UK commercial property wants a sell off, almost certainly leading to lower prices for occupiers; sterling has fallen leading to lower labour costs in currency comparative terms for UK employees of multinationals and Osborne is promising to take corporation tax down to 15% or below?
Cheaper property, lower wage bills and less in tax?
And businesses are going to leave in search of dearer property, higher bills and higher taxes somewhere else?'
France should be hugely attractive for bankers with its 80% tax rate.
France income tax is very similar to the UK (they got rid of the supertax):
5.2. French Income Tax Rates Income Share Tax Rate Between €9,701 - €26,791 14% Between €26,792 - €71,826 30% Between €71,827 - €152,108 41% Above €151,108 45%
Also, your allowances stack according to how many people are in your family. If you have a wife and two kids, you need to earn more than EUR600,000 before you get to 45%, against just GBP100,000 in the UK.
It's an incredibly family friendly tax system.
Is that assuming only one earner? Otherwise that is extremely generous!
Your tax is assessed on your immediate family. So you add up the income for all of you, and you add up all your allowances.
The result is that if you have a single earner at the head of a family of four in France, earning EUR100,000, they'll pay about EUR10,000 in tax. If, on the other hand, said person is single, then they'll be paying a little more than EUR30,000.
It's one of the reasons why France has a TFR of north of 2, and (uniquely) has higher rates of babies for women with university educations than those without.
@MrHarryCole: Leadsom just refused to publish her tax return at 1922 hustings. But claimed MPs "could look at it individually but it is very boring."
What does she not want party members in the shires to see?
More to the point, on the Andrew Marr show she said, after a bit of wibbling, that she would. 'Yes' was her final answer, without qualification. She's just not very good, that is the truth of the matter.
Is that "not very good" why she was better than all the 6 REMAINers that were put up at the ITV 3v3 debates? But WTF do I know eh? 130/1 on Andrea in March... before she stepped forward into the front of the LEAVE campaign. I actually favour Mrs May as PM, just to see if (for once) the establishment have got it right.
She wasn't better than all the Remainers.
She certainly was better than eagle, Rudd and sturgeon
@MrHarryCole: Leadsom just refused to publish her tax return at 1922 hustings. But claimed MPs "could look at it individually but it is very boring."
What does she not want party members in the shires to see?
More to the point, on the Andrew Marr show she said, after a bit of wibbling, that she would. 'Yes' was her final answer, without qualification. She's just not very good, that is the truth of the matter.
Is that "not very good" why she was better than all the 6 REMAINers that were put up at the ITV 3v3 debates? But WTF do I know eh? 130/1 on Andrea in March... before she stepped forward into the front of the LEAVE campaign. I actually favour Mrs May as PM, just to see if (for once) the establishment have got it right.
She wasn't better than all the Remainers.
IMHO she was better than the 6. In case you were unaware, LEAVE won the referendum.
@MrHarryCole: Leadsom just refused to publish her tax return at 1922 hustings. But claimed MPs "could look at it individually but it is very boring."
What does she not want party members in the shires to see?
More to the point, on the Andrew Marr show she said, after a bit of wibbling, that she would. 'Yes' was her final answer, without qualification. She's just not very good, that is the truth of the matter.
Is that "not very good" why she was better than all the 6 REMAINers that were put up at the ITV 3v3 debates? But WTF do I know eh? 130/1 on Andrea in March... before she stepped forward into the front of the LEAVE campaign. I actually favour Mrs May as PM, just to see if (for once) the establishment have got it right.
She wasn't better than all the Remainers.
She certainly was better than eagle, Rudd and sturgeon
I was actually getting my debates mixed up - it was the BBC one I saw, and she wasn't better than Davidson.
Still no challenge to Jeremy Corbyn? Maybe Labour MPs have given up trying to get rid of him.
The only way to get rid of him is at a general election. By which time it's probably too late as a huge chunk of labour MPs will have lost their seats.
They're looking down the back of the sofa to find a credible candidate who didn't actually support the Iraq War. They may be some time.
It's going to have to be Owen smith. Else they may as well get on with it and split.
I don't even know who Owen Smith IS, and I spend half my waking hours on a politics website for politics obsessives.
That's how idiotic British politics has become
He is presentable, sane and tenacious. Completely wrong in his beliefs but he would be bad news for the Conservatives.
No he is a leftwinger and the best he can hope is to be a more presentable version of Corbyn. If Labour is ever to return to power it will be under a moderate like Umunna or Jarvis who is also presentable
Indeed. I don't understand the enthusiasm for Smith at all. I would rather him than Eagle, but then I think Eagle is pretty awful as a leader, so damning by very faint praise. Chuka would be the best choice, or else a young, eye-catching outsider like Luciana Berger or Stella Creasy, who would be a massive gamble but who could possibly turn a few heads in marginals with a decent pro-business pro-Europe message.
Won't Labour get crushed in the North if they stand on a pro-Europe platform?
Nope. They would lose some seats. But they would gain lots of marginals in the SE.
And the amount of northern seats they would lose is overstated. Ukip would have to change their entire ethos to reap the big rewards. And don't underestimate the power of FPP.
They wouldn't win back the traditional marginals in Kent or Essex, or most of Herts. St. Alban's, Reading East and West, and Brighton Kemptown would be winnable. But, most of Labour's best seats in the South East are strongly Leave.
Was there any poll before the referendum that showed Wales in favour of Brexit? Is Welsh opinion polling on Brexit as error prone as that for the rest of the UK?
Philip Rucker Trump says he raised $26 million for camp & $25 mill for RNC/Trump Victory Fund in June. Not Clinton level, but huge improvement from May.
He's doing well with what he's spending using Twitter. I wonder how much TV he needs prior to the TV debates?
During the TV debates, Donald Trump will concentrate on playing to the moron market, selling an "I'm gonna kick me some arse" attitude and being abusive towards Hillary Clinton.
Blair is in deep shit. His performance today was meaningless.
Wowsers. He didn't share? Words fail.
Mind-boggling. He really did take us to war on a lie. He lied to his own Cabinet, in effect. As well as everyone else in the country.
It's a bit like going to Brexit on a lie - woefully unprepared for the aftermath
No it is as if the Government had a 50/50 chance of something happening and did no planning if one of the options actually happened, only because it wanted the other option to happen....... Dereliction of duty. People would be fired in a company if that had happened.
Was there any poll before the referendum that showed Wales in favour of Brexit? Is Welsh opinion polling on Brexit as error prone as that for the rest of the UK?
The sample is matched to actual votes in the referendum - ergo a decisive cohort have changed their minds.....
@MrHarryCole: Leadsom just refused to publish her tax return at 1922 hustings. But claimed MPs "could look at it individually but it is very boring."
What does she not want party members in the shires to see?
More to the point, on the Andrew Marr show she said, after a bit of wibbling, that she would. 'Yes' was her final answer, without qualification. She's just not very good, that is the truth of the matter.
Is that "not very good" why she was better than all the 6 REMAINers that were put up at the ITV 3v3 debates? But WTF do I know eh? 130/1 on Andrea in March... before she stepped forward into the front of the LEAVE campaign. I actually favour Mrs May as PM, just to see if (for once) the establishment have got it right.
She wasn't better than all the Remainers.
IMHO she was better than the 6. In case you were unaware, LEAVE won the referendum.
The thread covering the first referendum debate was very positive about her - someone with much better Google Fu may link to it.
Still no challenge to Jeremy Corbyn? Maybe Labour MPs have given up trying to get rid of him.
The only way to get rid of him is at a general election. By which time it's probably too late as a huge chunk of labour MPs will have lost their seats.
They're looking down the back of the sofa to find a credible candidate who didn't actually support the Iraq War. They may be some time.
It's going to have to be Owen smith. Else they may as well get on with it and split.
I don't even know who Owen Smith IS, and I spend half my waking hours on a politics website for politics obsessives.
That's how idiotic British politics has become
He is presentable, sane and tenacious. Completely wrong in his beliefs but he would be bad news for the Conservatives.
No he is a leftwinger and the best he can hope is to be a more presentable version of Corbyn. If Labour is ever to return to power it will be under a moderate like Umunna or Jarvis who is also presentable
Indeed. I don't understand the enthusiasm for Smith at all. I would rather him than Eagle, but then I think Eagle is pretty awful as a leader, so damning by very faint praise. Chuka would be the best choice, or else a young, eye-catching outsider like Luciana Berger or Stella Creasy, who would be a massive gamble but who could possibly turn a few heads in marginals with a decent pro-business pro-Europe message.
Won't Labour get crushed in the North if they stand on a pro-Europe platform?
Nope. They would lose some seats. But they would gain lots of marginals in the SE.
And the amount of northern seats they would lose is overstated. Ukip would have to change their entire ethos to reap the big rewards. And don't underestimate the power of FPP.
I doubt if they'd win much in the SE frankly.
Neither Smith or Eagle offers them any route back toward connecting with their core voters.
And if UKIP siphons off votes from Labour, whilst you are right that the number of UKIP gains will be negligible under first-past-there-isn't-a-post, quite a few seats will tip from Labour to Tory. So it's not a happy scenario for them.
@MrHarryCole: Leadsom just refused to publish her tax return at 1922 hustings. But claimed MPs "could look at it individually but it is very boring."
What does she not want party members in the shires to see?
More to the point, on the Andrew Marr show she said, after a bit of wibbling, that she would. 'Yes' was her final answer, without qualification. She's just not very good, that is the truth of the matter.
Is that "not very good" why she was better than all the 6 REMAINers that were put up at the ITV 3v3 debates? But WTF do I know eh? 130/1 on Andrea in March... before she stepped forward into the front of the LEAVE campaign. I actually favour Mrs May as PM, just to see if (for once) the establishment have got it right.
She wasn't better than all the Remainers.
IMHO she was better than the 6. In case you were unaware, LEAVE won the referendum.
The thread covering the first referendum debate was very positive about her - someone with much better Google Fu may link to it.
She was good in the first debate albeit against poor opposition. She definitely wasn't great in the BBC one.
Philip Rucker Trump says he raised $26 million for camp & $25 mill for RNC/Trump Victory Fund in June. Not Clinton level, but huge improvement from May.
He's doing well with what he's spending using Twitter. I wonder how much TV he needs prior to the TV debates?
During the TV debates, Donald Trump will concentrate on playing to the moron market, selling an "I'm gonna kick me some arse" attitude and being abusive towards Hillary Clinton.
Blair is in deep shit. His performance today was meaningless.
Wowsers. He didn't share? Words fail.
Mind-boggling. He really did take us to war on a lie. He lied to his own Cabinet, in effect. As well as everyone else in the country.
It's a bit like going to Brexit on a lie - woefully unprepared for the aftermath
No it is as if the Government had a 50/50 chance of something happening and did no planning if one of the options actually happened, only because it wanted the other option to happen....... Dereliction of duty. People would be fired in a company if that had happened.
This is absolutely true. Or they could have got the Leavers to come up with a plan, with civil service help even. That's how the monarchists won the referendum in Australia, even though a large majority of the population were republican. They got the republicans to come up with a plan, which they then lampooned as giving too much power to politicians. If the question had been "Do you want Australia to keep the monarchy? [YES/NO]", then NO would have won by a mile. But instead they asked whether people wanted this particular republican plan to be adopted, and the monarchists won.
@MrHarryCole: Leadsom just refused to publish her tax return at 1922 hustings. But claimed MPs "could look at it individually but it is very boring."
What does she not want party members in the shires to see?
More to the point, on the Andrew Marr show she said, after a bit of wibbling, that she would. 'Yes' was her final answer, without qualification. She's just not very good, that is the truth of the matter.
Is that "not very good" why she was better than all the 6 REMAINers that were put up at the ITV 3v3 debates? But WTF do I know eh? 130/1 on Andrea in March... before she stepped forward into the front of the LEAVE campaign. I actually favour Mrs May as PM, just to see if (for once) the establishment have got it right.
She wasn't better than all the Remainers.
IMHO she was better than the 6. In case you were unaware, LEAVE won the referendum.
What does your first sentence have to do with the second?! I am a Leaver, btw. But what does disagreeing about the awesomeness of Leadsome have to do with not being aware Leave won? Nonsensical. Even if she was the greatest human being alive, Leave won for many reasons, and whatever her contribution it would be a small part of it. Not to be discounted, but your statement makes it seem that her supposed good performance in the debates was why Leave won alone.
In any case, I have corrected my point as I was thinking of the BBC event. And in my humble opinion, in that one she was robotic and unimpressive.
The only problem I have with a May/Leadsom final is we'll be drowned in commentariat articles about how the 'sisterhood' are showing the way, women uber alles etc.
TBH, a male/female vote-off would be just as tedious polyfilla column inches.
Political journalists churn out too much lazy trite vapid bilge.
Not as much as the vapid bilge posted on here.
But you aren't paid for it. Unless you're a Mossad agent.
Was there any poll before the referendum that showed Wales in favour of Brexit? Is Welsh opinion polling on Brexit as error prone as that for the rest of the UK?
The sample is matched to actual votes in the referendum - ergo a decisive cohort have changed their minds.....
Or people lie about how they voted. Misremembering is very common in polls.
First Leadsom promises live on prime TV to publish her tax return. Then she qualifies this by saying only if she gets to the final two. Now she won't publish at all.
First she promises to submit under Article 50 the minute she is elected. Then she says she won't.
How can she ever hope to get away with such slippery a performance?
Gah! I can't wait for this kind of thing to stop - no offence to you Indigo. Brexit is so last month. We need a new PM and then to start talking to the EC. We've crossed the Rubicon. Alea acta est and all that. Time to build the New Jerusalem under Fraulein May.
Was there any poll before the referendum that showed Wales in favour of Brexit? Is Welsh opinion polling on Brexit as error prone as that for the rest of the UK?
The sample is matched to actual votes in the referendum - ergo a decisive cohort have changed their minds.....
Or people lie about how they voted. Misremembering is very common in polls.
UK commercial property wants a sell off, almost certainly leading to lower prices for occupiers; sterling has fallen leading to lower labour costs in currency comparative terms for UK employees of multinationals and Osborne is promising to take corporation tax down to 15% or below?
Cheaper property, lower wage bills and less in tax?
And businesses are going to leave in search of dearer property, higher bills and higher taxes somewhere else?'
France should be hugely attractive for bankers with its 80% tax rate.
France income tax is very similar to the UK (they got rid of the supertax):
5.2. French Income Tax Rates Income Share Tax Rate Between €9,701 - €26,791 14% Between €26,792 - €71,826 30% Between €71,827 - €152,108 41% Above €151,108 45%
Also, your allowances stack according to how many people are in your family. If you have a wife and two kids, you need to earn more than EUR600,000 before you get to 45%, against just GBP100,000 in the UK.
It's an incredibly family friendly tax system.
Is that assuming only one earner? Otherwise that is extremely generous!
Only people classed as 'immigrants' are counted as immigrants, as only they can stay permanently in the US. Everyone else has to go home sooner or later.
The Americans have the massive advantage of not having the idiocy of Article 8. In the UK it is far too easy to arrive as a visitor, overstay, find a boy/girlfriend, ideally have a baby, and claim Article 8 for instant permanent right to remain.
No, Mr. Max I don't think it would be enough in and of itself. It is not just quantity but quality that matters. 300,000 net taxpayers p.a. might be acceptable; 200,000 cousin brides and big issue sellers might not be.
Personally I would split out genuine students from the immigration figures and "temporary workers". Then we might get some sense into the discussions.
Absolutely agreed with that, though the chances of getting 200,000 cousin brides in a single year from EU nations is probably quite low!
Sorry I thought you were talking about overall migration when you said 200,000. That from the EU is already less than that isn't it.
Yes, I was. Obviously May is going to have to fix non-EU migration at the same time. I would look at banning family reunions as a starter.
Was there any poll before the referendum that showed Wales in favour of Brexit? Is Welsh opinion polling on Brexit as error prone as that for the rest of the UK?
Most polling for Wales showed them marginally more in favour of Remain than the UK. Overall, the eve of poll figures were about 52/48 for Remain, for the UK as a whole. Had a poll been taken for Wales in the last week, it would probably have been about 53/47 Remain.
Only people classed as 'immigrants' are counted as immigrants, as only they can stay permanently in the US. Everyone else has to go home sooner or later.
The Americans have the massive advantage of not having the idiocy of Article 8. In the UK it is far too easy to arrive as a visitor, overstay, find a boy/girlfriend, ideally have a baby, and claim Article 8 for instant permanent right to remain.
Family migration is now undoubtedly the weak link in our migration system. Many students from Asia do the same thing.
As I said the other day, Corbyn doesn't do personal stuff. Not for IDS. Not for Blair. The leftie view is that you always go for the system that produces disasters (in this case the love of invading people to change their regimes), and don't let yourself be distracted by arguing about individuals.
The problem with that is that the media really only like personal stuff. If Corbyn had shouted "Blair is a war crimnal" he'd have been on every front page. As it is, he'll be on page 7. But he doesn't care.
It's like being against tax avoidance and spending your energies trying to harass Amazon - even if you win the argument and Amazon is ashamed and changes its policies, you've actually made no progress on the underlying problem.
Yes I would agree with that.
What are your thoughts about his apologising for the entire PLP when outside the chamber?
Well, he's right to apologise for me, as one of those who voted for it - I've done so myself. I doubt if there are still many Labour MPs who think it was the right decision in the light of what's transpired, though I note that there are still quite a few who were up for intervening in Libya and Syria, which to my mind shows a slowness to learn.
Philip Rucker Trump says he raised $26 million for camp & $25 mill for RNC/Trump Victory Fund in June. Not Clinton level, but huge improvement from May.
He's doing well with what he's spending using Twitter. I wonder how much TV he needs prior to the TV debates?
During the TV debates, Donald Trump will concentrate on playing to the moron market, selling an "I'm gonna kick me some arse" attitude and being abusive towards Hillary Clinton.
Where's the ceiling for that market?
Moron market? Seriously?
I don't know whether you're saying I'm misunderstanding who Trump is aiming for, or whether you're saying there's much more of that market left for him to conquer.
If it's the latter, then judging by how he's been doing so far with such little expenditure, and focusing mainly on attitude and abuse, he's probably got the presidency in the bag, what with the TV debates still to come.
Was there any poll before the referendum that showed Wales in favour of Brexit? Is Welsh opinion polling on Brexit as error prone as that for the rest of the UK?
The sample is matched to actual votes in the referendum - ergo a decisive cohort have changed their minds.....
Actually, the only good comparison would be if the same voters had been asked for their voting intention on the eve of poll. There's a tendency for some voters to claim to have voted for the winner, after the event, when in fact they didn't.
Philip Rucker Trump says he raised $26 million for camp & $25 mill for RNC/Trump Victory Fund in June. Not Clinton level, but huge improvement from May.
He's doing well with what he's spending using Twitter. I wonder how much TV he needs prior to the TV debates?
During the TV debates, Donald Trump will concentrate on playing to the moron market, selling an "I'm gonna kick me some arse" attitude and being abusive towards Hillary Clinton.
Where's the ceiling for that market?
Moron market? Seriously?
I don't know whether you're saying I'm misunderstanding who Trump is aiming for, or whether you're saying there's much more of that market left for him to conquer.
If it's the latter, then judging by how he's been doing so far with such little expenditure, and focusing mainly on attitude and abuse, he's probably got the presidency in the bag, what with the TV debates still to come.
I'm amazed at your insulting attitude to the working class voters who've been totally failed for decades.
Did the Labour Brexit vote demographic pass you by?
'France income tax is very similar to the UK (they got rid of the supertax):
5.2. French Income Tax Rates Income Share Tax Rate Between €9,701 - €26,791 14% Between €26,792 - €71,826 30% Between €71,827 - €152,108 41% Above €151,108 45%
Also, your allowances stack according to how many people are in your family. If you have a wife and two kids, you need to earn more than EUR600,000 before you get to 45%, against just GBP100,000 in the UK.
It's an incredibly family friendly tax system.'
That's only income tax, high net worth individuals in France are also subject to a separate wealth tax on assets including real estate & cars.
That's only income tax, high net worth individuals in France are also subject to a separate wealth tax on assets including real estate & cars.
Yes they do, but it tops out at 1.5% of net assets. And for that you need to have more than EUR10m.
If you own a EUR2m house (and bear in mind that French housing is cheaper than that in the UK, so EUR2m will buy you something pretty awesome in Paris), with a EUR1m mortgage, then you pay wealth tax of...
EUR1,000.
Of course, if you're worth EUR1bn, you'll pay quite a lot. But very few bankers have net assets north of EUR5m or so.
Didn't polls also show remain would win? *innocent face*
Yup. But this sample is based on actual votes in the referendum. In fact the sample is marginally more pro-leave than the actual result!
Interesting.
Not really interesting, more meaningless. Everyone knew when the vote was and that was the date that mattered. Time to move on.
The difference between this and other referendums is that we have ANOTHER date with destiny. The day we pull the trigger on Article 50.
If the trend in that Welsh poll continues (and today's economic news will shunt it that way) then we could see polls showing REMAIN 60/40 next year. As the economy goes swiftly down the toilet.
At that point I expect Prime Minister May would do the British thing, and extract some ludicrous, craven, face-saving fudge from Brussels, allowing us to revote and STAY.
I think a rerun of the Referendum would have a similar outcome to the Winchester by-election in 1997. IMHO, the numbers you should watch are for those who want a fresh referendum, currently 2:1 against.
Chilcot - my wish is both Charles Kennedy and Robin Cook had been alive to see it. It's easy to forget from the time he became Labour leader to the moment the first plane hit the South Tower Blair was the dominant force in British politics.
He completed the work started by Kinnock and Smith finishing the re-creation of Labour as a non-socialist party of the centre and centre left for whom millions of former Conservatives could happily vote. He led Labour to a more comprehensive victory than Thatcher had achieved in 1983 or Attlee in 1945.
In 2001, he not only repeated the landslide, if anything he created an even worse result for the Conservatives. There's no doubt in my mind that had 9/11 not happened, Blair would have won another landslide in 2005 and could have retired in 2007 as one of the great Prime Ministers.
9/11 was a traumatic event - I remember panicked newspapers claiming 10,000 were dead. It seemed as though a new era of uncertainty was upon us but it was the Americans and particularly George W Bush who wanted to go after Iraq which had no involvement in the 9/11 attack. For Bush, it was unfinished business which had cost his father the Presidency in 1992.
And yet from the hindsight of 2016, it appears so ill thought out. The defeat of Saddam's army was the easy bit, then a liberated people, crying out for democracy, would welcome home the exiles from abroad and a new Government dedicated to serving the interests of American foreign policy and business would be installed. The template was WW2 - the Americans would be welcomed as liberators in Baghdad as they had been in Paris, Rome and Munich and would swiftly be brought home.
Someone once said those who don't learn the lessons of history are forced to repeat them - the Anglo- French debacle at Suez and the Russian agony in Afghanistan showed what happens with ill-thought out interventions. The liberation of Kuwait, as the liberation of the Falklands before it, had been a wholly justifiable response to illegal aggression. The invasion of Iraq had no such basis.
Blair earnestly believes he was right at the time - maybe - but many people did not accept it then and others were duped into support. It's a shameful episode whose lies need exposing to the light for no other reason than to ensure all those who perished, whether British, American or Iraqi, are not forgotten.
No, Mr. Max I don't think it would be enough in and of itself. It is not just quantity but quality that matters. 300,000 net taxpayers p.a. might be acceptable; 200,000 cousin brides and big issue sellers might not be.
Personally I would split out genuine students from the immigration figures and "temporary workers". Then we might get some sense into the discussions.
Absolutely agreed with that, though the chances of getting 200,000 cousin brides in a single year from EU nations is probably quite low!
Sorry I thought you were talking about overall migration when you said 200,000. That from the EU is already less than that isn't it.
Yes, I was. Obviously May is going to have to fix non-EU migration at the same time. I would look at banning family reunions as a starter.
It's ironic that many of the people who would be affected by this have voted for Brexit because they resent an open door for Europeans when they have to go through an application process.
First Leadsom promises live on prime TV to publish her tax return. Then she qualifies this by saying only if she gets to the final two. Now she won't publish at all.
First she promises to submit under Article 50 the minute she is elected. Then she says she won't.
How can she ever hope to get away with such slippery a performance?
Tax returns are an entirely private affair. I don't think anyone should be bullied into publishing them.
Didn't polls also show remain would win? *innocent face*
Yup. But this sample is based on actual votes in the referendum. In fact the sample is marginally more pro-leave than the actual result!
Interesting.
Not really interesting, more meaningless. Everyone knew when the vote was and that was the date that mattered. Time to move on.
The difference between this and other referendums is that we have ANOTHER date with destiny. The day we pull the trigger on Article 50.
If the trend in that Welsh poll continues (and today's economic news will shunt it that way) then we could see polls showing REMAIN 60/40 next year. As the economy goes swiftly down the toilet.
At that point I expect Prime Minister May would do the British thing, and extract some ludicrous, craven, face-saving fudge from Brussels, allowing us to revote and STAY.
It is for just that reason I am convinced May will not be able to wait until next year, even if she secretly wanted to do so. When she will declare article 50 will come up again and again, and she will need to continually justify during the leadership campaign why she thinks we need to wait, and why until 2017 as I believe she had previously indicated. In order to reassure the more strident leavers, and given she will need to lay our at least the bare bones of her brexit strategy in the leadership campaign, she will need to pull the trigger before then, as what needs a longer delay if we know in general what we are aiming for.
Leadsome and other Leaver MPs will not permit backsliding. Even if dozens of Tory Leaver MPs are bremorsed into not wanting to leave after all, so so many will not, plenty of remainers will think it is too late even if the economy goes to hell, and the members would not stand for it. Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
And all of this requires getting some more fudge from Brussels, which would be more politically disastrous than any negative impacts from a Brexit - they don't agree on much, many would have liked us to stay, but let us remain now, but they don't want to be blackmailed by other nations voting to leave. (granted they cannot kick us out if we don't actually declare article 50, but for that reason wouldn't offer anything to us before we declare either).
First Leadsom promises live on prime TV to publish her tax return. Then she qualifies this by saying only if she gets to the final two. Now she won't publish at all.
First she promises to submit under Article 50 the minute she is elected. Then she says she won't.
How can she ever hope to get away with such slippery a performance?
Tax returns are an entirely private affair. I don't think anyone should be bullied into publishing them.
Would have been less of an issue if she had said that from the start!
In 2001, he not only repeated the landslide, if anything he created an even worse result for the Conservatives. There's no doubt in my mind that had 9/11 not happened, Blair would have won another landslide in 2005 and could have retired in 2007 as one of the great Prime Ministers.
I don't think so. If the Iraq war didn't cast a shadow over everything else he did we would have been able to see his other failures more clearly.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Didn't polls also show remain would win? *innocent face*
Yup. But this sample is based on actual votes in the referendum. In fact the sample is marginally more pro-leave than the actual result!
Interesting.
Not really interesting, more meaningless. Everyone knew when the vote was and that was the date that mattered. Time to move on.
The difference between this and other referendums is that we have ANOTHER date with destiny. The day we pull the trigger on Article 50.
If the trend in that Welsh poll continues (and today's economic news will shunt it that way) then we could see polls showing REMAIN 60/40 next year. As the economy goes swiftly down the toilet.
At that point I expect Prime Minister May would do the British thing, and extract some ludicrous, craven, face-saving fudge from Brussels, allowing us to revote and STAY.
I think a rerun of the Referendum would have a similar outcome to the Winchester by-election in 1997. IMHO, the numbers you should watch are for those who want a fresh referendum, currently 2:1 against.
I expect if things are worse in a sustained fashion, that number will rise at some point - but enough prior to article 50 being declared to change the political will and permit a new one? I cannot see any circumstance that would occur.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
Are the things there is a 2% higher risk of, and the things there is a near 4x increased risk of, the same things? It would be odd in principle if they were.
Have to say the vengeance of the Cameroons and the pro-EU dissidents in the Conservative Party has been a wonder to behold.
They lost the vote AND their leader and they want revenge. First Gove and now Leadsom have been as ruthlessly targeted and discredited as any Labour leader. May is now the hope of the "stern unbending Cameroons"for whom the past fortnight has been a nightmare.
Does this bode well for Party unity ? The irony of the Referendum is that one of its aims was to resolve the issue within the Conservative Party and it has done no such thing. All it has done has been to accentuate the differences. May will have to deal with people "banging on about Europe" just as Cameron before her.
Philip Rucker Trump says he raised $26 million for camp & $25 mill for RNC/Trump Victory Fund in June. Not Clinton level, but huge improvement from May.
He's doing well with what he's spending using Twitter. I wonder how much TV he needs prior to the TV debates?
During the TV debates, Donald Trump will concentrate on playing to the moron market, selling an "I'm gonna kick me some arse" attitude and being abusive towards Hillary Clinton.
Where's the ceiling for that market?
Moron market? Seriously?
I don't know whether you're saying I'm misunderstanding who Trump is aiming for, or whether you're saying there's much more of that market left for him to conquer.
If it's the latter, then judging by how he's been doing so far with such little expenditure, and focusing mainly on attitude and abuse, he's probably got the presidency in the bag, what with the TV debates still to come.
I'm amazed at your insulting attitude to the working class voters who've been totally failed for decades.
Did the Labour Brexit vote demographic pass you by?
Oh come on - Trump isn't appealing to people's intellects.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
First Leadsom promises live on prime TV to publish her tax return. Then she qualifies this by saying only if she gets to the final two. Now she won't publish at all.
First she promises to submit under Article 50 the minute she is elected. Then she says she won't.
How can she ever hope to get away with such slippery a performance?
Tax returns are an entirely private affair. I don't think anyone should be bullied into publishing them.
Would have been less of an issue if she had said that from the start!
Indeed - I also don't think one should be bullied into publishing them, but she accepted the reasonableness of doing so, apparently.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Wishful thinking. Article 50 can be triggered; the 1972 European Communities Act requires parliamentary repeal, but it would be silly to refuse if under EU law we were already out.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
I'm white British. My maternal grandparents were first cousins. Their children, my uncle and my mother, died at ages 31 and 44 respectively due to undiagnosed familial hypercholesterolaemia leading to fatal heart disease. Myself and my brother are on high doses of statins and will be for the rest of our lives.
Chilcot - my wish is both Charles Kennedy and Robin Cook had been alive to see it. It's easy to forget from the time he became Labour leader to the moment the first plane hit the South Tower Blair was the dominant force in British politics.
snip
9/11 was a traumatic event - I remember panicked newspapers claiming 10,000 were dead. It seemed as though a new era of uncertainty was upon us but it was the Americans and particularly George W Bush who wanted to go after Iraq which had no involvement in the 9/11 attack. For Bush, it was unfinished business which had cost his father the Presidency in 1992.
And yet from the hindsight of 2016, it appears so ill thought out. The defeat of Saddam's army was the easy bit, then a liberated people, crying out for democracy, would welcome home the exiles from abroad and a new Government dedicated to serving the interests of American foreign policy and business would be installed. The template was WW2 - the Americans would be welcomed as liberators in Baghdad as they had been in Paris, Rome and Munich and would swiftly be brought home.
Someone once said those who don't learn the lessons of history are forced to repeat them - the Anglo- French debacle at Suez and the Russian agony in Afghanistan showed what happens with ill-thought out interventions. The liberation of Kuwait, as the liberation of the Falklands before it, had been a wholly justifiable response to illegal aggression. The invasion of Iraq had no such basis.
Blair earnestly believes he was right at the time - maybe - but many people did not accept it then and others were duped into support. It's a shameful episode whose lies need exposing to the light for no other reason than to ensure all those who perished, whether British, American or Iraqi, are not forgotten.
Our détente is over
I can't agree - 2001 was a dead end election. Blair had a massive majority and Tories didn't bother to turnout.
Blair's tenure infected the entire body politic with correctness, overt spin, sofa government, buying honours, deliberate democratic deficit over the West Lothian Question, tried to engineer permanent Labour control of Scotland/Wales, rubbed our faces in diversity and alienated large swathes of the population via cultural vandalism.
And that's before his spineless attitude to Gordon.
I've never regretted a vote more than mine for Blair. If I could turn back the clock. I'd sit on my hands. I voted for Paddy in 92 as he'd an intention to stick 1p on tax for education. Both the other parties were unelectable in my mind.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
You are wrong
We are going to leave your beloved EU and there is nothing you can do about it.
Didn't polls also show remain would win? *innocent face*
Yup. But this sample is based on actual votes in the referendum. In fact the sample is marginally more pro-leave than the actual result!
Interesting.
Not really interesting, more meaningless. Everyone knew when the vote was and that was the date that mattered. Time to move on.
The difference between this and other referendums is that we have ANOTHER date with destiny. The day we pull the trigger on Article 50.
If the trend in that Welsh poll continues (and today's economic news will shunt it that way) then we could see polls showing REMAIN 60/40 next year. As the economy goes swiftly down the toilet.
At that point I expect Prime Minister May would do the British thing, and extract some ludicrous, craven, face-saving fudge from Brussels, allowing us to revote and STAY.
I think a rerun of the Referendum would have a similar outcome to the Winchester by-election in 1997. IMHO, the numbers you should watch are for those who want a fresh referendum, currently 2:1 against.
A fair point (as always)
But you rather blithely ignore the economic question. If we really are in financial meltdown then that will change the game entirely.
It depends on the severity of the downturn.
Things may change in the future, but I don't think we are in the middle of a meltdown right now. And there's a tendency for people to stick with big decisions they've made and see them through to the end.
If our economy and/or system of government collapses due to Brexit, then people may change their minds, but it would take complete disaster, IMHO.
I don't think so. If the Iraq war didn't cast a shadow over everything else he did we would have been able to see his other failures more clearly.
No, you're wrong. Even with Iraq, he still won with a majority of 60+. Without Iraq and facing Michael Howard, I don't see Blair getting less than a 100+ majority.
I agree like Thatcher the third term would have been the difficult one and the global financial crash was coming but Blair "could" have retired in 2007 with his reputation largely untarnished just as Thatcher could have in 1989.
Brown would have walked into the global financial storm and it's possible the 2010 GE result would have happened as we know it. It's incredibly hard for a party to win four times - the Conservatives did it in 1992 but failed in 1964 and you could argue part of the 2010 result was the desire for change.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Wishful thinking. Article 50 can be triggered; the 1972 European Communities Act requires parliamentary repeal, but it would be silly to refuse if under EU law we were already out.
Article 50 requires that the withdrawing state make the decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements.
An unelected PM acting against the wishes of the majority in parliament on the basis of an advisory referendum with a thin majority would not be good enough. When you add in the interference of the monarch in the days before the vote, it would take us squarely into real constitutional crisis territory.
Chilcot - my wish is both Charles Kennedy and Robin Cook had been alive to see it. It's easy to forget from the time he became Labour leader to the moment the first plane hit the South Tower Blair was the dominant force in British politics.
He completed the work started by Kinnock and Smith finishing the re-creation of Labour as a non-socialist party of the centre and centre left for whom millions of former Conservatives could happily vote. He led Labour to a more comprehensive victory than Thatcher had achieved in 1983 or Attlee in 1945.
In 2001, he not only repeated the landslide, if anything he created an even worse result for the Conservatives. There's no doubt in my mind that had 9/11 not happened, Blair would have won another landslide in 2005 and could have retired in 2007 as one of the great Prime Ministers.
9/11 was a traumatic event - I remember panicked newspapers claiming 10,000 were dead. It seemed as though a new era of uncertainty was upon us but it was the Americans and particularly George W Bush who wanted to go after Iraq which had no involvement in the 9/11 attack. For Bush, it was unfinished business which had cost his father the Presidency in 1992.
And yet from the hindsight of 2016, it appears so ill thought out. The defeat of Saddam's army was the easy bit, then a liberated people, crying out for democracy, would welcome home the exiles from abroad and a new Government dedicated to serving the interests of American foreign policy and business would be installed. The template was WW2 - the Americans would be welcomed as liberators in Baghdad as they had been in Paris, Rome and Munich and would swiftly be brought home.
Someone once said those who don't learn the lessons of history are forced to repeat them - the Anglo- French debacle at Suez and the Russian agony in Afghanistan showed what happens with ill-thought out interventions. The liberation of Kuwait, as the liberation of the Falklands before it, had been a wholly justifiable response to illegal aggression. The invasion of Iraq had no such basis.
Blair earnestly believes he was right at the time - maybe - but many people did not accept it then and others were duped into support. It's a shameful episode whose lies need exposing to the light for no other reason than to ensure all those who perished, whether British, American or Iraqi, are not forgotten.
Great post. Charlie Kennedy was at his best on the Iraq issue, a shining example of what our democracy and parliament should be.
Watching back the speeches he and Robin Cook made puts the current state of parliamentary debate into perspective.
Didn't polls also show remain would win? *innocent face*
Yup. But this sample is based on actual votes in the referendum. In fact the sample is marginally more pro-leave than the actual result!
Interesting.
Not really interesting, more meaningless. Everyone knew when the vote was and that was the date that mattered. Time to move on.
The difference between this and other referendums is that we have ANOTHER date with destiny. The day we pull the trigger on Article 50.
If the trend in that Welsh poll continues (and today's economic news will shunt it that way) then we could see polls showing REMAIN 60/40 next year. As the economy goes swiftly down the toilet.
At that point I expect Prime Minister May would do the British thing, and extract some ludicrous, craven, face-saving fudge from Brussels, allowing us to revote and STAY.
I think a rerun of the Referendum would have a similar outcome to the Winchester by-election in 1997. IMHO, the numbers you should watch are for those who want a fresh referendum, currently 2:1 against.
A fair point (as always) But you rather blithely ignore the economic question. If we really are in financial meltdown then that will change the game entirely. It depends on the severity of the downturn.
Where is this financial meltdown? The commercial property market is just under £1 trillion (2014 est £0.8tn). There is £0.015 trillion where shares are suspended for the 6 entities listed in the Tgraph article. What about the £9 trillion in private wealth (most in housing). Is that in some meltdown? Or what about the FTSE100 where most of the UK share value is? I met 11 people running SMEs today and none had had a single contract cancelled or delayed and none were worried about Brexit. Also the view from the member of a very large private wealth company is that their investments are up on 6 months ago. But I do not mix with north london chattering classes, these days, so clearly I do not mix in the right circles........
I don't think so. If the Iraq war didn't cast a shadow over everything else he did we would have been able to see his other failures more clearly.
No, you're wrong. Even with Iraq, he still won with a majority of 60+. Without Iraq and facing Michael Howard, I don't see Blair getting less than a 100+ majority.
I agree like Thatcher the third term would have been the difficult one and the global financial crash was coming but Blair "could" have retired in 2007 with his reputation largely untarnished just as Thatcher could have in 1989.
Brown would have walked into the global financial storm and it's possible the 2010 GE result would have happened as we know it. It's incredibly hard for a party to win four times - the Conservatives did it in 1992 but failed in 1964 and you could argue part of the 2010 result was the desire for change.
I don't doubt that he would have continued to be electorally successful, but what would his signature achievements have been?
Only people classed as 'immigrants' are counted as immigrants, as only they can stay permanently in the US. Everyone else has to go home sooner or later.
The Americans have the massive advantage of not having the idiocy of Article 8. In the UK it is far too easy to arrive as a visitor, overstay, find a boy/girlfriend, ideally have a baby, and claim Article 8 for instant permanent right to remain.
That's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about only counting as immigrants those who unequivocally have the right to stay permanently, not those that might at some future point acquire that right. The UK doesn't do that.
BTW, do we count people from the Republic of Ireland who settle in the UK under the CTA and the Ireland Act as immigrants? I'm guessing not as the government probably has no way of counting them.
@chrisshipitv: U won't be surprised (this is politics) but Tory MPs who don't support @Gove2016 reckon he'll finish 2nd tmrw & now forgiving his treachery
Have to say the vengeance of the Cameroons and the pro-EU dissidents in the Conservative Party has been a wonder to behold.
They lost the vote AND their leader and they want revenge. First Gove and now Leadsom have been as ruthlessly targeted and discredited as any Labour leader. May is now the hope of the "stern unbending Cameroons"for whom the past fortnight has been a nightmare.
Does this bode well for Party unity ? The irony of the Referendum is that one of its aims was to resolve the issue within the Conservative Party and it has done no such thing. All it has done has been to accentuate the differences. May will have to deal with people "banging on about Europe" just as Cameron before her.
Yup. The idea that Leadsom would be uniquely targeted if next PM is for the faeries.
Philip Rucker Trump says he raised $26 million for camp & $25 mill for RNC/Trump Victory Fund in June. Not Clinton level, but huge improvement from May.
He's doing well with what he's spending using Twitter. I wonder how much TV he needs prior to the TV debates?
During the TV debates, Donald Trump will concentrate on playing to the moron market, selling an "I'm gonna kick me some arse" attitude and being abusive towards Hillary Clinton.
Where's the ceiling for that market?
Moron market? Seriously?
I don't know whether you're saying I'm misunderstanding who Trump is aiming for, or whether you're saying there's much more of that market left for him to conquer.
If it's the latter, then judging by how he's been doing so far with such little expenditure, and focusing mainly on attitude and abuse, he's probably got the presidency in the bag, what with the TV debates still to come.
I'm amazed at your insulting attitude to the working class voters who've been totally failed for decades.
Did the Labour Brexit vote demographic pass you by?
Oh come on - Trump isn't appealing to people's intellects.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
People clearly disagree on whether parliament itself needs to vote on triggering article 50 - to me it seems something so significant that parliament certainly should have the final say, not the government, but its one for the lawyers to settle - but the question is how long will it take to have a watertight plan to trigger it. Drag it out too long, and plenty of people will think there are attempts to back out - some have claimed the suggestion parliament needs to authorize it is itself an attempt to back out, although if that's what the law requires, that's what it requires - and in the scenario SeanT raised it would indeed be in the intent to prevent a declaration.
May or indeed Leadsome could surely survive those agitating for an early declaration if they are still convincing the party the end goal is committed to. But if a new offer comes from the EU, noises start being made that the situation is therefore different and a new vote is needed or article 50 not required? Then they would fall.
Now, personally if the situation were to change in a really fundamental way, which I do not expect, I think it is not unreasonable to ask people again necessarily, though I think the result would be the same. But even if the situation were to change fundamentally enough to justify asking again, and it would have to be monumental, I struggle to see how, politically, a government could survive trying for it.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
The risk of a birth defect is doubled if you marry your cousin (and that's presuming no history of cousin marriage, which adds to the problem).
Besides, of course, the intention of the law is to make fundamentalist Muslims not move here, and to make those already here go back to an Islamic society which welcomes their views on gay people, women, democracy, etc.
One-off first cousin marriages are rarely a problem. Successive first cousin marriages most certainly are.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Wishful thinking. Article 50 can be triggered; the 1972 European Communities Act requires parliamentary repeal, but it would be silly to refuse if under EU law we were already out.
The royal prerogative can't be used to frustrate the will of parliament, e.g. to turn the 1972 ECA into a dead letter.
Have to say the vengeance of the Cameroons and the pro-EU dissidents in the Conservative Party has been a wonder to behold.
They lost the vote AND their leader and they want revenge. First Gove and now Leadsom have been as ruthlessly targeted and discredited as any Labour leader. May is now the hope of the "stern unbending Cameroons"for whom the past fortnight has been a nightmare.
Does this bode well for Party unity ? The irony of the Referendum is that one of its aims was to resolve the issue within the Conservative Party and it has done no such thing. All it has done has been to accentuate the differences. May will have to deal with people "banging on about Europe" just as Cameron before her.
Yup. The idea that Leadsom would be uniquely targeted if next PM is for the faeries.
Do you think Leadsom would make a good PM? Is she the best of the candidates, leaving her position on the EU out of consideration?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
It should be remembered that whilst marrying cousins and having children increases the risk of bad genes being passed on , it also increases the chances of good genes being passed on . You can also note the behaviour of 2 closely related species of UK butterflies . The High Brown Fritillary is very averse to mating with close relatives especially siblings . The Dark Green Fritillary behaves in exactly the opposite manner . The High Brown has become extremely endangered as numbers fall it becomes even harder to find an acceptable mate whilst the Dark Green is maintaining numbers well .
Have to say the vengeance of the Cameroons and the pro-EU dissidents in the Conservative Party has been a wonder to behold.
They lost the vote AND their leader and they want revenge. First Gove and now Leadsom have been as ruthlessly targeted and discredited as any Labour leader. May is now the hope of the "stern unbending Cameroons"for whom the past fortnight has been a nightmare.
Does this bode well for Party unity ? The irony of the Referendum is that one of its aims was to resolve the issue within the Conservative Party and it has done no such thing. All it has done has been to accentuate the differences. May will have to deal with people "banging on about Europe" just as Cameron before her.
Yup. The idea that Leadsom would be uniquely targeted if next PM is for the faeries.
Do you think Leadsom would make a good PM? Is she the best of the candidates, leaving her position on the EU out of consideration?
She would be a wonderful breath of fresh air as PM.
@chrisshipitv: U won't be surprised (this is politics) but Tory MPs who don't support @Gove2016 reckon he'll finish 2nd tmrw & now forgiving his treachery
Gove coming 2nd (Thus Leadsome getting knocked out & winning that Betfair bet) and then not running against May (Voiding the Leadsome/May runoff Ladbrokes bet) would be good.
Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
Article 50 can't be constitutionally triggered without a vote in parliament. No PM will win that vote unless they have a watertight plan for what happens next. There aren't enough anti-EU fanatics in parliament to vote for it blind, regardless of the referendum result.
Wishful thinking. Article 50 can be triggered; the 1972 European Communities Act requires parliamentary repeal, but it would be silly to refuse if under EU law we were already out.
Article 50 requires that the withdrawing state make the decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements.
An unelected PM acting against the wishes of the majority in parliament on the basis of an advisory referendum with a thin majority would not be good enough. When you add in the interference of the monarch in the days before the vote, it would take us squarely into real constitutional crisis territory.
More like wwc can't be fucked to do polls, they get calls a thousand times a day about ppi and an accident that wasn't your fault, and tons of junk emails a day they ain't got time for that.
The samples are shit. Only loud lefties can be bothered to do polls no matter their demographics.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
The risk of a birth defect is doubled if you marry your cousin (and that's presuming no history of cousin marriage, which adds to the problem).
Besides, of course, the intention of the law is to make fundamentalist Muslims not move here, and to make those already here go back to an Islamic society which welcomes their views on gay people, women, democracy, etc.
One-off first cousin marriages are rarely a problem. Successive first cousin marriages most certainly are.
Precisely. And Muslims from some countries (Pakistan) have a culture of cousin marriage, so it happens again and again. So the genetic problems are compounded, horribly, over time.
You only have to look at the Spanish Hapsburgs, to see the impact.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't give a monkey's. Ban cousin marriages, bad mad mullahs, ban sharia law, ban the burqa. Those that like these stupid unBritish things can go and enjoy them in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
I know two white English-born people who have married cousins. It's not illegal though I think they did look into the genetic issues - apparently a 2% higher risk - before (in one case) having kids. There are a host of legal things which you can do which may increase the risk of childbirth more, like having a child when you're 35 (increases the risk near four times). Would you ban them all, or only the ones you feel aren't sufficiently British? How about a ban on mad authors?
The risk of a birth defect is doubled if you marry your cousin (and that's presuming no history of cousin marriage, which adds to the problem).
Besides, of course, the intention of the law is to make fundamentalist Muslims not move here, and to make those already here go back to an Islamic society which welcomes their views on gay people, women, democracy, etc.
One-off first cousin marriages are rarely a problem. Successive first cousin marriages most certainly are.
Precisely. And Muslims from some countries (Pakistan) have a culture of cousin marriage, so it happens again and again. So the genetic problems are compounded, horribly, over time.
An unelected PM acting against the wishes of the majority in parliament on the basis of an advisory referendum with a thin majority would not be good enough.
"Advisory referendum" is a useful phrase. Like "Gideon", "Camoron", "Bliar" and "the EUSSR", it indicates that the views of the person using it can safely be ignored.
Comments
The result is that if you have a single earner at the head of a family of four in France, earning EUR100,000, they'll pay about EUR10,000 in tax. If, on the other hand, said person is single, then they'll be paying a little more than EUR30,000.
It's one of the reasons why France has a TFR of north of 2, and (uniquely) has higher rates of babies for women with university educations than those without.
Where's the ceiling for that market?
'Wales shows Regrexit - new poll
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-07-05/poll-shows-welsh-voters-now-support-eu-membership/'
LOL you must be the last person standing that believes polls
Interesting?
And if UKIP siphons off votes from Labour, whilst you are right that the number of UKIP gains will be negligible under first-past-there-isn't-a-post, quite a few seats will tip from Labour to Tory. So it's not a happy scenario for them.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/brexit-regrets-yes-wish-id-voted-leave/
COME ON WALES;
In any case, I have corrected my point as I was thinking of the BBC event. And in my humble opinion, in that one she was robotic and unimpressive.
First she promises to submit under Article 50 the minute she is elected. Then she says she won't.
How can she ever hope to get away with such slippery a performance?
What are your thoughts about his apologising for the entire PLP when outside the chamber?
Well, he's right to apologise for me, as one of those who voted for it - I've done so myself. I doubt if there are still many Labour MPs who think it was the right decision in the light of what's transpired, though I note that there are still quite a few who were up for intervening in Libya and Syria, which to my mind shows a slowness to learn.
If it's the latter, then judging by how he's been doing so far with such little expenditure, and focusing mainly on attitude and abuse, he's probably got the presidency in the bag, what with the TV debates still to come.
Did the Labour Brexit vote demographic pass you by?
john_zims @chestnut
'France income tax is very similar to the UK (they got rid of the supertax): Also, your allowances stack according to how many people are in your family. If you have a wife and two kids, you need to earn more than EUR600,000 before you get to 45%, against just GBP100,000 in the UK.
It's an incredibly family friendly tax system.'
That's only income tax, high net worth individuals in France are also subject to a separate wealth tax on assets including real estate & cars.
If you own a EUR2m house (and bear in mind that French housing is cheaper than that in the UK, so EUR2m will buy you something pretty awesome in Paris), with a EUR1m mortgage, then you pay wealth tax of...
EUR1,000.
Of course, if you're worth EUR1bn, you'll pay quite a lot. But very few bankers have net assets north of EUR5m or so.
Plenty to chew on still.
Chilcot - my wish is both Charles Kennedy and Robin Cook had been alive to see it. It's easy to forget from the time he became Labour leader to the moment the first plane hit the South Tower Blair was the dominant force in British politics.
He completed the work started by Kinnock and Smith finishing the re-creation of Labour as a non-socialist party of the centre and centre left for whom millions of former Conservatives could happily vote. He led Labour to a more comprehensive victory than Thatcher had achieved in 1983 or Attlee in 1945.
In 2001, he not only repeated the landslide, if anything he created an even worse result for the Conservatives. There's no doubt in my mind that had 9/11 not happened, Blair would have won another landslide in 2005 and could have retired in 2007 as one of the great Prime Ministers.
9/11 was a traumatic event - I remember panicked newspapers claiming 10,000 were dead. It seemed as though a new era of uncertainty was upon us but it was the Americans and particularly George W Bush who wanted to go after Iraq which had no involvement in the 9/11 attack. For Bush, it was unfinished business which had cost his father the Presidency in 1992.
And yet from the hindsight of 2016, it appears so ill thought out. The defeat of Saddam's army was the easy bit, then a liberated people, crying out for democracy, would welcome home the exiles from abroad and a new Government dedicated to serving the interests of American foreign policy and business would be installed. The template was WW2 - the Americans would be welcomed as liberators in Baghdad as they had been in Paris, Rome and Munich and would swiftly be brought home.
Someone once said those who don't learn the lessons of history are forced to repeat them - the Anglo- French debacle at Suez and the Russian agony in Afghanistan showed what happens with ill-thought out interventions. The liberation of Kuwait, as the liberation of the Falklands before it, had been a wholly justifiable response to illegal aggression. The invasion of Iraq had no such basis.
Blair earnestly believes he was right at the time - maybe - but many people did not accept it then and others were duped into support. It's a shameful episode whose lies need exposing to the light for no other reason than to ensure all those who perished, whether British, American or Iraqi, are not forgotten.
Leadsome and other Leaver MPs will not permit backsliding. Even if dozens of Tory Leaver MPs are bremorsed into not wanting to leave after all, so so many will not, plenty of remainers will think it is too late even if the economy goes to hell, and the members would not stand for it. Any hint brexiting will not occur and May is done.
And all of this requires getting some more fudge from Brussels, which would be more politically disastrous than any negative impacts from a Brexit - they don't agree on much, many would have liked us to stay, but let us remain now, but they don't want to be blackmailed by other nations voting to leave. (granted they cannot kick us out if we don't actually declare article 50, but for that reason wouldn't offer anything to us before we declare either).
They lost the vote AND their leader and they want revenge. First Gove and now Leadsom have been as ruthlessly targeted and discredited as any Labour leader. May is now the hope of the "stern unbending Cameroons"for whom the past fortnight has been a nightmare.
Does this bode well for Party unity ? The irony of the Referendum is that one of its aims was to resolve the issue within the Conservative Party and it has done no such thing. All it has done has been to accentuate the differences. May will have to deal with people "banging on about Europe" just as Cameron before her.
I can't agree - 2001 was a dead end election. Blair had a massive majority and Tories didn't bother to turnout.
Blair's tenure infected the entire body politic with correctness, overt spin, sofa government, buying honours, deliberate democratic deficit over the West Lothian Question, tried to engineer permanent Labour control of Scotland/Wales, rubbed our faces in diversity and alienated large swathes of the population via cultural vandalism.
And that's before his spineless attitude to Gordon.
I've never regretted a vote more than mine for Blair. If I could turn back the clock. I'd sit on my hands. I voted for Paddy in 92 as he'd an intention to stick 1p on tax for education. Both the other parties were unelectable in my mind.
We are going to leave your beloved EU and there is nothing you can do about it.
If our economy and/or system of government collapses due to Brexit, then people may change their minds, but it would take complete disaster, IMHO.
I agree like Thatcher the third term would have been the difficult one and the global financial crash was coming but Blair "could" have retired in 2007 with his reputation largely untarnished just as Thatcher could have in 1989.
Brown would have walked into the global financial storm and it's possible the 2010 GE result would have happened as we know it. It's incredibly hard for a party to win four times - the Conservatives did it in 1992 but failed in 1964 and you could argue part of the 2010 result was the desire for change.
An unelected PM acting against the wishes of the majority in parliament on the basis of an advisory referendum with a thin majority would not be good enough. When you add in the interference of the monarch in the days before the vote, it would take us squarely into real constitutional crisis territory.
Watching back the speeches he and Robin Cook made puts the current state of parliamentary debate into perspective.
What about the £9 trillion in private wealth (most in housing). Is that in some meltdown?
Or what about the FTSE100 where most of the UK share value is?
I met 11 people running SMEs today and none had had a single contract cancelled or delayed and none were worried about Brexit. Also the view from the member of a very large private wealth company is that their investments are up on 6 months ago. But I do not mix with north london chattering classes, these days, so clearly I do not mix in the right circles........
BTW, do we count people from the Republic of Ireland who settle in the UK under the CTA and the Ireland Act as immigrants? I'm guessing not as the government probably has no way of counting them.
@annemcelvoy: And because the Leadsom CV is unravelling. She looks a less solid proposition than 24 hrs ago https://t.co/AGvyek5Z2P
May or indeed Leadsome could surely survive those agitating for an early declaration if they are still convincing the party the end goal is committed to. But if a new offer comes from the EU, noises start being made that the situation is therefore different and a new vote is needed or article 50 not required? Then they would fall.
Now, personally if the situation were to change in a really fundamental way, which I do not expect, I think it is not unreasonable to ask people again necessarily, though I think the result would be the same. But even if the situation were to change fundamentally enough to justify asking again, and it would have to be monumental, I struggle to see how, politically, a government could survive trying for it.
You can also note the behaviour of 2 closely related species of UK butterflies . The High Brown Fritillary is very averse to mating with close relatives especially siblings . The Dark Green Fritillary behaves in exactly the opposite manner . The High Brown has become extremely endangered as numbers fall it becomes even harder to find an acceptable mate whilst the Dark Green is maintaining numbers well .
The samples are shit. Only loud lefties can be bothered to do polls no matter their demographics.