon trading nirvana that will exist after we leave?
Silence.
http://money-go-round.eu/Year.aspx?year=1984&method=abs
Of course the EU was much smaller then, so you would expect it to have a smaller budget.
Just one of the many changes that we have encouraged in the EU. QMV was something that Thatchers government wanted in order to get past the French veto.
We certainly have had a positive effect on the EU in our 4 decades of membership.
Spending (sometimes called Aggregate Demand)
+
Exports
-
Imports
So, if you could lower imports, without lowering aggregate demand, then you would decrease the current account deficit while increasing GDP.
It is also important to know that the one economic measure which correlated almost perfectly with the current account deficit is the savings rate. Countries where people save more (Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands) have current account surpluses; countries where people spend more (us, the US, and Spain and Portugal in the old days) have current account deficits.
Policies that attempt to get the economy moving by suppressing saving - as have happened under various policy moves by our current government - will tend therefore to increase the current account deficit.
A lot of the 'solutions' to solving the current account deficit are attempts to solve the symptoms. Unless we - as a country - collectively save more, we cannot sustainably improve our current account.
Yet Obama who plays even more seems to take less stick over it, curious.
I should point out that I am not a fan of the Bush presidency, but Obama has been pretty poor also.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/french-power-utility-edf-to-raise-4-billion-in-new-shares-to-finance-projects-1461352100
I guess the point about saving rates makes sense. If you are putting your money in the bank, you are not spending it on imported tat, so the level of imports should be lower.
It's a shame other governments cannot follow their lead.
Amazing how often we agree on stuff, isn't it? Shows the limitations of the left-right axis in defining how much people overlap.
By the way, the London postal votes landed today. Jez we Khan!
a) repealing Glass-Steagall (although to be fair it was mostly toothless by the time he got to it)
b) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - letting depository and casino banks merge.
c) Community Reinvestment Act - pressuring banks to lend to bad credit risks
Resulting in...
Clever Cameron
Amazing how often we agree on stuff, isn't it? Shows the limitations of the left-right axis in defining how much people overlap.
By the way, the London postal votes landed today. Jez we Khan!
Edit: the postal voting is SO bloody complicated. Fill in form 1 using this electoral system, then form 2 using that electoral system (personal Assembly vote), then form 3 using a third electoral system (party Assembly vote), then put them all in envelope A, filling out details on the detachable postal voting slip, but do not detach it, then seal envelope A, no you can't seal it by licking the envelope, stupid, that would be too easy, you've got to find the fucking removable adhesive strip contra-intuitively located at the hinge, then carefully insert in envelope B.
Look, I have a PhD in mathematics and I'm a former member of Mensa, but really, if they'd set out to make it a challenge, they'd have done well.
Turnout ceiling 69%?
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/arm-und-reich/lebensmittel-fuer-beduerftige-deutschlands-grosse-tafelrunde-14182789.html
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/723862570139017216
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/723863670611169280
Britain's special relationship with the US would be (X) by leaving the EU: Strengthened: 7% Weakened: 23% [No diff.]: 59% (YouGov / 22 Apr)
Plato must have forgotten to post these two bits of the poll