This story seeming to be coming across a bit meh if the usual suspect newspaper websites are any guide. Strange.
It's a bit meh because there isn't much of a story. A load of people have visited the UK for short periods. For that matter, a load of Brits have gone abroad for short periods. Neither are included in migration figures, never have been, and wouldn't be in any internationally-recognised migration statistics.
Surely the best way to measure migration is simply just to count people in and out (And not worry how long they're staying for ?)
In any 12 month period, tourists should roughly cancel...
Even I could make a database which stores passport numbers and dates of entry/exit (exit collected by the airline/ferry company etc as I don't think we have exit checks). It would be absolutely trivial to then determine how many unique people entered and left.
OT, but @taffys post below is a good example of it. Why does using blockquotes to quote a passage of text in this fashion cause the rest of the quote to be buggered up. I think the URL should be in the shaded bit for instance. Maybe the mods can help, or @rcs1000 ?
I've banged on about this for years to anyone prepared to listen. It's a huge huge problem where the slow upwards creep of longevity has collided with poorer investment returns and probably most crucially rock bottom interest rates.
Essentially we have as a society chosen for the past 6/7 years to prop up housing which is nice and visible and therefore not easily swept under the carpet if it crashes, at the expense of creating a vast pensions issue largely because of the self same low intrest rate policy. Of course there's no "Right Move" for pensions and maybe 1% of people understand it so it's easily kept hidden. Mr Meeks is dead right that it's a balancing act, as if we suddenly demand the gaps are filled thousands of companies will collapse and that won't do us any good at all. I think it's been calculated that the vast majority of deficits would vanish with 3% 20 year gilt yields which would've seemed insanely low only ten years ago.
Investment in plant is being curtailed and I know from experience that wage growth is being suppressed as companies bend themselves out of shape to hose cash from the here and now to fill financial black holes which have largely been conjured out of thin air by policy decisions. I cannot help thinking that future historians will look back on this as a ghastly monetary mistake of "fighting the last war" and the old shibboleths of low interest rates stimulating the economy no long hold true as they did as I can cite personal experience if my self and others in the commercial world where the opposite is true.
The Office of National Statistics has fessed up. Previously released figures on immigration from the EU into the UK have long been suspected of being somewhat… well, lower than expected.
And we’re not talking a few percentage points here or there. We’re talking factors of two or three. So the ONS tell us, for example, that in the five years to 2015, just under a million EU nationals had moved to the UK to live. Yet the number of National insurance numbers handed to EU nationals in the same period was a bit higher than that. And when I say “a bit”, I mean two and half times that amount – 2.23 million.
Boris should be all over this. Controlled immigration good uncontrolled will ruin the infrastructure we have here. Ok to let then in but it creates a housing crisis, a schools crisis, NHS overloaded etc
Whichever way you try and slice this there is a limit... There is only so many we can absorb without bringing our own standards and facilities in a downward spiral. I would prefer that we ourselves decide that not some faceless bureaucrat in Brussels.
We should stop resting people from safe countries as well. Cameron is right on this support them in safe areas close to their homes so they can return and rebuild. Of course it is also based on the politicians sorting out the wars rather than opening our doors wide.
Alas they dare not put Boris anywhere near this subject, seeing that he was in favour of utterly uncontrolled immigration - an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Ok, fair enough but the points made remain. Until we get away from he said she said type of arguments then it's all just VB * really and we miss the details.
* VB is a commercial enterprise of Meeks Inc any reproduction in any form including print or electronic is expressly forbidden. All Lawyers are innocent until found guilty in a court of Law.
I never claimed to be some superior life form. And never expected five years on to point this out.
It's hilarious.
Those who denigrate us are so out of touch.
At my children's' primary school, the star of the week award does not go to the best and brightest but to those which need encouragement and incentivisation. Just an observation.
Nothing, but nothing, beats sibling rivalry with talented brothers (in my case) for encouragement.
Decades ago, when I used occasionally to listen to the Archers there was an off-stage band mentioned called the "Chinese Bed socks". That's also a pity to waste.
I'm simply pointing out that any individual's vote isn't going to change much in isolation so it's best to vote for what you want, heart is better than head in this instance.
There are too many imponderables for any side to make concrete claims on their mastery future.
That doesn't make sense. You should vote for what you think is best for the country on balance, taking a judgement on all the information you have.
Actually, the research from cognitive science on this one supports Alanbrooke. For truly complex problems, our rational brain is very ill-equipped and our emotional brain makes a much better hash of it, even if it has lots of flaws too (arising from having evolved to cope with hunter gather problems, not IT consultant ones).
Richard, as one who used to be an ultimate quant and rationalist who has only been reluctantly converted over many years to the value of the emotional brain, I highly recommend that you read "How Risk is it Really?" by Ropeik. A very good read, and extremely informative.
It reviews how our views and decisions are coloured at each of four levels: the physical and chemical structure of the brain, its heuristics in dealing with complex issues with incomplete information, how personality affects both information processing and analysis, and then outside pressures, such as media, culture etc...
The Office of National Statistics has fessed up. Previously released figures on immigration from the EU into the UK have long been suspected of being somewhat… well, lower than expected.
And we’re not talking a few percentage points here or there. We’re talking factors of two or three. So the ONS tell us, for example, that in the five years to 2015, just under a million EU nationals had moved to the UK to live. Yet the number of National insurance numbers handed to EU nationals in the same period was a bit higher than that. And when I say “a bit”, I mean two and half times that amount – 2.23 million.
Boris should be all over this. Controlled immigration good uncontrolled will ruin the infrastructure we have here. Ok to let then in but it creates a housing crisis, a schools crisis, NHS overloaded etc
Whichever way you try and slice this there is a limit... There is only so many we can absorb without bringing our own standards and facilities in a downward spiral. I would prefer that we ourselves decide that not some faceless bureaucrat in Brussels.
We should stop resting people from safe countries as well. Cameron is right on this support them in safe areas close to their homes so they can return and rebuild. Of course it is also based on the politicians sorting out the wars rather than opening our doors wide.
Alas they dare not put Boris anywhere near this subject, seeing that he was in favour of utterly uncontrolled immigration - an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Ok, fair enough but the points made remain. Until we get away from he said she said type of arguments then it's all just VB * really and we miss the details.
* VB is a commercial enterprise of Meeks Inc any reproduction in any form including print or electronic is expressly forbidden. All Lawyers are innocent until found guilty in a court of Law.
No doubt plod are already on the case after his apparent racial confrontation and slur "while slag" applying all their valuable resources to tracking the perpetrators like they normally do......
Or perhaps not? After all its old and who knows what was what?
The Office of National Statistics has fessed up. Previously released figures on immigration from the EU into the UK have long been suspected of being somewhat… well, lower than expected.
And we’re not talking a few percentage points here or there. We’re talking factors of two or three. So the ONS tell us, for example, that in the five years to 2015, just under a million EU nationals had moved to the UK to live. Yet the number of National insurance numbers handed to EU nationals in the same period was a bit higher than that. And when I say “a bit”, I mean two and half times that amount – 2.23 million.
Boris should be all over this. Controlled immigration good uncontrolled will ruin the infrastructure we have here. Ok to let then in but it creates a housing crisis, a schools crisis, NHS overloaded etc
Whichever way you try and slice this there is a limit... There is only so many we can absorb without bringing our own standards and facilities in a downward spiral. I would prefer that we ourselves decide that not some faceless bureaucrat in Brussels.
We should stop resting people from safe countries as well. Cameron is right on this support them in safe areas close to their homes so they can return and rebuild. Of course it is also based on the politicians sorting out the wars rather than opening our doors wide.
Alas they dare not put Boris anywhere near this subject, seeing that he was in favour of utterly uncontrolled immigration - an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Ok, fair enough but the points made remain. Until we get away from he said she said type of arguments then it's all just VB * really and we miss the details.
* VB is a commercial enterprise of Meeks Inc any reproduction in any form including print or electronic is expressly forbidden. All Lawyers are innocent until found guilty in a court of Law.
No lawyer is innocent as they'll tell you...
Agreed but ....Second time today...irony fail on Internet.
Reading AEP's latest eurogeddon piece, I am wondering if this time, eventually, he is close to being correct.
Italy's numbers are just horrendous, no matter what spin you put on them.
Indeed, stunningly depressing:
"The youth jobless rate is 65pc in Calabria, 56pc in Sicily, and 53pc in Campania, despite an exodus of 100,000 a year from the Mezzogiorno - often in the direction of London."
Reading AEP's latest eurogeddon piece, I am wondering if this time, eventually, he is close to being correct.
Italy's numbers are just horrendous, no matter what spin you put on them.
Indeed, stunningly depressing:
"The youth jobless rate is 65pc in Calabria, 56pc in Sicily, and 53pc in Campania, despite an exodus of 100,000 a year from the Mezzogiorno - often in the direction of London."
How come it is not frequently on BBC and ITV News?
Reading AEP's latest eurogeddon piece, I am wondering if this time, eventually, he is close to being correct.
Italy's numbers are just horrendous, no matter what spin you put on them.
Indeed, stunningly depressing:
"The youth jobless rate is 65pc in Calabria, 56pc in Sicily, and 53pc in Campania, despite an exodus of 100,000 a year from the Mezzogiorno - often in the direction of London."
How come it is not frequently on BBC and ITV News?
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
... Italy's numbers are just horrendous, no matter what spin you put on them.
The UK numbers that matter(e.g. trade, productivity, debt) are fairly ghastly too. Even the focus on the meaningless (for the average bod) increase in GDP looks to be petering out.
I do wonder if we will see improvements in living standards across the board again in my lifetime. I doubt it, but if we are to see them then I think we have to change tack because the politico/economic policies the UK has been following for the last few decades seem to have produced very good results for those that have whilst those that do have been flat-lined or gone backwards.
Sometimes, when I am in a very pessimistic mood I wonder, why the likes of Goldman Sachs are even given house room in the UK let alone allowed to trade here and pay money into political campaigns.
People working for 6p a day in China is why our economy is up shit creek, that will still be the case whether we Remain or Leave, it has nothing to do with 4% being added to the price of brie.
Out by a factor of one hundred. The typical factory wage in China is now about £1 per hour and doubling every five years. Obviously less than here but not quite the ultra low wage economy it used to be.
The half a billion in dividends taken out might have had some impact. Just saying.
Can I recommend that you go and study what dividends are (clue - they are more related to profits than pension funds), then read the article properly, before trying to make flippant comments like this?
The DB buy out scheme solution is booming - just look at where Just Retirement has moved in to whilst individual annuity business has fallen back (but not died please note)
What's going on in the fantasy football? You might actually do it.
Norwich may be relegated but I'm in no mood to give up the fantasy football #1 slot.
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
Well Trump said that he has a list of 5, 6 or 7 people for VP's, including Fallin and Brewer, so with the other leaks here's the probable list:
The 5 sures.
Newt Gingrich (ex-House speaker, too old and not enough stamina) Chris Christie (N.J. Governor, big safe Democratic state, too unpopular) Mary Fallin (Rhymes with Sarah Palin, Oklahoma Governor, small safe Republican state) Jan Brewer (ex-Governor of Arizona, tenure marked by anti-immigration policies) Bob Corker (Tennesee Senator, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee)
The 2 maybes.
Brian Sandoval (Governor of Nevada, agrees with all of Trump's policies except immigration and muslims, GOP conservatives hate him, may not accept the job)
John Kasich (Governor of Ohio, agrees with Trump on Healthcare, Abortion, and some budget issues, disagrees with the rest, may not accept the job)
If I where Trump I would go for Sandoval, to also prove that he is not a racist with hispanics, though because conservatives don't like Sandoval it maybe a risk. It might not violate Nixon's rule of having a person who your enemies hate more than you as life insurance.
Gingrich is too old and sounds too tired on TV, and Christie is just too toxic to provide the needed boost to catch up to Hillary.
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
The half a billion in dividends taken out might have had some impact. Just saying.
Can I recommend that you go and study what dividends are (clue - they are more related to profits than pension funds), then read the article properly, before trying to make flippant
Mort, old son, I know very well what a dividend is. Apparently it works like this: buy business for c200m. Load it up with debt. Take out c500m in divs. Sell it for a quid. And put a c300m pension deficit into to PPF. Try familiarising yourself with the particulars before commenting.
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
Murali s What were the Labour Peers and the MPs excuses for their fraud..some of them were very funny..They should be getting out soon..and no doubt welcomed back into the Party.
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
According to Guido the relevant information has already been passed on.
I also think you are slightly overstating it with your "riddled with corruption" description.
But I love the Tory excuse for this corrupt behaviour - "administrative error".
I also love innocent until proven guilty.... oh wait.
I find it hard to believe they would deliberately commit fraud, us stories may have an insatiable lust for power, but not at all costs!
Maybe I am over-egging the story for now and apologies for that. Anyway, if an offence has been committed, who are culpable parties? - the sitting MP, the election agent for that constituency or CCHQ
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
According to Guido the relevant information has already been passed on.
I also think you are slightly overstating it with your "riddled with corruption" description.
But I love the Tory excuse for this corrupt behaviour - "administrative error".
I also love innocent until proven guilty.... oh wait.
I find it hard to believe they would deliberately commit fraud, us stories may have an insatiable lust for power, but not at all costs!
Maybe I am over-egging the story for now and apologies for that. Anyway, if an offence has been committed - who are culpable parties - the sitting MP, the election agent for that constituency or CCHQ?
Given that it was submitted as a national expense, I find it hard to believe an individual MP could be held culpable.
Surely the best way to measure migration is simply just to count people in and out (And not worry how long they're staying for ?)
In any 12 month period, tourists should roughly cancel...
That's too much like common sense to be statistically valid!
Privacy issues, I'd have thought. Do you really want the state to be keeping close track of all your comings and goings?
HRMC keeps track of the contents of your bank account, GCHQ trawls our emails and phone conversations, its kinda of hard to get excited about someone ticking a box every time we cross a border1
Murali s What were the Labour Peers and the MPs excuses for their fraud..some of them were very funny..They should be getting out soon..and no doubt welcomed back into the Party.
I condemn all forms of corruption - whether it's for personal or political reasons. Submitting fake and spurious expense claims is equally as bad as trying to buy an election. All corruption needs to be fully investigated and the guilty need to be punished...
Surely the best way to measure migration is simply just to count people in and out (And not worry how long they're staying for ?)
In any 12 month period, tourists should roughly cancel...
That's too much like common sense to be statistically valid!
Privacy issues, I'd have thought. Do you really want the state to be keeping close track of all your comings and goings?
For most of my life I as a British Passport holder had to show my passport to immigration officials on the way out as well as on the way in. The change to no checks on the way out is releatively recent (late 1990s?). In any event the data is now already collected, or at least the passports are checked, in my experience by the travel companies. Privacy on this issue is neither here nor there.
Incompetence by the Civil Service is the actual reason. When was the "E-Borders" scheme due to go live?
Well Trump said that he has a list of 5, 6 or 7 people for VP's, including Fallin and Brewer, so with the other leaks here's the probable list:
The 5 sures.
Newt Gingrich (ex-House speaker, too old and not enough stamina) Chris Christie (N.J. Governor, big safe Democratic state, too unpopular) Mary Fallin (Rhymes with Sarah Palin, Oklahoma Governor, small safe Republican state) Jan Brewer (ex-Governor of Arizona, tenure marked by anti-immigration policies) Bob Corker (Tennesee Senator, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee)
The 2 maybes.
Brian Sandoval (Governor of Nevada, agrees with all of Trump's policies except immigration and muslims, GOP conservatives hate him, may not accept the job)
John Kasich (Governor of Ohio, agrees with Trump on Healthcare, Abortion, and some budget issues, disagrees with the rest, may not accept the job)
If I where Trump I would go for Sandoval, to also prove that he is not a racist with hispanics, though because conservatives don't like Sandoval it maybe a risk. It might not violate Nixon's rule of having a person who your enemies hate more than you as life insurance.
Gingrich is too old and sounds too tired on TV, and Christie is just too toxic to provide the needed boost to catch up to Hillary.
His only chance is with a woman, surely? A good pick could electrify the race [if such thing is needed!]
murali s Absolutely agree with that and that is why all those Labour Peers and MPs were convicted..so why not wait for any Court case before you start with the smears..
murali s Absolutely agree with that and that is why all those Labour Peers and MPs were convicted..so why not wait for any Court case before you start with the smears..
Are Channel 4 smearing? Their evidence is very damning!
Anyway, let's wait and see - I of course fear an establishment cover-up like the many inquiries viz. the Iraq War.
murali s Absolutely agree with that and that is why all those Labour Peers and MPs were convicted..so why not wait for any Court case before you start with the smears..
Are Channel 4 smearing? Their evidence is very damning!
Anyway, let's wait and see - I of course fear an establishment cover-up like the many inquiries viz. the Iraq War.
Isn't this whole thing based on what opening phrase the campaigners used?
Well Trump said that he has a list of 5, 6 or 7 people for VP's, including Fallin and Brewer,
No, he hasn't said that the list includes Fallin and Brewer. The names were put to him and he praised them. Not the same thing.
What he has done is list some very sensible criteria, most importantly someone who knows how Washington works and has all the necessary contacts, and who is a fully-vetted elected politician. I do think he'll try very hard indeed to find a woman VP candidate. The potential list is quite short, so I think there's some betting value to be had. Ideally he wants someone not from the NE, someone who can reassure the Republican elites, and someone who can fill in his gaps in policy.
Jan Brewer has strong AZ credentials, but it's not clear she has the Washington experience.
Mary Fallin looks a better bet, she was in Congress for four years. Even so, still a bit limited in terms of Washington wheeler-dealing, perhaps.
Kelly Ayotte and Susana Martinez would tick lots of boxes but have been vocal in criticising Trump, so maybe not.
My stand-out pick is Sen. Shelley Moore Capito at 50/1 Ladbrokes. Woman. Aged 63, which is fine. From West Virginia, so not another North-Easter. A long-serving senator and before that a member of the House of Representatives, so superbly experienced. An absolutely rock-solid Republican pedigree (she's the daughter of a three-term governor). She's strong on foreign affairs. And she hasn't slagged off Trump.
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
According to Guido the relevant information has already been passed on.
I also think you are slightly overstating it with your "riddled with corruption" description.
But I love the Tory excuse for this corrupt behaviour - "administrative error".
I also love innocent until proven guilty.... oh wait.
I find it hard to believe they would deliberately commit fraud, us stories may have an insatiable lust for power, but not at all costs!
Maybe I am over-egging the story for now and apologies for that. Anyway, if an offence has been committed - who are culpable parties - the sitting MP, the election agent for that constituency or CCHQ?
Given that it was submitted as a national expense, I find it hard to believe an individual MP could be held culpable.
That wouldn't work as a defence on the basis that the constituency agent is responsible in law for the spending on the local campaign. They'd have to argue that they didn't know the bussed in activists were there campaigning on behalf of the local candidate, difficult if (for example) the candidate was photographed with and canvassed with the activists.
The fact that it's declared nationally doesn't automatically mean that the law sees it as a national expense - that's a question of substance rather than declared form. The failure to declare at all initially obviously makes it look worse, and the defence of administrative error is easier to sustain if it's not followed by foot-dragging over producing documentation.
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
According to Guido the relevant information has already been passed on.
I also think you are slightly overstating it with your "riddled with corruption" description.
But I love the Tory excuse for this corrupt behaviour - "administrative error".
I also love innocent until proven guilty.... oh wait.
I find it hard to believe they would deliberately commit fraud, us stories may have an insatiable lust for power, but not at all costs!
Maybe I am over-egging the story for now and apologies for that. Anyway, if an offence has been committed - who are culpable parties - the sitting MP, the election agent for that constituency or CCHQ?
Given that it was submitted as a national expense, I find it hard to believe an individual MP could be held culpable.
That wouldn't work as a defence on the basis that the constituency agent is responsible in law for the spending on the local campaign. They'd have to argue that they didn't know the bussed in activists were there campaigning on behalf of the local candidate, difficult if (for example) the candidate was photographed with and canvassed with the activists.
The fact that it's declared nationally doesn't automatically mean that the law sees it as a national expense - that's a question of substance rather than declared form. The failure to declare at all initially obviously makes it look worse, and the defence of administrative error is easier to sustain if it's not followed by foot-dragging over producing documentation.
So when a leader visits a constituency and is seen with the candidate, that is a local expense? Seems like it would be prohibitively expensive to have the PM in your patch.
Even if the candidate was photographed with the campaigners, I don't think that automatically converts them to local activists.
My stand-out pick is Sen. Shelley Moore Capito at 50/1 Ladbrokes. Woman. Aged 63, which is fine. From West Virginia, so not another North-Easter. A long-serving senator and before that a member of the House of Representatives, so superbly experienced. An absolutely rock-solid Republican pedigree (she's the daughter of a three-term governor). She's strong on foreign affairs. And she hasn't slagged off Trump.
My stand-out pick is Sen. Shelley Moore Capito at 50/1 Ladbrokes. Woman. Aged 63, which is fine. From West Virginia, so not another North-Easter. A long-serving senator and before that a member of the House of Representatives, so superbly experienced. An absolutely rock-solid Republican pedigree (she's the daughter of a three-term governor). She's strong on foreign affairs. And she hasn't slagged off Trump.
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
According to Guido the relevant information has already been passed on.
I also think you are slightly overstating it with your "riddled with corruption" description.
But I love the Tory excuse for this corrupt behaviour - "administrative error".
!
?
That wouldn't work as a defence on the basis that the constituency agent is responsible in law for the spending on the local campaign. They'd have to argue that they didn't know the bussed in activists were there campaigning on behalf of the local candidate, difficult if (for example) the candidate was photographed with and canvassed with the activists.
The fact that it's declared nationally doesn't automatically mean that the law sees it as a national expense - that's a question of substance rather than declared form. The failure to declare at all initially obviously makes it look worse, and the defence of administrative error is easier to sustain if it's not followed by foot-dragging over producing documentation.
So when a leader visits a constituency and is seen with the candidate, that is a local expense? Seems like it would be prohibitively expensive to have the PM in your patch.
Even if the candidate was photographed with the campaigners, I don't think that automatically converts them to local activists.
No, I was saying that it would be difficult for the candidate/agent to claim that they didn't know that the activists were there or didn't know what they were doing in that situation, not that being photographed together is sufficient to be treated as local campaigning - obviously there's more to it than that. Broadly if you go door knocking and say you're there on behalf of the candidate, you're on the "local" side of the line; if you say how great the Conservatives are and by the way your candidate is a decent chap, you might be closer to the right side.
Having a script that introduces you on behalf of the candidate would be distinctly unhelpful in establishing a "national" fact pattern.
Leaders etc visiting is seen as "national" because they continue to attract national coverage (and, in the end, they have to spend the campaign somewhere).
Those Tories calling for the Governor of the Bank of England to be sacked are effectively calling for Osborne to be sacked.
I think their argument is that the Governor should not be involved, above politics and all that.
Their argument is that they don't want to hear anything inconvenient to their case, and the more authoritative the source the less they want to hear it.
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
No, I was saying that it would be difficult for the candidate/agent to claim that they didn't know that the activists were there or didn't know what they were doing in that situation, not that being photographed together is sufficient to be treated as local campaigning - obviously there's more to it than that. Broadly if you go door knocking and say you're there on behalf of the candidate, you're on the "local" side of the line; if you say how great the Conservatives are and by the way your candidate is a decent chap, you might be closer to the right side.
Having a script that introduces you on behalf of the candidate would be distinctly unhelpful in establishing a "national" fact pattern.
Leaders etc visiting is seen as "national" because they continue to attract national coverage (and, in the end, they have to spend the campaign somewhere).
The half a billion in dividends taken out might have had some impact. Just saying.
As I understand it the dividends were taken over ten years ago. The regulator can only go back six years anyway, and so seems unlikely much could be done there anyway. Furthermore a business might pay dividends perfectly properly ( the Regulator specifically mentions in its guidelines that they are a normal part of business - otherwise what's the point of a company?) only for future events to make that look imprudent in hindsight. Now if we are going to use hindsight to claw dividends back willy nllly we are into dangerous territory, as effectively any dividends issued by any company with a DB scheme are effectively not spendable and so worthless, with predictable effects on stock market values which would ( oh yes) make deficits far worse. Deficits can open up with breathtaking speed due to even small adjustments in interest rates or actuarial reassessment of longevity, so what looks fine and proper now can look less than good six months later without it being anyone's "fault" per se.
I would be more looking in this case, from what I've read, on what the cross guarantees from the rest of Arcadia were, and how, and if, and when, they were severed and what new arrangements were put in place at the time of purchase by the new owners. There is also the question that the Regulator is supposed to sign off every three years on a deficit catch back plan ( and gets annual updates I believe). I understand there was some disagreement as to where the Regulator and BHS had got to in those processes.
Really the 2004 Act, which governs all this is, in my view, full of worthy intent but has had bad consequences which were sadly predictable from day one, made worse by macro economic events that nobody could've been expected to foresee. One thing's for sure, it's all helped hole DB schemes below the waterline forever ( public sector aside courtesy of poor unborn taxpayers), and has inadvertently created a gold plated diminishing cohort of relatively well heeled pensioners and some future pensioners at the expense of everyone else having less old age provision and in the vast majority of cases in future decades working well into their 70's. It's also threatening otherwise solvent and well run companies in the here and now, and some ( and not just a few) will be driven to the wall unnecessarily by the fallout from our current pension laws.
Surely the best way to measure migration is simply just to count people in and out (And not worry how long they're staying for ?)
In any 12 month period, tourists should roughly cancel...
That's too much like common sense to be statistically valid!
Privacy issues, I'd have thought. Do you really want the state to be keeping close track of all your comings and goings?
HRMC keeps track of the contents of your bank account, GCHQ trawls our emails and phone conversations, its kinda of hard to get excited about someone ticking a box every time we cross a border1
Indeed. Even as a small state libertarian Conservative who favours easily opened borders its impossible to get excited over that!
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
Why? Scotland detaching itself would have had a very small economic effect on the rest of the UK.
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
The Moggster for one. Lamont isn't impressed with the Governor's intervention either. The one silver lining to staying in the EU is that we can throw stones at Osborne and Carney when we hit a big recession in the next 18 months.
Also, note Carney talking about a technical recession. He's a disgrace.
Gingrich is too old and sounds too tired on TV, and Christie is just too toxic to provide the needed boost to catch up to Hillary.
He doesn't sound tired to me. His analysis throughout the campaign has been worth listening too. As a bonus you couldn't find someone better, short of Kenneth Starr, to troll the Clintons.
His only chance is with a woman, surely? A good pick could electrify the race [if such thing is needed!]
Megyn? (^_-)
Oprah Winfrey would be the real slam-dunk coup to electrify the race if he's considering someone from the media. (She would be for the Democrats too for that matter.) Another billionaire who can't be bought.
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
The Moggster for one. Lamont isn't impressed with the Governor's intervention either. The one silver lining to staying in the EU is that we can throw stones at Osborne and Carney when we hit a big recession in the next 18 months.
Also, note Carney talking about a technical recession. He's a disgrace.
Why is that disgraceful? I would find it disgraceful if he DID NOT mean a technical recession but used the term anyway.
I have no idea but Mr Meeks is I am sure right to point out that this may not as simple as it looks and a bit of due process and thought might be a good thing.
Scotland represents IIRC something like 5% or 6% of our GDP. Even if trade with Scotland had collapsed, that would have been a small effect. And we'd have picked up a chunk of financial services business from Edinburgh. And we'd have saved in subsidies to Scotland as the oil price fell. Overall, not a big deal from the viewpoint of the rest of the UK. (Of course, a rather big deal from the Scottish viewpoint).
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
The Moggster for one. Lamont isn't impressed with the Governor's intervention either. The one silver lining to staying in the EU is that we can throw stones at Osborne and Carney when we hit a big recession in the next 18 months.
Also, note Carney talking about a technical recession. He's a disgrace.
Why is that disgraceful? I would find it disgraceful if he DID NOT mean a technical recession but used the term anyway.
There's a massive difference between a technical recession - two consecutive quarters of shrinking GDP - and what Carney wants to implant into the minds of the voters: That there will be a big recession if we leave the EU.
Quite frankly I think it will be a big surprise if there isn't a technical recession in the next few years whatever we do with respect of the EU. Of course, none of the stupid journalists thought to ask Carney what his prognosis was for the economy if we stay in the EU...
Gingrich is too old and sounds too tired on TV, and Christie is just too toxic to provide the needed boost to catch up to Hillary.
He doesn't sound tired to me. His analysis throughout the campaign has been worth listening too. As a bonus you couldn't find someone better, short of Kenneth Starr, to troll the Clintons.
It cannot be the headlines leave could have expected from the broadcast media today. Sky and the BBC reporting on Mark Carney's report and the calls from leave for him to resign and then the ITV spat threatening a broadcaster with litigation and the overthrow of No 10. ITV were not taking any prisoners nor was Nigel Farage in a dreadful report about vote leave and Lord Grade obviously very angry about the allegations from vote leave. Is this the day that vote leave lost it
Those Tories calling for the Governor of the Bank of England to be sacked are effectively calling for Osborne to be sacked.
Surely the more the Bank of England Governor speculates about how bad it will be if Britain votes LEAVE, the more people will be determined to vote LEAVE.
Osborne is a super strategist and must have planned this and is secretly woking against REMAIN from the inside.
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
The Moggster for one. Lamont isn't impressed with the Governor's intervention either. The one silver lining to staying in the EU is that we can throw stones at Osborne and Carney when we hit a big recession in the next 18 months.
Also, note Carney talking about a technical recession. He's a disgrace.
Why is that disgraceful? I would find it disgraceful if he DID NOT mean a technical recession but used the term anyway.
There's a massive difference between a technical recession - two consecutive quarters of shrinking GDP - and what Carney wants to implant into the minds of the voters: That there will be a big recession if we leave the EU.
It seems that what you mean is it won't be a severe enough recession to affect the people whose votes you want to swing. That won't be any consolation to the people who are affected.
Ironic that Cameron is chairing the anti-corruption summit when his own party is riddled with corruption. The Tory way is "we'll throw enough money on the election process until it goes our way".
According to Guido the relevant information has already been passed on.
I also think you are slightly overstating it with your "riddled with corruption" description.
Guido only said the Conservatives claimed it would be passed on by lunch time. He he did say they claimed it had already been passed on. The Court order would have encouraged them to comply.
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
The Moggster for one. Lamont isn't impressed with the Governor's intervention either. The one silver lining to staying in the EU is that we can throw stones at Osborne and Carney when we hit a big recession in the next 18 months.
Also, note Carney talking about a technical recession. He's a disgrace.
Why is that disgraceful? I would find it disgraceful if he DID NOT mean a technical recession but used the term anyway.
There's a massive difference between a technical recession - two consecutive quarters of shrinking GDP - and what Carney wants to implant into the minds of the voters: That there will be a big recession if we leave the EU.
Quite frankly I think it will be a big surprise if there isn't a technical recession in the next few years whatever we do with respect of the EU. Of course, none of the stupid journalists thought to ask Carney what his prognosis was for the economy if we stay in the EU...
What you are talking about is more a depression than a recession. Though personally one thing I find truly irritating is the incorrect usage of the word recession, frequently with just a slowdown in growth and no real shrinkage. Recession has a technical meaning and that is how it should be used.
It cannot be the headlines leave could have expected from the broadcast media today. Sky and the BBC reporting on Mark Carney's report and the calls from leave for him to resign and then the ITV spat threatening a broadcaster with litigation and the overthrow of No 10. ITV were not taking any prisoners nor was Nigel Farage in a dreadful report about vote leave and Lord Grade obviously very angry about the allegations from vote leave. Is this the day that vote leave lost it?
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
The Moggster for one. Lamont isn't impressed with the Governor's intervention either. The one silver lining to staying in the EU is that we can throw stones at Osborne and Carney when we hit a big recession in the next 18 months.
Also, note Carney talking about a technical recession. He's a disgrace.
Why is that disgraceful? I would find it disgraceful if he DID NOT mean a technical recession but used the term anyway.
It is disgraceful because it is mere speculation and also it is in the midst of a political election when purdah is supposed to apply.
Comments
Blimey posting from the huff....a site you would't dream of citing normally.
Still, these are not normal times.
Those Romanian mega palaces won;t finance themselves.
I've banged on about this for years to anyone prepared to listen. It's a huge huge problem where the slow upwards creep of longevity has collided with poorer investment returns and probably most crucially rock bottom interest rates.
Essentially we have as a society chosen for the past 6/7 years to prop up housing which is nice and visible and therefore not easily swept under the carpet if it crashes, at the expense of creating a vast pensions issue largely because of the self same low intrest rate policy. Of course there's no "Right Move" for pensions and maybe 1% of people understand it so it's easily kept hidden. Mr Meeks is dead right that it's a balancing act, as if we suddenly demand the gaps are filled thousands of companies will collapse and that won't do us any good at all. I think it's been calculated that the vast majority of deficits would vanish with 3% 20 year gilt yields which would've seemed insanely low only ten years ago.
Investment in plant is being curtailed and I know from experience that wage growth is being suppressed as companies bend themselves out of shape to hose cash from the here and now to fill financial black holes which have largely been conjured out of thin air by policy decisions. I cannot help thinking that future historians will look back on this as a ghastly monetary mistake of "fighting the last war" and the old shibboleths of low interest rates stimulating the economy no long hold true as they did as I can cite personal experience if my self and others in the commercial world where the opposite is true.
Ok, fair enough but the points made remain. Until we get away from he said she said type of arguments then it's all just VB * really and we miss the details.
* VB is a commercial enterprise of Meeks Inc any reproduction in any form including print or electronic is expressly forbidden. All Lawyers are innocent until found guilty in a court of Law.
Richard, as one who used to be an ultimate quant and rationalist who has only been reluctantly converted over many years to the value of the emotional brain, I highly recommend that you read "How Risk is it Really?" by Ropeik. A very good read, and extremely informative.
It reviews how our views and decisions are coloured at each of four levels: the physical and chemical structure of the brain, its heuristics in dealing with complex issues with incomplete information, how personality affects both information processing and analysis, and then outside pressures, such as media, culture etc...
Still, these are not normal times.
The one thing that has become true here is my enemies enemy is my friend... Sometimes?
Will anyone kiss and make up after the Dust has settled?
Who said may you live in interesting times?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/announcements/a-report-on-the-statistics-being-collected-under-the-exit-checks-programme
!
Or perhaps not? After all its old and who knows what was what?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3586867/Shocking-moment-racist-Muslim-women-face-white-women-vicious-confrontation-London-train.html
Reading AEP's latest eurogeddon piece, I am wondering if this time, eventually, he is close to being correct.
Italy's numbers are just horrendous, no matter what spin you put on them.
"The youth jobless rate is 65pc in Calabria, 56pc in Sicily, and 53pc in Campania, despite an exodus of 100,000 a year from the Mezzogiorno - often in the direction of London."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/electoral-commission-takes-tories-high-7952712
The clock is ticking my Tory friends...
I also think you are slightly overstating it with your "riddled with corruption" description.
I do wonder if we will see improvements in living standards across the board again in my lifetime. I doubt it, but if we are to see them then I think we have to change tack because the politico/economic policies the UK has been following for the last few decades seem to have produced very good results for those that have whilst those that do have been flat-lined or gone backwards.
Sometimes, when I am in a very pessimistic mood I wonder, why the likes of Goldman Sachs are even given house room in the UK let alone allowed to trade here and pay money into political campaigns.
Always ...DYOR
https://twitter.com/SpursOfficial/status/722409570719690754/photo/1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10462871/Its-no-coincidence-the-MPs-found-guilty-of-fiddling-are-all-Labour.html
The 5 sures.
Newt Gingrich (ex-House speaker, too old and not enough stamina)
Chris Christie (N.J. Governor, big safe Democratic state, too unpopular)
Mary Fallin (Rhymes with Sarah Palin, Oklahoma Governor, small safe Republican state)
Jan Brewer (ex-Governor of Arizona, tenure marked by anti-immigration policies)
Bob Corker (Tennesee Senator, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee)
The 2 maybes.
Brian Sandoval (Governor of Nevada, agrees with all of Trump's policies except immigration and muslims, GOP conservatives hate him, may not accept the job)
John Kasich (Governor of Ohio, agrees with Trump on Healthcare, Abortion, and some budget issues, disagrees with the rest, may not accept the job)
If I where Trump I would go for Sandoval, to also prove that he is not a racist with hispanics, though because conservatives don't like Sandoval it maybe a risk.
It might not violate Nixon's rule of having a person who your enemies hate more than you as life insurance.
Gingrich is too old and sounds too tired on TV, and Christie is just too toxic to provide the needed boost to catch up to Hillary.
I find it hard to believe they would deliberately commit fraud, us Tories may have an insatiable lust for power, but not at all costs!
Incompetence by the Civil Service is the actual reason. When was the "E-Borders" scheme due to go live?
Megyn? (^_-)
Currently second favourite at 5, with Russia 1.9 (Ladbrokes).
Anyway, let's wait and see - I of course fear an establishment cover-up like the many inquiries viz. the Iraq War.
What he has done is list some very sensible criteria, most importantly someone who knows how Washington works and has all the necessary contacts, and who is a fully-vetted elected politician. I do think he'll try very hard indeed to find a woman VP candidate. The potential list is quite short, so I think there's some betting value to be had. Ideally he wants someone not from the NE, someone who can reassure the Republican elites, and someone who can fill in his gaps in policy.
Jan Brewer has strong AZ credentials, but it's not clear she has the Washington experience.
Mary Fallin looks a better bet, she was in Congress for four years. Even so, still a bit limited in terms of Washington wheeler-dealing, perhaps.
Kelly Ayotte and Susana Martinez would tick lots of boxes but have been vocal in criticising Trump, so maybe not.
My stand-out pick is Sen. Shelley Moore Capito at 50/1 Ladbrokes. Woman. Aged 63, which is fine. From West Virginia, so not another North-Easter. A long-serving senator and before that a member of the House of Representatives, so superbly experienced. An absolutely rock-solid Republican pedigree (she's the daughter of a three-term governor). She's strong on foreign affairs. And she hasn't slagged off Trump.
DYOR!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36277973
The fact that it's declared nationally doesn't automatically mean that the law sees it as a national expense - that's a question of substance rather than declared form. The failure to declare at all initially obviously makes it look worse, and the defence of administrative error is easier to sustain if it's not followed by foot-dragging over producing documentation.
Even if the candidate was photographed with the campaigners, I don't think that automatically converts them to local activists.
You're guessing.
Having a script that introduces you on behalf of the candidate would be distinctly unhelpful in establishing a "national" fact pattern.
Leaders etc visiting is seen as "national" because they continue to attract national coverage (and, in the end, they have to spend the campaign somewhere).
[I suspect rather more want Osborne out].
As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.
I would be more looking in this case, from what I've read, on what the cross guarantees from the rest of Arcadia were, and how, and if, and when, they were severed and what new arrangements were put in place at the time of purchase by the new owners. There is also the question that the Regulator is supposed to sign off every three years on a deficit catch back plan ( and gets annual updates I believe). I understand there was some disagreement as to where the Regulator and BHS had got to in those processes.
Really the 2004 Act, which governs all this is, in my view, full of worthy intent but has had bad consequences which were sadly predictable from day one, made worse by macro economic events that nobody could've been expected to foresee. One thing's for sure, it's all helped hole DB schemes below the waterline forever ( public sector aside courtesy of poor unborn taxpayers), and has inadvertently created a gold plated diminishing cohort of relatively well heeled pensioners and some future pensioners at the expense of everyone else having less old age provision and in the vast majority of cases in future decades working well into their 70's. It's also threatening otherwise solvent and well run companies in the here and now, and some ( and not just a few) will be driven to the wall unnecessarily by the fallout from our current pension laws.
Also, note Carney talking about a technical recession. He's a disgrace.
'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/12/finally-they-admit-it-we-havent-been-told-the-truth-about-immigr/'
Massive numbers, no wonder public services are at breaking point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RDRAVRAlHk
Mr. Nabavi, one begs to differ.
I expect it to be Scott Brown, but hope it is Kris Kobach. I think those who have endorsed and supported him will be favoured.
Quite frankly I think it will be a big surprise if there isn't a technical recession in the next few years whatever we do with respect of the EU. Of course, none of the stupid journalists thought to ask Carney what his prognosis was for the economy if we stay in the EU...
It would be a stunningly bad pick.
Osborne is a super strategist and must have planned this and is secretly woking against REMAIN from the inside.
Remember to play nicely. Or Dictatrix Cyclefree will have you all brutally slaughtered.
Guido only said the Conservatives claimed it would be passed on by lunch time. He he did say they claimed it had already been passed on. The Court order would have encouraged them to comply.
Federer and Wawrinka lost earlier and Goffin has just double donuted Berdych
It is disgraceful because it is mere speculation and also it is in the midst of a political election when purdah is supposed to apply.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-36280682