I think what the analysis really needs is some examples of the kinds of voters who voted for Brown who aren't going to vote for Miliband.
Those who believed Brown's 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts' nonsense and who are slowly beginning to realise that the two Eds have actually got round to admitting, grudgingly, that they agree with everything Osborne is doing.
Why vote Labour to get a housing benefit cap, the ending to child benefit for the rich, a public-sector pay freeze, a seven-day wait on entitlement to unemployment benefits, the ending of the spare-room subsidy, etc etc? Every single one of these was denounced as ideological madness by Labour, but they are now saying they'd do the same. It's perfectly possible to imagine that those who were planning to vote Labour because they think money grows on trees, or who think proposals for savings on public spending are just an evil Tory plot, will be a bit demoralised by this massive U-turn. At least Gordon Brown was consistent in the fantasies he peddled.
Edit: You can see what I mean in this article by Owen Jones:
And here is the fatal flaw in the Labour leadership’s strategy. They think they are buying back credibility, rather than shoring up policies that should be seen as sunk, ruinous, shredded. By failing to offer a coherent message, they risk a sense of “at least you know where you are with the Tories” bedding in.
The normal strategy is that at the same time as you agree to most of the things you spent the first half of the parliament getting your base riled up about, you pick a few cheap, specific ones that divide you from the opposition and argue about those. This works because the media want a proper bun-fight not a bunch of people agreeing with each other, and the government side want to scare the voters about how the opposition would be a complete disaster and they all need to move all their investments offshore if they even suspect the opposition might get in, which is a difficult message to square with "they're going to do exactly the same thing as us".
I guess what Miliband may be lacking that Brown had was a really good "fear" angle, especially since, as you say, they probably won't have very good dividing lines on tax and spending. But I'd have thought they could make up most of that with something ideological like NHS privatization or whatever.
Despite the wording of the article, the main thing I take away from this is that there are a lot of people still out there who have still to make up their minds - which is the opposite of what is commonly assumed.
The problem is that the SNP/Yes campaign has been all over the place. It's been shown up as unprepared and superficial. It's no surprise that that the electorate is confused.
And you believe the Bitter Together has done anything. Apart from doom and gloom and promises of pestilence and floods etc , they have not given any positive statement to say why people should vote no , other than the union has been there for 300 years. They are heading for trouble.
Despite the wording of the article, the main thing I take away from this is that there are a lot of people still out there who have still to make up their minds - which is the opposite of what is commonly assumed.
The problem is that the SNP/Yes campaign has been all over the place. It's been shown up as unprepared and superficial. It's no surprise that that the electorate is confused.
And you believe the Bitter Together has done anything. Apart from doom and gloom and promises of pestilence and floods etc , they have not given any positive statement to say why people should vote no , other than the union has been there for 300 years. They are heading for trouble.
The Indyrfef campaign has been dire to date. The Unionists as you say have been doom and gloom and the Nats have been making up any old nonsense only to see it fall flat on its face. Did Scotland really need three years of this ?
in 2017 there will be a referendum on Britain's membership which will either be on an agreed re-negotiated set of terms on which Cameron will urge acceptance or, in lieu of any such agreed package, a simple vote on remaining in the EU about which Cameron has not stated his view.
He didn't state that when he gave his original speech - he was specifically asked what would happen if there was no agreement, and wouldn't answer the question. Has he said it since?
As I recall, he laughed merrily and just said "I'm an optimist".
He has made it absolutely clear that there will be a referendum (assuming a Conservative majority, of course) by the end of 2016. What's more, he, and I think the vast majority of Tory MPs, will vote in the Commons in a few days time to try to put that commitment into law, in the form of James Wharton's private member's bill. There really isn't a scintilla of ambiguity about this.
Pre-crash GDP was a given level, in very real pounds and pence (and resulting jobs, living standards etc) despite the fact that we know know the extent of its unsustainable nature.
Using your logic, that "real" GDP pre-crash was much lower, we end up in a very strange position whereby there was in fact no crash at all. And "real" GDP now is also much lower than stated, because there will be another crash at some point.
Cuckoo. Did you overdo it in the Jim Davidson Gary Barlow Tent at the weekend?
No, my point was that comparing government spending as a % of GDP today vs. government spending as a % of an artificial GDP will give a misleading answer.
You need to normalise your comparators.
do you deal with statistical analysis at all in your line of work?
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
Er, Hong Kong is in China. It just happens to be the most developed part of China, with an element of self government, like, say, London within the UK.
I imagine if we excluded London from an estimation of the UK's innovativeness (innovativity?) we wouldn't be in the top ten for innovation, either.
Besides, developing countries don't have to innovate. They just have to catch up, using tried and tested technologies. THEN they start innovating. Twas ever thus.
You have to look at the report and the factors by which the countries are judged. Things such as the rule of law, access to capital, education and so on. Hong Kong's legal system, for example, is much more independent than the one in the PRC, as is the financial base; while there is much more freedom to access information. All three are pivotal in terms of innovation. In the UK, all these things are country wide - as is our university system and the health of our university tech transfer.
There is an argument, and quite a strong one I'd say, that the PRC has just about reached the limits of its innovative capacity under the current political system there. Until the government allows freedom of capital, judicial independence and permits its citizens to access whatever kind of information they wish however they wish China is always going to operate at an innovation disadvantage. Singapore shows what can be achieved with a more enlightened form of despotism. That's what China needs to move towards, given that full democracy is a long way off. But it is easier said than done in a country so huge in terms of size, population, income inequality etc. And there is no reason why we need to lose our lead over them in this area whatever the Chinese do. As Switzerland and Sweden show,m populaiton size is not a determinative factor.
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
Top Ten 2013 ranking 1.Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012) 2.Sweden (2) 3.United Kingdom (5) 4.Netherlands (6) 5.United States of America (10) 6.Finland (4) 7.Hong Kong (China) (8) 8.Singapore (3) 9.Denmark (7) 10.Ireland (9)
So we have clearly been doing a few things right over the last few years. The key now in terms of policy is to recognise that we have a significant advantage and to build on that. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about it having to diminish. We have to realise that despite our capacity for innovaiton,we are far too poor at building on this; largely, I would argue, because of short-termism in the boardroom and in government.
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
Certainly in my industry the patent box has been transformational. There were news stories this week alone about GSK bringing 150 patents back onshore as a result.
If the patent box produces a greater focus on strategic IP management among British businesses then we will have a lot to be thankful to Alastair Darling for, that is for sure. But so far the evidence seems to be that it is helping those companies who already understand IP. That's not the government's fault, that is the fault of boardrooms. But it is a problem.
Lock and Load Dave..as opposed to undo and drop em Ed..
As a country sportsman, I'd assumed Mr Cameron could shoot a gun pretty well - and a metrolefty like EdM would have no idea and probably end up with a recoil bruised shoulder.
I read a piece over the weekend claiming that being 'up the spout' referred to being pregnant - that was a new one on me. Being *up the duff* yes, but spout? I associate that with Incy Wincy Spider if anything...
in 2017 there will be a referendum on Britain's membership which will either be on an agreed re-negotiated set of terms on which Cameron will urge acceptance or, in lieu of any such agreed package, a simple vote on remaining in the EU about which Cameron has not stated his view.
He didn't state that when he gave his original speech - he was specifically asked what would happen if there was no agreement, and wouldn't answer the question. Has he said it since?
As I recall, he laughed merrily and just said "I'm an optimist".
He has made it absolutely clear that there will be a referendum (assuming a Conservative majority, of course) by the end of 2016. What's more, he, and I think the vast majority of Tory MPs, will vote in the Commons in a few days time to try to put that commitment into law, in the form of James Wharton's private member's bill. There really isn't a scintilla of ambiguity about this.
Is that a politician's absolutely clear, ie something you say something is when you're dodging a question about it, or is it absolutely clear in the non-politician sense? If it's the second one, could you link to the quote? (I'm not saying you're wrong - a lot's been said since the speech and I may have missed it.)
"A married couples' tax break was part of the Tory manifesto and for thousands of voters it was a crucial feature of the Conservative campaign – something to distinguish them from the Lib Dems, who dismissed any talk of marriage tax breaks "patronising drivel that belong in the Edwardian age".
Until now, Cameron had talked the talk ("We will be the most family-friendly government in history") but refused to do anything to upset his own "marriage" with Nick Clegg. That political union seemed to matter more to him than fixing our "broken society". The result was that Britain's married couples were the only ones in Europe not to be recognised by the tax system.
No one is sure about how much of a tax break Cameron will offer married couples. But family campaigners are clear that the tax system must stop penalising the single-earner family. "With child benefit taken away," as Anne Fennell of the "Mothers at home matter" campaign tells me, "and a promise that when both parents work they can receive tax allowance up to £1,200 per child per year, the situation will be much more uneven for the single-earner family."
Off-topic, but I read the Metro today, and amongst the celebrity guff, it had half a page on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, an explanation of the double-slit experiment and a mention of Schrodingers' cat.
I assume this was external advice in addition to whatever the BBC's in-house team served up
lucy manning @lucymanning BBC figs show licence fee payers paid 86k for Mark Thomson & 107k for George Entwistle's Pollard Review legal advice bbc.in/119Uej1
I read a piece over the weekend claiming that being 'up the spout' referred to being pregnant - that was a new one on me. Being *up the duff* yes, but spout? I associate that with Incy Wincy Spider if anything...
Lock and load Red again manages to get on the wrong side of public opinion.
The opposition leader with the record number of u-turns in the shortest period of time?
'The biggest transformation of all has been in public attitudes to welfare. Not long ago, to propose cutting benefits would have been political suicide. But here, too, the nation has lost its innocence. Yes, there are many deserving, indeed heart-rending cases. But the entitlement culture has sucked in the undeserving (a word until recently too politically incorrect to print), undermined incentives and sapped the morale of the unemployed. Don’t take my word for it: listen to the deafening silence from Labour.
The Government is shrinking the client state: that over-sized group who work for the state, are housed by the state, or live off the state, and who on polling day vote to expand the state.
Is that a politician's absolutely clear, ie something you say something is when you're dodging a question about it, or is it absolutely clear in the non-politician sense? If it's the second one, could you link to the quote? (I'm not saying you're wrong - a lot's been said since the speech and I may have missed it.)
Will this one do?
"Let me say, this policy, it doesn't matter the pressure I come under from outside the Conservative party, or in Europe, or inside the Conservative party, this policy isn't going to change. The question isn't going to change. The number of referenda isn't going to change. The date by which we hold this referendum isn't going to change. The fact is, it's the right policy for the country."
In fact I'd understated the commitment - it's predicated on Cameron as PM, even without a majority. I'm not sure how that will work out if he's PM in another hung parliament; I guess he'd dare the LibDems to vote it down, but by implication step down if he can't get it through.
My own view is that he's boxed himself in too much, not too little. In particular, the timetable looks too short to me.
Reasons for voting no. (1) We are indeed better together. The UK (aberrations under new Labour apart) is in general a force for good in the world and it is a more compelling force with the UK in its current form. Scots are rightly proud to serve in the UK armed forces. And there is the BBC I suppose. (2) The UK gives young Scots far greater opportunities to have an impact on a larger national stage. Just look at the role that Scots have played in most governments since the war (seriously sorry about Gordon by the way). (3) The integrated UK market is good for Scottish companies allowing them easy growth opportunities and economies of scale. Whilst rUk would obviously remain our largest trading partner there is a risk that this would diminish over time as the underlying legal systems drift further apart. (4) Being part of a larger country means that there is a larger pool of talent available for leadership. Anyone not convinced of this point should listen to FMQs occasionally. I have heard better debate in my local, near closing time. (5) The depth and liquidity of London has been essential in building up Scotland's financial services industry. There is at least a risk that some of this will be lost. (6) Our financial institutions have a credible lender of last resort that was even able to save RBS. So far there is no answer to this that makes any sense at all. (7) The position re the EU remains unclear. Whilst we would almost certainly be able to become members again there are real issues about the euro, Schengen, opt outs etc that are not being addressed. (8) The SNP policy on currency is economically incoherent. It appears we will have interest and exchange rates fixed by a foreign country. Ask Club Med how that works out. (9) The volitility of oil income is much more easily absorbed in the UK. An independent Scotland will have some very good years income wise and some very bad ones. (10) Partly because of these factors it is very unlikely that borrowing by a Scottish government would be as cheap as it is for the UK. (11) Far more of us are proud to be British (as well as Scots) than the independence supporters would like to think. Look at the Olympics.
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
Top Ten 2013 ranking 1.Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012) 2.Sweden (2) 3.United Kingdom (5) 4.Netherlands (6) 5.United States of America (10) 6.Finland (4) 7.Hong Kong (China) (8) 8.Singapore (3) 9.Denmark (7) 10.Ireland (9)
So we have clearly been doing a few things right over the last few years. The key now in terms of policy is to recognise that we have a significant advantage and to build on that. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about it having to diminish. We have to realise that despite our capacity for innovaiton,we are far too poor at building on this; largely, I would argue, because of short-termism in the boardroom and in government.
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
Certainly in my industry the patent box has been transformational. There were news stories this week alone about GSK bringing 150 patents back onshore as a result.
If the patent box produces a greater focus on strategic IP management among British businesses then we will have a lot to be thankful to Alastair Darling for, that is for sure. But so far the evidence seems to be that it is helping those companies who already understand IP. That's not the government's fault, that is the fault of boardrooms. But it is a problem.
Because he was the Chancellor who decided this?
"in November 2010, the Government confirmed that in order to encourage companies to locate high value jobs and activity in the UK, it would proceed with the proposed introduction of the Patent Box"
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
Top Ten 2013 ranking 1.Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012) 2.Sweden (2) 3.United Kingdom (5) 4.Netherlands (6) 5.United States of America (10) 6.Finland (4) 7.Hong Kong (China) (8) 8.Singapore (3) 9.Denmark (7) 10.Ireland (9)
So we have clearly been doing a few things right over the last few years. The key now in terms of policy is to recognise that we have a significant advantage and to build on that. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about it having to diminish. We have to realise that despite our capacity for innovaiton,we are far too poor at building on this; largely, I would argue, because of short-termism in the boardroom and in government.
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
Certainly in my industry the patent box has been transformational. There were news stories this week alone about GSK bringing 150 patents back onshore as a result.
If the patent box produces a greater focus on strategic IP management among British businesses then we will have a lot to be thankful to Alastair Darling for, that is for sure. But so far the evidence seems to be that it is helping those companies who already understand IP. That's not the government's fault, that is the fault of boardrooms. But it is a problem.
Because he was the Chancellor who decided this?
"in November 2010, the Government confirmed that in order to encourage companies to locate high value jobs and activity in the UK, it would proceed with the proposed introduction of the Patent Box"
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
Top Ten 2013 ranking 1.Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012) 2.Sweden (2) 3.United Kingdom (5) 4.Netherlands (6) 5.United States of America (10) 6.Finland (4) 7.Hong Kong (China) (8) 8.Singapore (3) 9.Denmark (7) 10.Ireland (9)
So we have clearly been doing a few things right over the last few years. The key now in terms of policy is to recognise that we have a significant advantage and to build on that. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about it having to diminish. We have to realise that despite our capacity for innovaiton,we are far too poor at building on this; largely, I would argue, because of short-termism in the boardroom and in government.
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
Certainly in my industry the patent box has been transformational. There were news stories this week alone about GSK bringing 150 patents back onshore as a result.
If the patent box produces a greater focus on strategic IP management among British businesses then we will have a lot to be thankful to Alastair Darling for, that is for sure. But so far the evidence seems to be that it is helping those companies who already understand IP. That's not the government's fault, that is the fault of boardrooms. But it is a problem.
Because he was the Chancellor who decided this?
"in November 2010, the Government confirmed that in order to encourage companies to locate high value jobs and activity in the UK, it would proceed with the proposed introduction of the Patent Box"
The current government picked it up and ran with it.
Darling just consulted around it. It wasn't originally him. Credit should go to the government that actually does something - Labour had 13 years, remember, but didn't start any work until the middle of 2009
Is that a politician's absolutely clear, ie something you say something is when you're dodging a question about it, or is it absolutely clear in the non-politician sense? If it's the second one, could you link to the quote? (I'm not saying you're wrong - a lot's been said since the speech and I may have missed it.)
Will this one do?
"Let me say, this policy, it doesn't matter the pressure I come under from outside the Conservative party, or in Europe, or inside the Conservative party, this policy isn't going to change. The question isn't going to change. The number of referenda isn't going to change. The date by which we hold this referendum isn't going to change. The fact is, it's the right policy for the country."
In fact I'd understated the commitment - it's predicated on Cameron as PM, even without a majority. I'm not sure how that will work out if there is another hung parliament; I guess he'd dare the LibDems to vote it down, but by implication step down if he can't get it through.
My own view is that he's boxed himself in too much, not too little. In particular, the timetable looks too short to me.
No, neither of those will do.
The first one is saying he's not going to change his policy as stated whatever pressure he comes under, and the policy as stated didn't say what happens if the negotiation doesn't produce the result he wants.
The second one isn't saying the referendum is going to happen. "This" is the whole policy that he'd just announced. The question it responds to is about whether he'd change it if he doesn't have a majority, which he says he won't. But the policy he won't change still doesn't say what will happen if the negotiation doesn't produce the result he wants.
Now, you may be right that since a lot of people think he's promised a referendum, he'll have to deliver one. I'm not convinced, for reasons we've discussed before. But the situation still seems to be that he hasn't promised a referendum if his renegotiation doesn't give the results he wants, and it isn't because nobody's asked him.
"Let me say, this policy, it doesn't matter the pressure I come under from outside the Conservative party, or in Europe, or inside the Conservative party, this policy isn't going to change. The question isn't going to change. The number of referenda isn't going to change. The date by which we hold this referendum isn't going to change. The fact is, it's the right policy for the country."
No, because if you read the Guardian quote in full he's only committing himself to a process which isn't likely to happen by 2017, if at all:
"On 24 January I set out a very clear, very compelling policy for the country towards Europe, which is to renegotiate our relationship with Europe, to make the European Union more open, competitive and flexible, and then to offer the British people something they haven't had for decades – an in-out referendum. It's a very clear, very decisive policy.
"Let me say, this policy, ..." [continues as per your selective quote]
It was in response to this that he was asked what happens if there isn't a concluded negotiation in 2017, and his reply was that he's an optimist.
If there is a negotiation in progress in 2017, it's frankly inconceivable that Cameron will call referendum in the middle of it, with no idea of the deal on offer. It'd be a ridiculous thing to do. Nor TBH do I think he will have problems with MPs or voters if he then says "OK, I said 2017 but it's taking longer, let's finish this and then vote on it". His problem will be if it drags on inconclusively, which IMO is the most likely situation - EU countries will be willing to have a leisurely discussion if they think it will avoid British withdrawal, but there won't be a final deal with everyone ratifying it this side of 2020.
"Let me say, this policy, it doesn't matter the pressure I come under from outside the Conservative party, or in Europe, or inside the Conservative party, this policy isn't going to change. The question isn't going to change. The number of referenda isn't going to change. The date by which we hold this referendum isn't going to change. The fact is, it's the right policy for the country."
No, because if you read the Guardian quote in full he's only committing himself to a process which isn't likely to happen by 2017, if at all:
"On 24 January I set out a very clear, very compelling policy for the country towards Europe, which is to renegotiate our relationship with Europe, to make the European Union more open, competitive and flexible, and then to offer the British people something they haven't had for decades – an in-out referendum. It's a very clear, very decisive policy.
"Let me say, this policy, ..." [continues as per your selective quote]
It was in response to this that he was asked what happens if there isn't a concluded negotiation in 2017, and his reply was that he's an optimist.
If there is a negotiation in progress in 2017, it's frankly inconceivable that Cameron will call referendum in the middle of it, with no idea of the deal on offer. It'd be a ridiculous thing to do. Nor TBH do I think he will have problems with MPs or voters if he then says "OK, I said 2017 but it's taking longer, let's finish this and then vote on it". His problem will be if it drags on inconclusively, which IMO is the most likely situation - EU countries will be willing to have a leisurely discussion if they think it will avoid British withdrawal, but there won't be a final deal with everyone ratifying it this side of 2020.
I suppose you are reading what you want to see. I think Cameron's commitment passes the "reasonable man" test despite your concern at what the meaning of is is.
I would also ask what the great British public have as an alternative?
If you are doing backflips to show how DC won't offer a referendum, how do you describe EdM's position? And do you agree with it?
@NickPalmer - No, you are misreading this. It will be the other way round: 'Sorry, Angela, but we need to get this agreed now because I've got a referendum coming up'.
Personally I think the idea of a cut-off date is a very good one, otherwise it would indeed drag out for years, as you rightly say. End 2017 would have been more realistic in terms of time for negotiation, but we are where we are: the referendum will happen by the end of 2016, if Cameron has a majority.
Despite the wording of the article, the main thing I take away from this is that there are a lot of people still out there who have still to make up their minds - which is the opposite of what is commonly assumed.
The problem is that the SNP/Yes campaign has been all over the place. It's been shown up as unprepared and superficial. It's no surprise that that the electorate is confused.
And you believe the Bitter Together has done anything. Apart from doom and gloom and promises of pestilence and floods etc , they have not given any positive statement to say why people should vote no , other than the union has been there for 300 years. They are heading for trouble.
The Indyrfef campaign has been dire to date. The Unionists as you say have been doom and gloom and the Nats have been making up any old nonsense only to see it fall flat on its face. Did Scotland really need three years of this ?
It is our calvanist nature Alan, still only 15 months left
Very good, if rather abstract, news. The UK is among the world's most innovative countries, according to a study released today by the World IP Organisation, Cornell University and INSEAD:
Top Ten 2013 ranking 1.Switzerland (Number 1 in 2012) 2.Sweden (2) 3.United Kingdom (5) 4.Netherlands (6) 5.United States of America (10) 6.Finland (4) 7.Hong Kong (China) (8) 8.Singapore (3) 9.Denmark (7) 10.Ireland (9)
So we have clearly been doing a few things right over the last few years. The key now in terms of policy is to recognise that we have a significant advantage and to build on that. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about it having to diminish. We have to realise that despite our capacity for innovaiton,we are far too poor at building on this; largely, I would argue, because of short-termism in the boardroom and in government.
What's also noteworthy is that China and India come in at 35th and 66th respectively. They still have a long, long way to go.
Anyway, it's well worth reading:
Certainly in my industry the patent box has been transformational. There were news stories this week alone about GSK bringing 150 patents back onshore as a result.
If the patent box produces a greater focus on strategic IP management among British businesses then we will have a lot to be thankful to Alastair Darling for, that is for sure. But so far the evidence seems to be that it is helping those companies who already understand IP. That's not the government's fault, that is the fault of boardrooms. But it is a problem.
Because he was the Chancellor who decided this?
"in November 2010, the Government confirmed that in order to encourage companies to locate high value jobs and activity in the UK, it would proceed with the proposed introduction of the Patent Box"
The current government picked it up and ran with it.
Darling just consulted around it. It wasn't originally him. Credit should go to the government that actually does something - Labour had 13 years, remember, but didn't start any work until the middle of 2009
Come off it Charles. Darling introduced it, the current government followed his timetable. They saw a good idea and ran with it. What Darling said would happened, happened:
The government has yet to release details of how the scheme will operate, although Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling confirmed in his pre-budget speech to the House of Commons on December 9 that patent income will be subject to a 10% rate of corporate tax after legislation is passed. First, however, the government intends to consult with industry, and final legislative proposals are unlikely to emerge until the 2011 Finance Bill. The scheme will then operate from April 2013.
Reasons for voting no. (1) We are indeed better together. The UK (aberrations under new Labour apart) is in general a force for good in the world and it is a more compelling force with the UK in its current form. Scots are rightly proud to serve in the UK armed forces. And there is the BBC I suppose. (2) The UK gives young Scots far greater opportunities to have an impact on a larger national stage. Just look at the role that Scots have played in most governments since the war (seriously sorry about Gordon by the way). (3) The integrated UK market is good for Scottish companies allowing them easy growth opportunities and economies of scale. Whilst rUk would obviously remain our largest trading partner there is a risk that this would diminish over time as the underlying legal systems drift further apart. (4) Being part of a larger country means that there is a larger pool of talent available for leadership. Anyone not convinced of this point should listen to FMQs occasionally. I have heard better debate in my local, near closing time. (5) The depth and liquidity of London has been essential in building up Scotland's financial services industry. There is at least a risk that some of this will be lost. (6) Our financial institutions have a credible lender of last resort that was even able to save RBS. So far there is no answer to this that makes any sense at all. (7) The position re the EU remains unclear. Whilst we would almost certainly be able to become members again there are real issues about the euro, Schengen, opt outs etc that are not being addressed. (8) The SNP policy on currency is economically incoherent. It appears we will have interest and exchange rates fixed by a foreign country. Ask Club Med how that works out. (9) The volitility of oil income is much more easily absorbed in the UK. An independent Scotland will have some very good years income wise and some very bad ones. (10) Partly because of these factors it is very unlikely that borrowing by a Scottish government would be as cheap as it is for the UK. (11) Far more of us are proud to be British (as well as Scots) than the independence supporters would like to think. Look at the Olympics.
How we doing so far?
Just a load of bollocks and all those options will remain available in the event of independence. Take 9 as example, yes London can use all of it all the time for infrastructure in London whilst we cannot even have a motorway our electrification of rail to link our 2 major cities , what a benefit. As for 11, you must be on another planet. I coudl go on , 1/10 for effort , content dire.
@NickPalmer - No, you are misreading this. It will be the other way round: 'Sorry, Angela, but we need to get this agreed now because I've got a referendum coming up'.
The reply to which is the same one that Germany gave to the recent Foreign Office request for input on their review of the separation of powers - "We cannot assist in what is essentially a domestic political exercise."
I think we disagree on the interest that other EU countries have in helping Cameron out on this, and perhaps, as neither of us can prove it, we'd better leave it there for now.
"Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years.
From April 2011, Local Housing Allowance (LHA) reforms were introduced and are expected to save around £2 billion a year in HB expenditure by 2015/16."
@NickPalmer - No, you are misreading this. It will be the other way round: 'Sorry, AngelaAngela, Werner, Elio, Plamen, Zoran, Nicos, Petr, Helle, Andrus, Jyrki, François, Antonis, Viktor, Enda, Enrico, Valdis, Dalia, Jean-Claude, Joseph, Mark, Donald, Pedro, Traian, Robert, Alenka, Mariano and Fredrik, but we need to get this unanimously agreed now because I've got a referendum coming up'.
Fixed it for you, although I'm probably missing a few dozen veto players...
There are a few ex-council houses around here, 3-bed semi-detached, that have been converted into flats. Is it really beyond their abilities to convert their existing housing stock into something more suitable?
I thought the same thing.
Too many 3 bed homes, not enough one bed flats, the solution seems pretty obvious, doesn't it.
@NickPalmer - No, you are misreading this. It will be the other way round: 'Sorry, Angela, but we need to get this agreed now because I've got a referendum coming up'.
The reply to which is the same one that Germany gave to the recent Foreign Office request for input on their review of the separation of powers - "We cannot assist in what is essentially a domestic political exercise."
I think we disagree on the interest that other EU countries have in helping Cameron out on this, and perhaps, as neither of us can prove it, we'd better leave it there for now.
I think you might be misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying the Germans, and our other EU friends, have any particular interest in the separation of powers (indeed some are strongly against it), and they certainly have no particular interest in helping Cameron or the Tories. They do, however, have an interest in keeping the UK in the EU, and that is particularly true of Germany.
Of course they can choose to sit on their hands and do nothing, leaving us with the status quo. That's fine. UK voters will then get a chance to say whether they are happy with the status quo. Germany will have to calculate on the basis that UK voters might just decide they are not happy with it.
@NickPalmer - No, you are misreading this. It will be the other way round: 'Sorry, AngelaAngela, Werner, Elio, Plamen, Zoran, Nicos, Petr, Helle, Andrus, Jyrki, François, Antonis, Viktor, Enda, Enrico, Valdis, Dalia, Jean-Claude, Joseph, Mark, Donald, Pedro, Traian, Robert, Alenka, Mariano and Fredrik, but we need to get this unanimously agreed now because I've got a referendum coming up'.
Fixed it for you, although I'm probably missing a few dozen veto players...
Then we'll leave, if we're not happy, although I think you underestimate the degree to which Germany runs the EU nowadays.
I never claimed this was a good starting point. The last lot left us in a disastrously weak position. But the Labour/LibDem policy of shrugging shoulders and doing nothing is not exactly a good option, is it? We need to do what we can to retrieve the situation, and, if we fail to make progress, consider leaving.
They can remove Romanians into them which might explain why, surprisingly, Ukip was opposed to the bedroom tax during the local elections.
On a more serious note, it has been the policy of those local authorities in Scotland where land costs the square root of b*gger all to only have 2 bed properties and up so that people do not have to move if they have a child or carer.
Something that might be suitable for London has been a disaster for huge swathes of the country.
I'm amazed at this, I mean no one knew that the smaller housing units didn't exist. Besides the govt of course, whose own impact assessment flagged it up.
: the referendum will happen by the end of 2016, if Cameron has a majority.
I would suggest that if Dave doesn't have a majority and gives this up as part of a coalition deal his 2nd term would be not a lot of fun....
I think it will be a manifesto commitment and a non negotiable part of any coalition agreement. If the LD's renege, it will mean immediate dissolution of the government.
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
Cynical old me, thinking that when a politician dodges a question, it's because they don't want to answer it. Clearly I need to get used to this new generation of conviction politicians who dodge questions because it makes it more fun for us trying to guess the answer.
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
Cynical old me, thinking that when a politician dodges a question, it's because they don't want to answer it. Clearly I need to get used to this new generation of conviction politicians who dodge questions because it makes it more fun for us trying to guess the answer.
And usually I would be second in the queue behind you to agree.
But on this occasion I think DC has gone the extra mile. "If I am PM this will happen" - we haven't had that before.
I do think people are going through all kinds of contortions to avoid hearing what he said.
He even, as I remember, looked up from the podium and stared us in the eye as he said it.
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
Cynical old me, thinking that when a politician dodges a question, it's because they don't want to answer it. Clearly I need to get used to this new generation of conviction politicians who dodge questions because it makes it more fun for us trying to guess the answer.
Edmund, you do realise that the Conservative Party is currently running a massive campaign based on James Wharton's bill?
No ifs or buts in that (although it does allow for the referendum to be held by the end of 2017, so I suppose you could argue that there's a bit of slippage in the date).
Can a kind PB'er explain the 'bedroom tax' for us?
As I understand, it is a tax applied to working people, in order to provide a spare room for other households?
Have I understood correctly?
the bedroom tax is a tax introduced by the Conservative Party on people whose income is less than £7,500 pa and will be levied if they have a bedroom larger than 6ft by 6ft as it is deemed that, being poor, they wouldn't know how to use the extra space of a bigger room.
Off-topic, but I read the Metro today, and amongst the celebrity guff, it had half a page on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, an explanation of the double-slit experiment and a mention of Schrodingers' cat.
Puts PB to shame.
My cats were called Heisenberg and Schroedinger, though the latter is now residing in Edinburgh, and has been on so many train journeys that he may have preferred taking his chances with radioactive decay.
He even, as I remember, looked up from the podium and stared us in the eye as he said it.
That's so cute.
But there's no contortion. In context, the "this" that "will happen" is not a referendum.
As I said, the interesting thing is to understand why people are going through such contortions to try to re-engineer what were, after all, and as @RichardNabavi has quoted for you at length, quite simple-to-understand words.
Can't see a reason why the type of council houses in Dagenham can't be converted into 2 separate flats... Makes sense
Am I alone in thinking there should be some sort of sin bin for people who sarcastically post "oh, wait..." Or "fixed it for you"... So annoyingly smug
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
Cynical old me, thinking that when a politician dodges a question, it's because they don't want to answer it. Clearly I need to get used to this new generation of conviction politicians who dodge questions because it makes it more fun for us trying to guess the answer.
Edmund, you do realise that the Conservative Party is currently running a massive campaign based on James Wharton's bill?
No ifs or buts in that (although it does allow for the referendum to be held by the end of 2017, so I suppose you could argue that there's a bit of slippage in the date).
The leadership didn't come up with this bill, they got pushed into it by their backbenchers, and there's no cost to backing it because they know it won't pass.
The "Let Britain Decide" site has the same careful wording as Cameron's speech. It's "negotiate by 2017, then put it to a referendum". The only reference to a referendum _actually_ happening by 2017 is hooked onto the bill, which as we know won't pass.
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
Cynical old me, thinking that when a politician dodges a question, it's because they don't want to answer it. Clearly I need to get used to this new generation of conviction politicians who dodge questions because it makes it more fun for us trying to guess the answer.
Edmund, you do realise that the Conservative Party is currently running a massive campaign based on James Wharton's bill?
No ifs or buts in that (although it does allow for the referendum to be held by the end of 2017, so I suppose you could argue that there's a bit of slippage in the date).
The leadership didn't come up with this bill, they got pushed into it by their backbenchers, and there's no cost to backing it because they know it won't pass.
The "Let Britain Decide" site has the same careful wording as Cameron's speech. It's "negotiate by 2017, then put it to a referendum". The only reference to a referendum _actually_ happening by 2017 is hooked onto the bill, which as we know won't pass.
look at Cameron's incentives.
Welshing on this pledge would be a career limiting move.
@NickPalmer - No, you are misreading this. It will be the other way round: 'Sorry, AngelaAngela, Werner, Elio, Plamen, Zoran, Nicos, Petr, Helle, Andrus, Jyrki, François, Antonis, Viktor, Enda, Enrico, Valdis, Dalia, Jean-Claude, Joseph, Mark, Donald, Pedro, Traian, Robert, Alenka, Mariano and Fredrik, but we need to get this unanimously agreed now because I've got a referendum coming up'.
Fixed it for you, although I'm probably missing a few dozen veto players...
Then we'll leave, if we're not happy, although I think you underestimate the degree to which Germany runs the EU nowadays.
I never claimed this was a good starting point. The last lot left us in a disastrously weak position. But the Labour/LibDem policy of shrugging shoulders and doing nothing is not exactly a good option, is it? We need to do what we can to retrieve the situation, and, if we fail to make progress, consider leaving.
I'm certain that you overestimate the extent to which Germany runs the EU. But your post does show the different starting point. I don't see a problem with Britain's EU membership which needs to be fixed. You evidently do see a problem, even to the point of considering leaving if the problem, whatever it is, isn't solved. It's not surprising that we therefore come up with different answers.But it's important to be aware that in the rest of the EU, they don't, by and large, see current membership as a problem either, so they are not motivated to do anything drastic, and the prospect of getting a 27-nation deal for drastic change before 2020 is as close to zero as you get in the real world.
Can't see a reason why the type of council houses in Dagenham can't be converted into 2 separate flats... Makes sense
The impact assessment said London had a shortage of family homes . And other areas had a shortage of flats.
Maybe better to build some flats in one area and some family homes in another, I know it sounds radical but it's probably less complex than moving lots of people around within the same housing stock converting as you go particularly since a good chunk of it has been adapted for disabled use (66% of people affected have a disability)
And don't forget that the main underoccupancy is among pensioners, who of course are excluded from the policy because they vote Tory in larger numbers. Or did.
Couldnt there be a compromise where some council houses in an area are converted and others arent? That way single/widowed pensioners could live in the same area, maybe even same road with a smaller home to look after and a bit of company while freeing up a house for younger couples.
The spare room subsidy/bedroom tax could then be applied to OAPs who want to stay in their original home
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
Cynical old me, thinking that when a politician dodges a question, it's because they don't want to answer it. Clearly I need to get used to this new generation of conviction politicians who dodge questions because it makes it more fun for us trying to guess the answer.
Edmund, you do realise that the Conservative Party is currently running a massive campaign based on James Wharton's bill?
No ifs or buts in that (although it does allow for the referendum to be held by the end of 2017, so I suppose you could argue that there's a bit of slippage in the date).
The leadership didn't come up with this bill, they got pushed into it by their backbenchers, and there's no cost to backing it because they know it won't pass.
The "Let Britain Decide" site has the same careful wording as Cameron's speech. It's "negotiate by 2017, then put it to a referendum". The only reference to a referendum _actually_ happening by 2017 is hooked onto the bill, which as we know won't pass.
look at Cameron's incentives.
Welshing on this pledge would be a career limiting move.
At that point pretty much all his moves are career-limiting, especially having the referendum and splitting his party. The career-prolonging move is to keep kicking the can down the road, which also happens to be an EU speciality.
It's not quite a sure thing that he'd be able to sell that, but as a winner of an unhoped-for majority, and vanquisher of UKIP, he'd be in a far stronger position than he is now. See Nick Palmer's post upthread for how he might play it, and bear in mind he has quite a few cards to play, including a referendum where the voters get to say how angry they are to give him a mandate for the negotiation that our feckless European cousins have been dragging their feet over.
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
Cynical old me, thinking that when a politician dodges a question, it's because they don't want to answer it. Clearly I need to get used to this new generation of conviction politicians who dodge questions because it makes it more fun for us trying to guess the answer.
Edmund, you do realise that the Conservative Party is currently running a massive campaign based on James Wharton's bill?
No ifs or buts in that (although it does allow for the referendum to be held by the end of 2017, so I suppose you could argue that there's a bit of slippage in the date).
The leadership didn't come up with this bill, they got pushed into it by their backbenchers, and there's no cost to backing it because they know it won't pass.
The "Let Britain Decide" site has the same careful wording as Cameron's speech. It's "negotiate by 2017, then put it to a referendum". The only reference to a referendum _actually_ happening by 2017 is hooked onto the bill, which as we know won't pass.
look at Cameron's incentives.
Welshing on this pledge would be a career limiting move.
he has quite a few cards to play, including a referendum where the voters get to say how angry they are to give him a mandate for the negotiation that our feckless European cousins have been dragging their feet over.
Provided no substantive negoaitions have started, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the outcome. More complicated if discussions are ongoing - you could try the Richard approach, or if there is a prospect of getting them agreed within, say, 6 months he might be able to get away with a delay (provided a firm deadline set).
or if there is a prospect of getting them agreed within, say, 6 months he might be able to get away with a delay (provided a firm deadline set).
That's an option, too. The great thing about the EU is that you can keep on setting the firm, unbreakable 6-month deadlines pretty much indefinitely...
I'm certain that you overestimate the extent to which Germany runs the EU. But your post does show the different starting point. I don't see a problem with Britain's EU membership which needs to be fixed. You evidently do see a problem, even to the point of considering leaving if the problem, whatever it is, isn't solved. It's not surprising that we therefore come up with different answers.But it's important to be aware that in the rest of the EU, they don't, by and large, see current membership as a problem either, so they are not motivated to do anything drastic, and the prospect of getting a 27-nation deal for drastic change before 2020 is as close to zero as you get in the real world.
I am aware of that. As I said, I wouldn't have started from here - if we had had a responsible government from 1997 to 2010, the idiotic concessions (including, most notably, the unbelievably stupid concession of giving control over our most important industry to those either hostile to it, or trying to grab it for themselves) would never have been made.
But we are where we are, unfortunately.
As you say, we disagree on whether there is a problem. You say everything is for the best in the most perfect of all possible EU worlds. Fine; in that case, you, and those who agree with you, can vote to Stay In in the referendum; if you are right and there are no concessions, that won't change your view presumably, so what's the problem with a referendum?
Some people will vote to leave, whatever happens in the negotiations, which is fair enough. At the very least they will have had a democratic say denied to them when Labour and the LibDems reneged on the referendum on Lisbon.
As for me: I shall see what concessions we get, and then decide.
All this is of course very uncertain, except for one point: there will be a referendum if there's a Conservative majority.
The good news. It just keeps coming, and coming, and coming.
First, the Bank of England reports that approvals for mortgages on house purchases were at their highest for three years in May 2013, indicating a revival in the housing sales market spurred on by the Treasury's market support schemes.
Second, Markit reports that the UK's Manufacturing PMI has risen to 52.5, its highest level since the second quarter of 2011, with production and new orders up and intermediate stocks down all promising sustained recovery for the rest of this year.
Third, the day after Danny Alexander justified his long term investment plans on the Andrew Marr show by saying:
“What I’ve announced is our plans going out to 2020, providing precisely the sort of long-term certainty that investors in the private sector say that they need in order to gear up to deliver the sort of infrastructure this country needs.”,
up pops the Kuwait Investment Authority to announce that it intends to invest as much as $5 billion in infrastructure assets mainly in the UK in the next three to five years.
It seems likely to me that Cameron, if PM, will be going into such negotiations with polling indicating that the Brits are about to leave and will be asking the others what they can do to help turn that around.
The answers will either be "nothing" , in which case it is cheerio and let's start talking about what we do next or "opt out plus" where the UK will effectively become some sort of associate member with no votes on a range of issues but also no obligation to comply with EU rules in those areas either.
My guess is that Germany and some of the other net contributors will do the maths and prefer the second possibility but it is not guaranteed. It really depends on their assessment of whether Cameron and the Brits mean it and there is room for miscalculation on both sides.
'.But it's important to be aware that in the rest of the EU, they don't, by and large, see current membership as a problem either, so they are not motivated to do anything drastic, and the prospect of getting a 27-nation deal for drastic change before 2020 is as close to zero as you get in the real world.'
I'm sure you were saying the same thing before Thatcher negotiated our rebate.
If Germany wants the UK to stay then concessions will be made.
Anyway good to know there are plenty of volunteers to fill the funding gap if the UK leaves.
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
Cynical old me, thinking that when a politician dodges a question, it's because they don't want to answer it. Clearly I need to get used to this new generation of conviction politicians who dodge questions because it makes it more fun for us trying to guess the answer.
Edmund, you do realise that the Conservative Party is currently running a massive campaign based on James Wharton's bill?
No ifs or buts in that (although it does allow for the referendum to be held by the end of 2017, so I suppose you could argue that there's a bit of slippage in the date).
The leadership didn't come up with this bill, they got pushed into it by their backbenchers, and there's no cost to backing it because they know it won't pass.
The "Let Britain Decide" site has the same careful wording as Cameron's speech. It's "negotiate by 2017, then put it to a referendum". The only reference to a referendum _actually_ happening by 2017 is hooked onto the bill, which as we know won't pass.
look at Cameron's incentives.
Welshing on this pledge would be a career limiting move.
I assume you mean welching Charles , and did not intend to insult the Welsh
Comments
I guess what Miliband may be lacking that Brown had was a really good "fear" angle, especially since, as you say, they probably won't have very good dividing lines on tax and spending. But I'd have thought they could make up most of that with something ideological like NHS privatization or whatever.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23127953
You need to normalise your comparators.
do you deal with statistical analysis at all in your line of work?
http://pastebin.com/E9LdPAHR
There is an argument, and quite a strong one I'd say, that the PRC has just about reached the limits of its innovative capacity under the current political system there. Until the government allows freedom of capital, judicial independence and permits its citizens to access whatever kind of information they wish however they wish China is always going to operate at an innovation disadvantage. Singapore shows what can be achieved with a more enlightened form of despotism. That's what China needs to move towards, given that full democracy is a long way off. But it is easier said than done in a country so huge in terms of size, population, income inequality etc. And there is no reason why we need to lose our lead over them in this area whatever the Chinese do. As Switzerland and Sweden show,m populaiton size is not a determinative factor.
I read a piece over the weekend claiming that being 'up the spout' referred to being pregnant - that was a new one on me. Being *up the duff* yes, but spout? I associate that with Incy Wincy Spider if anything...
"A married couples' tax break was part of the Tory manifesto and for thousands of voters it was a crucial feature of the Conservative campaign – something to distinguish them from the Lib Dems, who dismissed any talk of marriage tax breaks "patronising drivel that belong in the Edwardian age".
Until now, Cameron had talked the talk ("We will be the most family-friendly government in history") but refused to do anything to upset his own "marriage" with Nick Clegg. That political union seemed to matter more to him than fixing our "broken society". The result was that Britain's married couples were the only ones in Europe not to be recognised by the tax system.
No one is sure about how much of a tax break Cameron will offer married couples. But family campaigners are clear that the tax system must stop penalising the single-earner family. "With child benefit taken away," as Anne Fennell of the "Mothers at home matter" campaign tells me, "and a promise that when both parents work they can receive tax allowance up to £1,200 per child per year, the situation will be much more uneven for the single-earner family."
The unfairness of the present system means that a dual-earner family that brings home 60K pays almost £7,000 less than a single earner family on the same salary..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100224118/cameron-finally-sounds-like-a-conservative-and-not-a-lib-dem-on-the-family/
Off-topic, but I read the Metro today, and amongst the celebrity guff, it had half a page on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, an explanation of the double-slit experiment and a mention of Schrodingers' cat.
Puts PB to shame.
lucy manning @lucymanning
BBC figs show licence fee payers paid 86k for Mark Thomson & 107k for George Entwistle's Pollard Review legal advice bbc.in/119Uej1
The opposition leader with the record number of u-turns in the shortest period of time?
'The biggest transformation of all has been in public attitudes to welfare. Not long ago, to propose cutting benefits would have been political suicide. But here, too, the nation has lost its innocence.
Yes, there are many deserving, indeed heart-rending cases. But the entitlement culture has sucked in the undeserving (a word until recently too politically incorrect to print), undermined incentives and sapped the morale of the unemployed. Don’t take my word for it: listen to the deafening silence from Labour.
The Government is shrinking the client state: that over-sized group who work for the state, are housed by the state, or live off the state, and who on polling day vote to expand the state.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2351766/Osborne-turned-omni-shambles-omni-rout-buried-borrow-Ed-Miliband-says-Tory-big-beast.html#ixzz2XnB1nmjb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"Let me say, this policy, it doesn't matter the pressure I come under from outside the Conservative party, or in Europe, or inside the Conservative party, this policy isn't going to change. The question isn't going to change. The number of referenda isn't going to change. The date by which we hold this referendum isn't going to change. The fact is, it's the right policy for the country."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/22/david-cameron-eu-referendum
Or this one:
“Let me be absolutely clear, if I’m Prime Minister, this will happen.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/372830/EU-vote-If-I-m-PM-referendum-will-happen-says-David-Cameron
In fact I'd understated the commitment - it's predicated on Cameron as PM, even without a majority. I'm not sure how that will work out if he's PM in another hung parliament; I guess he'd dare the LibDems to vote it down, but by implication step down if he can't get it through.
My own view is that he's boxed himself in too much, not too little. In particular, the timetable looks too short to me.
(1) We are indeed better together. The UK (aberrations under new Labour apart) is in general a force for good in the world and it is a more compelling force with the UK in its current form. Scots are rightly proud to serve in the UK armed forces. And there is the BBC I suppose.
(2) The UK gives young Scots far greater opportunities to have an impact on a larger national stage. Just look at the role that Scots have played in most governments since the war (seriously sorry about Gordon by the way).
(3) The integrated UK market is good for Scottish companies allowing them easy growth opportunities and economies of scale. Whilst rUk would obviously remain our largest trading partner there is a risk that this would diminish over time as the underlying legal systems drift further apart.
(4) Being part of a larger country means that there is a larger pool of talent available for leadership. Anyone not convinced of this point should listen to FMQs occasionally. I have heard better debate in my local, near closing time.
(5) The depth and liquidity of London has been essential in building up Scotland's financial services industry. There is at least a risk that some of this will be lost.
(6) Our financial institutions have a credible lender of last resort that was even able to save RBS. So far there is no answer to this that makes any sense at all.
(7) The position re the EU remains unclear. Whilst we would almost certainly be able to become members again there are real issues about the euro, Schengen, opt outs etc that are not being addressed.
(8) The SNP policy on currency is economically incoherent. It appears we will have interest and exchange rates fixed by a foreign country. Ask Club Med how that works out.
(9) The volitility of oil income is much more easily absorbed in the UK. An independent Scotland will have some very good years income wise and some very bad ones.
(10) Partly because of these factors it is very unlikely that borrowing by a Scottish government would be as cheap as it is for the UK.
(11) Far more of us are proud to be British (as well as Scots) than the independence supporters would like to think. Look at the Olympics.
How we doing so far?
"in November 2010, the Government confirmed that in order to encourage companies to locate high value jobs and activity in the UK, it would proceed with the proposed introduction of the Patent Box"
http://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/ti_patentbox.html
http://www.tax-news.com/news/UK_Patent_Box_Announcement_Welcomed_____40652.html
The current government picked it up and ran with it.
The first one is saying he's not going to change his policy as stated whatever pressure he comes under, and the policy as stated didn't say what happens if the negotiation doesn't produce the result he wants.
The second one isn't saying the referendum is going to happen. "This" is the whole policy that he'd just announced. The question it responds to is about whether he'd change it if he doesn't have a majority, which he says he won't. But the policy he won't change still doesn't say what will happen if the negotiation doesn't produce the result he wants.
Now, you may be right that since a lot of people think he's promised a referendum, he'll have to deliver one. I'm not convinced, for reasons we've discussed before. But the situation still seems to be that he hasn't promised a referendum if his renegotiation doesn't give the results he wants, and it isn't because nobody's asked him.
'I see Clegg has started doing monthly press conferences
It'll be two years next Monday since Dave had to stop his'
Has Red done one yet or has that been permanently delegated to UNITE?
"On 24 January I set out a very clear, very compelling policy for the country towards Europe, which is to renegotiate our relationship with Europe, to make the European Union more open, competitive and flexible, and then to offer the British people something they haven't had for decades – an in-out referendum. It's a very clear, very decisive policy.
"Let me say, this policy, ..." [continues as per your selective quote]
It was in response to this that he was asked what happens if there isn't a concluded negotiation in 2017, and his reply was that he's an optimist.
If there is a negotiation in progress in 2017, it's frankly inconceivable that Cameron will call referendum in the middle of it, with no idea of the deal on offer. It'd be a ridiculous thing to do. Nor TBH do I think he will have problems with MPs or voters if he then says "OK, I said 2017 but it's taking longer, let's finish this and then vote on it". His problem will be if it drags on inconclusively, which IMO is the most likely situation - EU countries will be willing to have a leisurely discussion if they think it will avoid British withdrawal, but there won't be a final deal with everyone ratifying it this side of 2020.
Anyway, take it from me: there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of the party accepting a delay past the end-2016 deadline.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209675/impact-private-rent-growth-housing-benefit-expenditure.pdf
I would also ask what the great British public have as an alternative?
If you are doing backflips to show how DC won't offer a referendum, how do you describe EdM's position? And do you agree with it?
Personally I think the idea of a cut-off date is a very good one, otherwise it would indeed drag out for years, as you rightly say. End 2017 would have been more realistic in terms of time for negotiation, but we are where we are: the referendum will happen by the end of 2016, if Cameron has a majority.
The government has yet to release details of how the scheme will operate, although Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling confirmed in his pre-budget speech to the House of Commons on December 9 that patent income will be subject to a 10% rate of corporate tax after legislation is passed. First, however, the government intends to consult with industry, and final legislative proposals are unlikely to emerge until the 2011 Finance Bill. The scheme will then operate from April 2013.
I think we disagree on the interest that other EU countries have in helping Cameron out on this, and perhaps, as neither of us can prove it, we'd better leave it there for now.
"Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1
rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that
around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent
growth over the previous ten years.
From April 2011, Local Housing Allowance (LHA) reforms were introduced and are
expected to save around £2 billion a year in HB expenditure by 2015/16."
I knew someone would enjoy it
A small part of me wonders whether DWP produced this just for tim...
'This report may just give tim a heart attack'
Game,set and match.
Too many 3 bed homes, not enough one bed flats, the solution seems pretty obvious, doesn't it.
Of course they can choose to sit on their hands and do nothing, leaving us with the status quo. That's fine. UK voters will then get a chance to say whether they are happy with the status quo. Germany will have to calculate on the basis that UK voters might just decide they are not happy with it.
I never claimed this was a good starting point. The last lot left us in a disastrously weak position. But the Labour/LibDem policy of shrugging shoulders and doing nothing is not exactly a good option, is it? We need to do what we can to retrieve the situation, and, if we fail to make progress, consider leaving.
On a more serious note, it has been the policy of those local authorities in Scotland where land costs the square root of b*gger all to only have 2 bed properties and up so that people do not have to move if they have a child or carer.
Something that might be suitable for London has been a disaster for huge swathes of the country.
I think the Labers are genuinely perplexed at a party leader who has said something with conviction.
They have no point of reference for such a phenomenon.
As I understand, it is a tax applied to working people, in order to provide a spare room for other households?
Have I understood correctly?
But on this occasion I think DC has gone the extra mile. "If I am PM this will happen" - we haven't had that before.
I do think people are going through all kinds of contortions to avoid hearing what he said.
He even, as I remember, looked up from the podium and stared us in the eye as he said it.
The spare room households have to rent in the social sector.
People who rent in the private sector had their spare rooms taken away in 2008.....by the Tories, obviously....
http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2013/06/Campaign_launched_to_secure_a_referendum_on_the_EU_for_the_British_people.aspx
http://www.letbritaindecide.com/downloads/Let_Britain_Decide_A5_Card.pdf
Here's the text:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/148928915/European-Union-Referendum-Bill-Final-Version
No ifs or buts in that (although it does allow for the referendum to be held by the end of 2017, so I suppose you could argue that there's a bit of slippage in the date).
But there's no contortion. In context, the "this" that "will happen" is not a referendum.
Up until now I have paid tax so somebody else gets a spare bedroom.
Am I alone in thinking there should be some sort of sin bin for people who sarcastically post "oh, wait..." Or "fixed it for you"... So annoyingly smug
"XXXXXXX: Bugging allegations threaten EU-US trade pact"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23125451
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23125861
But not this ;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-01/u-k-factory-index-increases-to-two-year-high-as-mortgages-jump.html
Odd.
The "Let Britain Decide" site has the same careful wording as Cameron's speech. It's "negotiate by 2017, then put it to a referendum". The only reference to a referendum _actually_ happening by 2017 is hooked onto the bill, which as we know won't pass.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23127126
"UK manufacturing saw its strongest growth in two years in June, according to a survey, boosting hopes of a strengthening economic recovery."
Welshing on this pledge would be a career limiting move.
The spare room subsidy/bedroom tax could then be applied to OAPs who want to stay in their original home
It's not quite a sure thing that he'd be able to sell that, but as a winner of an unhoped-for majority, and vanquisher of UKIP, he'd be in a far stronger position than he is now. See Nick Palmer's post upthread for how he might play it, and bear in mind he has quite a few cards to play, including a referendum where the voters get to say how angry they are to give him a mandate for the negotiation that our feckless European cousins have been dragging their feet over.
But we are where we are, unfortunately.
As you say, we disagree on whether there is a problem. You say everything is for the best in the most perfect of all possible EU worlds. Fine; in that case, you, and those who agree with you, can vote to Stay In in the referendum; if you are right and there are no concessions, that won't change your view presumably, so what's the problem with a referendum?
Some people will vote to leave, whatever happens in the negotiations, which is fair enough. At the very least they will have had a democratic say denied to them when Labour and the LibDems reneged on the referendum on Lisbon.
As for me: I shall see what concessions we get, and then decide.
All this is of course very uncertain, except for one point: there will be a referendum if there's a Conservative majority.
First, the Bank of England reports that approvals for mortgages on house purchases were at their highest for three years in May 2013, indicating a revival in the housing sales market spurred on by the Treasury's market support schemes.
Second, Markit reports that the UK's Manufacturing PMI has risen to 52.5, its highest level since the second quarter of 2011, with production and new orders up and intermediate stocks down all promising sustained recovery for the rest of this year.
Third, the day after Danny Alexander justified his long term investment plans on the Andrew Marr show by saying:
“What I’ve announced is our plans going out to 2020, providing precisely the sort of long-term certainty that investors in the private sector say that they need in order to gear up to deliver the sort of infrastructure this country needs.”,
up pops the Kuwait Investment Authority to announce that it intends to invest as much as $5 billion in infrastructure assets mainly in the UK in the next three to five years.
Enough to silence even tim.
The answers will either be "nothing" , in which case it is cheerio and let's start talking about what we do next or "opt out plus" where the UK will effectively become some sort of associate member with no votes on a range of issues but also no obligation to comply with EU rules in those areas either.
My guess is that Germany and some of the other net contributors will do the maths and prefer the second possibility but it is not guaranteed. It really depends on their assessment of whether Cameron and the Brits mean it and there is room for miscalculation on both sides.
'.But it's important to be aware that in the rest of the EU, they don't, by and large, see current membership as a problem either, so they are not motivated to do anything drastic, and the prospect of getting a 27-nation deal for drastic change before 2020 is as close to zero as you get in the real world.'
I'm sure you were saying the same thing before Thatcher negotiated our rebate.
If Germany wants the UK to stay then concessions will be made.
Anyway good to know there are plenty of volunteers to fill the funding gap if the UK leaves.
‘crisis just around the corner’.
New Labour's housing legacy.
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing
Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that
around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent
growth over the previous ten years