And I think @Speedy has consistently called against Trump since ?North Carolina?
Charles, whilst you are on:
So, I apologise for whatever it is I said (*) that may have caused you offence.
If you can remember, please let me know so I can apologise properly ...
(*) Perhaps multiple.
I have no idea!
Probably something to do with a bridge...
Wasn't it the Garden Bridge discussion?
I walk along from Waterloo station to Blackfriars regularly and there are quite a few " No to garden Bridge" posters up. Mostly In the council flats along the riverside. Cost?
Building works impacting the Coin Street Collective I guess.
Benefits are more for the Northbank than the Southbank
Which perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with it. A proper bridge benefits both ends exactly equally, unless it's really a pier. Form follows function.
e regeneration. 6m tourists a year on the bridge will help
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
Might be nice for you. But there are pockets of real poverty in the area. A friend of mine was the vicar of St Mary Le Strand and I was surprised to discover how much work he did with deprived kids.
(And your end of Northbank is the nicer one)
I think people who are worried about poverty in Westminster desperately need to step outside zone 1, let alone the M25.
(Am not questioning your desire to improve the area, just don't think it should be a priority and don't agree with the proposal!)
There's real poverty in Westminster. Like London as a whole, it's a borough of contrasts. The presence of a lot of super-rich people pulls up the figures for average incomes in London to a misleading degree.
I don't dispute that. Does it really make sense though to house economically dependent people on some of the most valuable real estate in the world? I never understood why it's acceptable that 25% of housing is social in London vs 10% elsewhere.
I gather that the government's welfare reforms are undermining this to some extent in any case.
Goldman Sachs usually remove that risk by bribing supporting both sides.
without GS and their cut-backs post 9-11, the grumpy persona that is 'scrapheap' would never have existed - all power to their elbow! Then again I might now be as rich as "creases" (tm)
I've entered my fantasy football league.
Prepare to get spanked like a Dominatrix's client.
Or like the Romans at Cannae 2,232 years ago today?
Goldman Sachs usually remove that risk by bribing supporting both sides.
without GS and their cut-backs post 9-11, the grumpy persona that is 'scrapheap' would never have existed - all power to their elbow! Then again I might now be as rich as "creases" (tm)
I've entered my fantasy football league.
Prepare to get spanked like a Dominatrix's client.
Or like the Romans at Cannae 2,232 years ago today?
More like the Greek City state alliance at the Battle of Chaeronea which was 2,354 years ago today.
The Battle of Chaeronea is the only decent battle fought on August the 2nd
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
I'm sure the City will get a very sympathetic hearing from all of those bastards up north who voted LEAVE
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
It's "Jenkin" don't you know.
But for a while they are advocating a contradiction, in terms of single market access w/o FoM, they may yet resolve that tension.
I blame auto-correct.
I reckon the big stumbling block is we have to maintain our contribution to the EU budget.
I reckon we'd lose our rebate, and we really would be sending £350m per week to the EU.
That would make Dave's deal look like the Treaty of Versailles in comparison. Fox and DD would surely resign in such circumstances. Not because they're necessarily noble, but rather that they'd look like a pair of mugs if they even tried to hang around and endorse it.
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
If you want to have a clue what is going on, don't read the FT,
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
It's "Jenkin" don't you know.
But for a while they are advocating a contradiction, in terms of single market access w/o FoM, they may yet resolve that tension.
If I run a business in the UK and am not free to employ someone from anywhere in the EU, then there isn't a single market, particularly in the knowledge economy of which we used to hear so much.
I am having real trouble recognising their description of Germany. A country with full employment, a public sector surplus, a huge trade surplus and rapidly falling debt. Deutsche Bank undoubtedly has serious problems but Germany? Not seeing it. I wish we had problems like theirs.
And I think @Speedy has consistently called against Trump since ?North Carolina?
Charles, whilst you are on:
So, I apologise for whatever it is I said (*) that may have caused you offence.
If you can remember, please let me know so I can apologise properly ...
(*) Perhaps multiple.
I have no idea!
Probably something to do with a bridge...
Wasn't it the Garden Bridge discussion?
I walk along from Waterloo station to Blackfriars regularly and there are quite a few " No to garden Bridge" posters up. Mostly In the council flats along the riverside. Cost?
Building works impacting the Coin Street Collective I guess.
Benefits are more for the Northbank than the Southbank
Which perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with it. A proper bridge benefits both ends exactly equally, unless it's really a pier. Form follows function.
e regeneration. 6m tourists a year on the bridge will help
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
Might be nice for you. But there are pockets of real poverty in the area. A friend of mine was the vicar of St Mary Le Strand and I was surprised to discover how much work he did with deprived kids.
(And your end of Northbank is the nicer one)
I think people who are worried about poverty in Westminster desperately need to step outside zone 1, let alone the M25.
(Am not questioning your desire to improve the area, just don't think it should be a priority and don't agree with the proposal!)
There's real poverty in Westminster. Like London as a whole, it's a borough of contrasts. The presence of a lot of super-rich people pulls up the figures for average incomes in London to a misleading degree.
I don't dispute that. Does it really make sense though to house economically dependent people on some of the most valuable real estate in the world? I never understood why it's acceptable that 25% of housing is social in London vs 10% elsewhere.
I gather that the government's welfare reforms are undermining this to some extent in any case.
London is Labour and thus totally entitled to its social housing and is crying out for more.
Goldman Sachs usually remove that risk by bribing supporting both sides.
without GS and their cut-backs post 9-11, the grumpy persona that is 'scrapheap' would never have existed - all power to their elbow! Then again I might now be as rich as "creases" (tm)
I've entered my fantasy football league.
Prepare to get spanked like a Dominatrix's client.
Or like the Romans at Cannae 2,232 years ago today?
More like the Greek City state alliance at the Battle of Chaeronea which was 2,354 years ago today.
The Battle of Chaeronea is the only decent battle fought on August the 2nd
Don't forget the Battle of the Nile, 218 years ago!
Also, on this day 73 years ago, JFK had a narrow escape when his torpedo boat was rammed by a Japanese destroyer.
What the City will want on financial services is legal equivalence so that operators in the City will still be able to sell their services across the EU under a single passport arrangement. This will require the regulators in the UK to provide the same form and level of supervision that they do at the moment and an undertaking to comply with any changes introduced in the rest of the EU going forward. Whether we are in or out of the EU doesn't really matter, what does matter is being able to trade across boundaries.
Is this achievable? I think it is a very big ask. But the EU will have to recognise that if the City is not inside the tent it will be outside and there is a major risk that a great deal of their more sophisticated and high end trade would effectively go offshore and beyond their control. There is simply nowhere in the EU that is even close to the liquidity, skill base and flexibility of the City and it would take a long time to recreate it. This threatens a significant trading disadvantage to their industry if they were denied these services. We do have cards to play.
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
I'm sure the City will get a very sympathetic hearing from all of those bastards up north who voted LEAVE
TSE secretly campaigned for LEAVE, is why Sheffield voted for Brexit
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
I'm sure the City will get a very sympathetic hearing from all of those bastards up north who voted LEAVE
TSE secretly campaigned for LEAVE, is why Sheffield voted for Brexit
His presence on the doorstep may have driven the working class voters to vote for LEAVE!
It is foolish to look for too much detail from U.S. state polling yet, but the patterns seem to be: Ohio is very marginal. Nevada and New Hampshire appear marginal. Pennsylvania is not yet marginal, but much better for Trump than would be expected on a UNS. On the other hand, North Carolina is better for Clinton than would be expected and would make up for all but five Pennsylvanian votes. VERY tentatively, Michigan and Colorado do not look as marginal as they ought to be (especially Michigan) but perhaps there's not enough evidence for even that agnostic prediction yet.
There are polls out with Clinton +1 in Utah and level in Georgia.
You can get some pretty strange polls in safely Red or Blue States. Two polls in 2004 had Bush ahead in Hawaii! Neither Utah nor Georgia will be in play this time.
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
I'm sure the City will get a very sympathetic hearing from all of those bastards up north who voted LEAVE
TSE secretly campaigned for LEAVE, is why Sheffield voted for Brexit
His presence on the doorstep may have driven the working class voters to vote for LEAVE!
Playing 'There's No Limit' from the loudhailer to get out the vote may have been counterproductive...
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
I'm sure the City will get a very sympathetic hearing from all of those bastards up north who voted LEAVE
TSE secretly campaigned for LEAVE, is why Sheffield voted for Brexit
That was one of the surprising results of the night. Along with Birmingham, plus Newcastle and Leeds only scraping leads for Remain.
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
I'm sure the City will get a very sympathetic hearing from all of those bastards up north who voted LEAVE
TSE secretly campaigned for LEAVE, is why Sheffield voted for Brexit
His presence on the doorstep may have driven the working class voters to vote for LEAVE!
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
It's "Jenkin" don't you know.
But for a while they are advocating a contradiction, in terms of single market access w/o FoM, they may yet resolve that tension.
I blame auto-correct.
I reckon the big stumbling block is we have to maintain our contribution to the EU budget.
I reckon we'd lose our rebate, and we really would be sending £350m per week to the EU.
No, we wouldn't be in the CAP or a few other spending areas which are calculated separately. I calculated £4bn net contribution, but it could be a bit higher or lower.
So what if the city wants to be able to recruit skilled migrants? The motivation of many leavers was the uncontrolled immigration of unskilled migrants, not the ability of those who are after highly paid jobs in the financial sector to work there.
I am having real trouble recognising their description of Germany. A country with full employment, a public sector surplus, a huge trade surplus and rapidly falling debt. Deutsche Bank undoubtedly has serious problems but Germany? Not seeing it. I wish we had problems like theirs.
I think the point is that, with 50% of GDP coming from exports, Germany is very vulnerable to dramatic drops in exports. Now certain major importing countries (especially the exporters of raw materials) such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Russia, Brazil, Nigeria and other oil and gas exporters, are taking big knocks to their economies and hence, presumably to their imports. That will knock on to Germany, who loses .5% GDP for each 1% drop in exports.
Whether this is a real cause for concern, I don't know, as I don't know what percentage of Germany's exports goes to such countries and whether German imports will be among the things that those countries chose to cut back on.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
Agreed. Who is going to wake up on Friday and say "that 0.25% cut is a real wowser, and I will make that investment I wasn't going to do on Tuesday when they were a ginormous 0.5%". Meanwhile pension deficits balloon and countless millions are poured down that black hole which is largely a construct created by extreme monetary policy and over zealous regulation.
We really really need some inflation to enable interest rates to rise. Time for helicopter money? A Grand for everyone on the electoral role??
The problem is we have had inflation - house price inflation.
Cured by a rise in interest rates of course. Sure some will have negative equity but this fetish for QE and ultra low rates is creating bond and housing bubbles, screwing saving and pensions, depressing investment, and cutting corporate tax take. I think it's utterly fucking nuts and I hope Mark Carney is reading this!!!
TBH, it is not entirely his fault. If we are not careful, we will become like Japan. Every stimulus just fizzles out.
True but it's on his watch and we've been nowhere near 2% for ages So what's he and his mates on the MPC actually doing about it that's effective? I really would try helicopter cash now.
I wrote a few days back, borrow £200-400 billion over various periods. Interest rates suck anyway, and spend on infrastructure, left , right and centre. The economic dividends will be much greater than the £2-4bn interest per year.
That pretty well describes Japan's policy for the last 20 years. It hasn't worked but I must admit that better ideas are thin on the ground.
TBF it probably works better with a growing population.
I wonder if tonight's headlines about home ownership will cause some of the MPC to have second thoughts about cutting interest rates? As far as I'm concerned the decision to keep the base rate at 0.5% for over seven years has been incredibly pernicious and cutting it would be quite frankly disgraceful.
A 3% inflation would bring down real debt levels fast. That is why the 50's and 60's boomed.
Indeed. Clearly double digit inflation a la the 70's is equally destructive if in a different way, but I really believe people will look back in fifty years at monetary policy since 2008/9 and shake their heads in bemused wonder at the foolishness.
When I did economics at University we
I agree we are now past the point where very low interest rates help the economy and that the distortions that they cause are damaging. The rapid fall in homeownership is a direct result of a bubble in asset prices driven by such policies. More and more people are losing out for the sake of the have lots. It is not right.
Unfortunately, as soon as house prices actually start to fall, people will simply start shrieking about negative equity.
That is why we need inflation. If we have 3% inflation a year and house prices stay still they fall in real terms without that kind of pain.
Exactly. .
Some of us remember the years of high inflation - great for debtors and even worse for savers than the current situation. I'm pretty unimpressed to witness Conservatives on here arguing in this way. It's only possible because there is no opposition right now but it doesn't make it right.
PB Brexiteers the proponents of a valueless devalued £ sterling and inflation , ludicrous .
Whether Sterling is $1.50 as opposed to $1.30, or inflation is 2% as opposed to 1% means bugger all to 99% of the population.
Would I like a pound to be worth two dollars in an ideal world, and have everyone craving for Sterling?
Yes, I probably would.
Would I put a guaranteed high exchange above a competitive economy, national sovereignty and monetary flexibility?
It is foolish to look for too much detail from U.S. state polling yet, but the patterns seem to be: Ohio is very marginal. Nevada and New Hampshire appear marginal. Pennsylvania is not yet marginal, but much better for Trump than would be expected on a UNS. On the other hand, North Carolina is better for Clinton than would be expected and would make up for all but five Pennsylvanian votes. VERY tentatively, Michigan and Colorado do not look as marginal as they ought to be (especially Michigan) but perhaps there's not enough evidence for even that agnostic prediction yet.
There are polls out with Clinton +1 in Utah and level in Georgia.
I don't think Trump will do well in the South. Hillary's best primaries were there. Minorities and evangelicals are not going to turn out for Trump.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I doubt we'd get a minimum salary requirement, I think we're more likely to get an extension on waiting days and as you say, migration linked to working status rather than being available to work. A minimum salary requirement would basically kill free movement across the whole bloc.
The question was loaded towards telling the Brits to FO. There is no suggestion that deals work both ways.
Fuck Europe, anyroad. We're out. And we will move further away as the years pass. They will make it hard for us. So did Napoleon. We won.
Quite so, Mr. T.. The UK has to go into the negotiations prepared to say, "Fair enough, WTO rules it shall be and walk out". Anyone who goes to negotiate who is not prepared to walk away from the table will not be negotiating they will be begging".
Strangely, the EU gets a big say in how a WTO future would pan out for the UK as well
So the EU has a veto over WTO too?
Best not piss them off lightly then.
We're already in the WTO. We just let the EU represent us. FF43 is just bitter and deluded.
Is everyone who disagrees with you bitter, sad or deluded?
Methinks a bit too much protesting and a bit of projection also.
No, just the remain side who won't accept the result. People such as yourself. We won, you lost. Accept it. Your arguments were bullshit then and they still are now.
I'm getting a little weary of this "we won, accept the result, don't run the country down" guff. I see it as little more than an attempt to shut down criticism of any consequences of Brexit.
They do it to almost anyone who points out any of the awkward consequences of Brexit - Brexit is their Holy Grail - it's gonna be pretty ugly when May delivers the inevitable compromise. fortunately she's hard as nails and wont' give a proverbial.
I think it's inevitable that we won't get everything we want. But, getting some of what we want is better than getting none of what we want.
Brexit sets us on a permanent (or as good as) diverging path from European centralisation.
That's worth an awful lot. Even if we don't get the best deal now, in 10-20 years time it's likely to matter far less and can be ditched or renegotiated further.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I think you may well be proved to be right.
Politically, all May needs to do is demonstrate a fall in numbers. She knows this and will calculate the most politically sustainable way she can do it.
What the City will want on financial services is legal equivalence so that operators in the City will still be able to sell their services across the EU under a single passport arrangement. This will require the regulators in the UK to provide the same form and level of supervision that they do at the moment and an undertaking to comply with any changes introduced in the rest of the EU going forward. Whether we are in or out of the EU doesn't really matter, what does matter is being able to trade across boundaries.
Is this achievable? I think it is a very big ask. But the EU will have to recognise that if the City is not inside the tent it will be outside and there is a major risk that a great deal of their more sophisticated and high end trade would effectively go offshore and beyond their control. There is simply nowhere in the EU that is even close to the liquidity, skill base and flexibility of the City and it would take a long time to recreate it. This threatens a significant trading disadvantage to their industry if they were denied these services. We do have cards to play.
Indeed, and an unmentioned card is a willingness of a British Government denied the single passport arrangement to loosen the regulatory environment to be more encouraging to the creation of such an offshore sector.
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
I'm sure the City will get a very sympathetic hearing from all of those bastards up north who voted LEAVE
TSE secretly campaigned for LEAVE, is why Sheffield voted for Brexit
His presence on the doorstep may have driven the working class voters to vote for LEAVE!
I bet it was the shoes!
No, it was the public school accent AND the shoes.
So what if the city wants to be able to recruit skilled migrants? The motivation of many leavers was the uncontrolled immigration of unskilled migrants, not the ability of those who are after highly paid jobs in the financial sector to work there.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I think you may well be proved to be right.
Politically, all May needs to do is demonstrate a fall in numbers. She knows this and will calculate the most politically sustainable way she can do it.
Historically May has a pretty poor record on reducing the numbers under her control.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I doubt we'd get a minimum salary requirement, I think we're more likely to get an extension on waiting days and as you say, migration linked to working status rather than being available to work. A minimum salary requirement would basically kill free movement across the whole bloc.
There's a triangle (a bit like cost/time/quality in projects) on Brexit
Cash/trade/migration - one has to give for the other.
I think slightly less on services, for a bit more on financial services, with a bit less on free movement for a bit more in cash contributions, for a bit more say in rules that affect us in return for a bit less than full flexibility in setting the terms of our own trade deals is probably where we are heading.
So what if the city wants to be able to recruit skilled migrants? The motivation of many leavers was the uncontrolled immigration of unskilled migrants, not the ability of those who are after highly paid jobs in the financial sector to work there.
So what if the city wants to be able to recruit skilled migrants? The motivation of many leavers was the uncontrolled immigration of unskilled migrants, not the ability of those who are after highly paid jobs in the financial sector to work there.
Can't see how it's a collision course at all
Very disappointed in your post ...
It should have read there are two low skilled & one high skilled workers behind 3 doors...
And of course no consideration of why France shouldn't be doing more nor why they haven't claimed asylum there. All nasty Britain's fault & failing.
I truly am concerned about these children I really am who would not be.
Meanwhile As soon as we give them sanctuary then the rest of the family will follow claiming right to family life etc etc and the EU will enforce that on us. Yes they will of course they will. They seem completely blind to the French treatment of these people yet if we so much as say we prefer they don't come her the we are " little Englanders"
On the other hand let's think about this ....how many other safe countries have they passed through even to get to France let alone pass through France to Calais unchallenged. Who else is doing this? Who else that pose a threat to us. Why is it pur problem? It really is the EU and the French that are letting them in and the French spraying the tear gas as such it's a French problem. They allowed them across their borders it's for them to deal with it. The French should give these children sanctuary and protection and in the interim may I suggest they make a formal complaint to Merkel.
In the meantime yet again the Channel protects us from this EU folly
And of course no consideration of why France shouldn't be doing more nor why they haven't claimed asylum there. All nasty Britain's fault & failing.
I truly am concerned about these children I really am who would not be.
Meanwhile As soon as we give them sanctuary then the rest of the family will follow claiming right to family life etc etc and the EU will enforce that on us. Yes they will of course they will. They seem completely blind to the French treatment of these people yet if we so much as say we prefer they don't come her the we are " little Englanders"
On the other hand let's think about this ....how many other safe countries have they passed through even to get to France let alone pass through France to Calais unchallenged. Who else is doing this? Who else that pose a threat to us. Why is it pur problem? It really is the EU and the French that are letting them in and the French spraying the tear gas as such it's a French problem. They allowed them across their borders it's for them to deal with it. The French should give these children sanctuary and protection and in the interim may I suggest they make a formal complaint to Merkel.
In the meantime yet again the Channel protects us from this EU folly
There is another crucial bit of info in the guardian article that while they highlight 4 young children (one of which looks a lot of older than give age) even they admit the vast bulk are actually much older...which we know what that means.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I voted LEAVE but had Cameron got a half decent deal I would have voted REMAIN. I think that, given the way votes would tend to bunch in the centre in a close contest, there must be many like me who would settle for the kind of modified FoM suggested above. It might shut up all those whining Remaindereds for whom negotiation and compromise are virgin territory. But we MUST leave so that we can make our own decisions going forward.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I think you may well be proved to be right.
Politically, all May needs to do is demonstrate a fall in numbers. She knows this and will calculate the most politically sustainable way she can do it.
Historically May has a pretty poor record on reducing the numbers under her control.
When the backlash starts it will be popcorn time.
But for May's reforms the non-EU numbers and net migration figures would be even higher.
The problem remaining with non-EU migration is "students" and family reunions. Those seeking work are now fairly well controlled.
And of course no consideration of why France shouldn't be doing more nor why they haven't claimed asylum there. All nasty Britain's fault & failing.
I truly am concerned about these children I really am who would not be.
Meanwhile As soon as we give them sanctuary then the rest of the family will follow claiming right to family life etc etc and the EU will enforce that on us. Yes they will of course they will. They seem completely blind to the French treatment of these people yet if we so much as say we prefer they don't come her the we are " little Englanders"
On the other hand let's think about this ....how many other safe countries have they passed through even to get to France let alone pass through France to Calais unchallenged. Who else is doing this? Who else that pose a threat to us. Why is it pur problem? It really is the EU and the French that are letting them in and the French spraying the tear gas as such it's a French problem. They allowed them across their borders it's for them to deal with it. The French should give these children sanctuary and protection and in the interim may I suggest they make a formal complaint to Merkel.
In the meantime yet again the Channel protects us from this EU folly
There is another crucial bit of info in the guardian article that while they highlight 4 young children (one of which looks a lot of older than give age) even they admit the vast bulk are actually much older...which we know what that means.
I have been in the front line of this once or twice.
The first thing they do is destroy any documents if they even have them . The occasions I dealt with this they had no documents. Couldn't send them back to anywhere because although we had and idea where they were from we couldn't definitely say so. Hence a flight out was not possible because no government would accept them. The fact is even if some governments know they are national they refuse to accept it. Dead end. I am certain they are resident now in the UK.
Suck it up at that point it's our problem. Nothing you can do about it. You can only send people back if you can prove from where they came. You most often cannot.
The channel is our best protection. The EU and open borders commonly is not.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I think you may well be proved to be right.
Politically, all May needs to do is demonstrate a fall in numbers. She knows this and will calculate the most politically sustainable way she can do it.
Historically May has a pretty poor record on reducing the numbers under her control.
When the backlash starts it will be popcorn time.
But for May's reforms the non-EU numbers and net migration figures would be even higher.
The problem remaining with non-EU migration is "students" and family reunions. Those seeking work are now fairly well controlled.
Yeah. Sure.
The numbers are not coming down. May will have to suck it up.
Theresa May is like Gordon Brown without the charm.
So what if the city wants to be able to recruit skilled migrants? The motivation of many leavers was the uncontrolled immigration of unskilled migrants, not the ability of those who are after highly paid jobs in the financial sector to work there.
So what if the city wants to be able to recruit skilled migrants? The motivation of many leavers was the uncontrolled immigration of unskilled migrants, not the ability of those who are after highly paid jobs in the financial sector to work there.
Can't see how it's a collision course at all
Very disappointed in your post ...
It should have read there are two low skilled & one high skilled workers behind 3 doors...
That's what happens when game show hosts don't face foreign competition... Standards drop.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I think you may well be proved to be right.
Politically, all May needs to do is demonstrate a fall in numbers. She knows this and will calculate the most politically sustainable way she can do it.
Historically May has a pretty poor record on reducing the numbers under her control.
When the backlash starts it will be popcorn time.
But for May's reforms the non-EU numbers and net migration figures would be even higher.
The problem remaining with non-EU migration is "students" and family reunions. Those seeking work are now fairly well controlled.
Yeah. Sure.
The numbers are not coming down. May will have to suck it up.
Theresa May is like Gordon Brown without the charm.
What can't be sustained won't be sustained. Immigration to the UK on its current scale can't be sustained. Either May must get the numbers down, or she'll be replaced.
Who are these ‘Brexit hardliners’ and what are they demanding?
Bernard Jenkins, Liam Fox etc, they want full fat Brexit, so no supremacy of EU law, no freedom of movement etc.
Even a basic Brexit worth its salt should do the former with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
I suspect we'll ask and hopefully get a modified freedom of movement principle.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
I think you may well be proved to be right.
Politically, all May needs to do is demonstrate a fall in numbers. She knows this and will calculate the most politically sustainable way she can do it.
Historically May has a pretty poor record on reducing the numbers under her control.
When the backlash starts it will be popcorn time.
But for May's reforms the non-EU numbers and net migration figures would be even higher.
The problem remaining with non-EU migration is "students" and family reunions. Those seeking work are now fairly well controlled.
Yeah. Sure.
The numbers are not coming down. May will have to suck it up.
Theresa May is like Gordon Brown without the charm.
Numbers will probably go up in the interim between the vote and actually having the necessary control to limit migration.
TFL have said £30m needs to be spent on redeveloping Temple Tube. I'm going to take them at their word. The incremental cost of a slightly stronger roof is marginal.
the HMT contribution is forgone VAT. If the Garden Bridge doesn't happen then they don't get the money to spend elsewhere.
Prestige buildings are usually "imposed" by some visionary or other. Things designed by consensus are rarely interesting.
The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well.
"The incremental cost of a slightly stronger roof is marginal."
I must say, that does make me LOL. Increase the strength (and therefore weight) of a roof, and you usually need a stronger support structure, and they need stronger foundations. The last place you want to add weight is the roof.
If TfL are spending £30 million on the tube, then surely that should not be counted as part of the bridge's budget?
And when it comes to the maintenance costs, it looks like Boris agreed to underwrite those costs,
"The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well."
No, it really does not, and particularly not at £175m.
The £30m is budgeted to be spend on redeveloping Temple Tube *anyway*. It is included in the Bridge budget as part of the public contribution. My point was that terminating the bridge will save minimal amount of public money.
And I think @Speedy has consistently called against Trump since ?North Carolina?
Charles, whilst you are on:
This is rather embarrassing, but I have a post-it note with a message to myself to apologise to you on it. Unfortunately I did not note, and cannot remember, what I'm meant to be apologising for. A quick browse through my last few posts has shown nothing apparently relevant.
So, I apologise for whatever it is I said (*) that may have caused you offence.
If you can remember, please let me know so I can apologise properly ...
(*) Perhaps multiple.
I have no idea!
Probably something to do with a bridge...
Wasn't it the Garden Bridge discussion?
I walk along from Waterloo station to Blackfriars regularly and there are quite a few " No to garden Bridge" posters up. Mostly In the council flats along the riverside. Cost?
Building works impacting the Coin Street Collective I guess.
Benefits are more for the Northbank than the Southbank
Which perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with it. A proper bridge benefits both ends exactly equally, unless it's really a pier. Form follows function.
Not really. Southbank is already well developed from a lot of investment. Northbank is marooned between Waterloo and Blackfriars bridges & the Strand & needs a way to drive regeneration. 6m tourists a year on the bridge will help
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
Might be nice for you. But there are pockets of real poverty in the area. A friend of mine was the vicar of St Mary Le Strand and I was surprised to discover how much work he did with deprived kids.
(And your end of Northbank is the nicer one)
I think people who are worried about poverty in Westminster desperately need to step outside zone 1, let alone the M25.
(Am not questioning your desire to improve the area, just don't think it should be a priority and don't agree with the proposal!)
I lazily assumed that as well until I was confronted with the data (on eligibility for free school meals etc).
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
He gives a good keynote speech at a rally or protest. Pretty crap at everything else. Looking forward to see him at the conference.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
Somebody who wasn't a complete muppet might well win from the Left. But, he/she would have to be a patriot, and Corbyn isn't.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
He gives a good keynote speech at a rally or protest. Pretty crap at everything else. Looking forward to see him at the conference.
What the City will want on financial services is legal equivalence so that operators in the City will still be able to sell their services across the EU under a single passport arrangement. This will require the regulators in the UK to provide the same form and level of supervision that they do at the moment and an undertaking to comply with any changes introduced in the rest of the EU going forward. Whether we are in or out of the EU doesn't really matter, what does matter is being able to trade across boundaries.
Is this achievable? I think it is a very big ask. But the EU will have to recognise that if the City is not inside the tent it will be outside and there is a major risk that a great deal of their more sophisticated and high end trade would effectively go offshore and beyond their control. There is simply nowhere in the EU that is even close to the liquidity, skill base and flexibility of the City and it would take a long time to recreate it. This threatens a significant trading disadvantage to their industry if they were denied these services. We do have cards to play.
Indeed, and an unmentioned card is a willingness of a British Government denied the single passport arrangement to loosen the regulatory environment to be more encouraging to the creation of such an offshore sector.
You think the Yanks would be happy? They would swing the ban hammer.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
I don't think the Warmonger Lincoln belongs in the same glorious list as the others
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
I don't think the Warmonger Lincoln belongs in the same glorious list as the others
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
I don't think the Warmonger Lincoln belongs in the same glorious list as the others
I think the inclusion of Clegg deliberately gives the game away. I doubt even a devout Corbynista would think Clegg's name will be writ large in history, unless he knows for sure that Clegg's got the Edstone.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
I don't think the Warmonger Lincoln belongs in the same glorious list as the others
I think the inclusion of Clegg deliberately gives the game away. I doubt even a devout Corbynista would think Clegg's name will be writ large in history, unless he knows for sure that Clegg's got the Edstone.
I do hope you realised my description of Lincoln as a Warmonger was tongue in cheek...
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
I don't think the Warmonger Lincoln belongs in the same glorious list as the others
I think the inclusion of Clegg deliberately gives the game away. I doubt even a devout Corbynista would think Clegg's name will be writ large in history, unless he knows for sure that Clegg's got the Edstone.
I do hope you realised my description of Lincoln as a Warmonger was tongue in cheek...
There has to be a political corollary to rule #34. No matter how noble the person, someone, somewhere thinks ill of them. Like Roosevelt deliberately allowed Pearl Harbour to go ahead, despite being forewarned (once read an entire history devoted to that thesis).
It is foolish to look for too much detail from U.S. state polling yet, but the patterns seem to be: Ohio is very marginal. Nevada and New Hampshire appear marginal. Pennsylvania is not yet marginal, but much better for Trump than would be expected on a UNS. On the other hand, North Carolina is better for Clinton than would be expected and would make up for all but five Pennsylvanian votes. VERY tentatively, Michigan and Colorado do not look as marginal as they ought to be (especially Michigan) but perhaps there's not enough evidence for even that agnostic prediction yet.
There are polls out with Clinton +1 in Utah and level in Georgia.
I don't think Trump will do well in the South. Hillary's best primaries were there. Minorities and evangelicals are not going to turn out for Trump.
Clinton looks like having a pretty safe margin.
Trump also won most southern states comfortably, he may even do better than Romney there if he wins Florida
I hope there are enough sympathetic formerRemainers and softBrexiteers to win the day, although there's no doubting the HardBrexiteers were always the most motivated.
The City holds the purse strings so in the end what they say will go regardless of what HardBrexiteers may want, some access to the single market in return for free movement with some controls is the almost inevitable outcome of Brexit
So let us get this right. Dave's list is so dodgy that even his doners and cronies want to withdraw before they get the gong!!! Cameron's reputation is is tatters.
So let us get this right. Dave's list is so dodgy that even his doners and cronies want to withdraw before they get the gong!!! Cameron's reputation is is tatters.
Given getting a gong now means you join the ranks of Sir Jimmy Saville, Sir Philip Green and the former Sir Fred Goodwin there is probably more kudos now in not having one than having one. Goodnight
'The City holds the purse strings so in the end what they say will go regardless of what HardBrexiteers may want, some access to the single market in return for free movement with some controls is the almost inevitable outcome of Brexit'
You seriously believe we go to the trouble of having a referendum which results in a Leave vote only to end up with basically the same arrangements as before ???
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
Let me get this completely and absolutely correct so I have not misinterpreted awhat you have just posted there.......
You are now, on this PB forum, formally placing Nick Clegg and Jetemy Corbyn on the same level as Lincoln , Ghandi and Mandela.
'The City holds the purse strings so in the end what they say will go regardless of what HardBrexiteers may want, some access to the single market in return for free movement with some controls is the almost inevitable outcome of Brexit'
You seriously believe we go to the trouble of having a referendum which results in a Leave vote only to end up with basically the same arrangements as before ???
Not entirely, there will likely be some free movement controls and we no longer have to obey non trade related directives and regulations but otherwise much will be the same, yes, ultimately it is the City of London which powers our economy and funds most of our public services, not Hartlepool, Harlow, Nuneaton and Sunderland and when they say they have to have access to the single market they will get it
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
Let me get this completely and absolutely correct so I have not misinterpreted awhat you have just posted there.......
You are now, on this PB forum, formally placing Nick Clegg and Jetemy Corbyn on the same level as Lincoln , Ghandi and Mandela.
(Lincoln? Mmm...)
Clegg spoof
Fine, great, super........
WTF?
To be fair I think history will judge Clegg kinder than most do now, he could have sat on the sidelines instead he joined a coalition he knew would cost his party but was in the national intresests.
Guardian is finished. So many people giving up their long held subscriptions over Anti-Corbyn bias.
Will soon be giving up on reality subscription because of its anti-Corbyn bias.
If the Guardian does have an anti-Corbyn bias then it is doing the centre-left a massive favour. He is an utter disaster.
He isn't an utter disaster. He is redefining politics and ushering in a new era of inspirational integrity. He leads in a way tired convention simply cannot comprehend.
thump!!
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
Every now and again a politician comes along that changes everything. Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, Clegg.
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
Let me get this completely and absolutely correct so I have not misinterpreted awhat you have just posted there.......
You are now, on this PB forum, formally placing Nick Clegg and Jetemy Corbyn on the same level as Lincoln , Ghandi and Mandela.
(Lincoln? Mmm...)
Clegg spoof
Fine, great, super........
WTF?
To be fair I think history will judge Clegg kinder than most do now, he could have sat on the sidelines instead he joined a coalition he knew would cost his party but was in the national intresests.
We do not know the coalition was in the national interest, nor that Clegg foresaw the damage to his own party.
Said twice on the radio today by Dominic Grieve, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
'Brexit means Brexit'
Said multiple times by Theresa May, Prime Minister......
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
(I watched that Johnny Depp film the other night. It were all right. Bit heavy on the CGI. Ali G was fun)
The slogan isn't "utensil lickin' good" for a reason.
While out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump posted a photo on Twitter Monday evening that's prompting questions about his eating habits.
In the photo, Trump appears prepared to dig into a bucket of KFC fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy — but he won't be getting his hands on that chicken. He's using a knife and fork.
Many users commented on how the photo was an obvious ploy to appear more relatable, but that it clearly backfired
The slogan isn't "utensil lickin' good" for a reason.
While out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump posted a photo on Twitter Monday evening that's prompting questions about his eating habits.
In the photo, Trump appears prepared to dig into a bucket of KFC fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy — but he won't be getting his hands on that chicken. He's using a knife and fork.
Many users commented on how the photo was an obvious ploy to appear more relatable, but that it clearly backfired
Isn't Trump known for eating fast food? And how would you eat mashed potatoes with your fingers?
More interesting was Warren Buffett's criticism of Trump's financial acumen. It may be the Democrats are taking the Rovian route of attacking their opponent's greatest strengths.
The slogan isn't "utensil lickin' good" for a reason.
While out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump posted a photo on Twitter Monday evening that's prompting questions about his eating habits.
In the photo, Trump appears prepared to dig into a bucket of KFC fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy — but he won't be getting his hands on that chicken. He's using a knife and fork.
Many users commented on how the photo was an obvious ploy to appear more relatable, but that it clearly backfired
The slogan isn't "utensil lickin' good" for a reason.
While out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump posted a photo on Twitter Monday evening that's prompting questions about his eating habits.
In the photo, Trump appears prepared to dig into a bucket of KFC fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy — but he won't be getting his hands on that chicken. He's using a knife and fork.
Many users commented on how the photo was an obvious ploy to appear more relatable, but that it clearly backfired
More interesting was Warren Buffett's criticism of Trump's financial acumen. It may be the Democrats are taking the Rovian route of attacking their opponent's greatest strengths.
Which may be why he's refused to publish his tax return.....possibly there is less to Trump's billions than he claims......
The slogan isn't "utensil lickin' good" for a reason.
While out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump posted a photo on Twitter Monday evening that's prompting questions about his eating habits.
In the photo, Trump appears prepared to dig into a bucket of KFC fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy — but he won't be getting his hands on that chicken. He's using a knife and fork.
Many users commented on how the photo was an obvious ploy to appear more relatable, but that it clearly backfired
A SNP MSP was ridiculed today after revealing he’s still boycotting a travel agent that opposed independence nearly two years after the referendum.
John Mason said he refused to use Barrhead Travel because of the position its boss took during the run-up to the September 2014 vote.
Writing on Twitter, the controversial Glasgow Shettleston MSP said: “I’m boycotting Barrhead Travel as they’re on the No side. Got euros elsewhere.”
The comment sparked a furious backlash, with many pointing out Mason sits on Holyrood’s economy and jobs committee and the travel agent employ around 850 people.
They even have a major office in Mason’s Shettleston constituency.
The slogan isn't "utensil lickin' good" for a reason.
While out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump posted a photo on Twitter Monday evening that's prompting questions about his eating habits.
In the photo, Trump appears prepared to dig into a bucket of KFC fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy — but he won't be getting his hands on that chicken. He's using a knife and fork.
Many users commented on how the photo was an obvious ploy to appear more relatable, but that it clearly backfired
TFL have said £30m needs to be spent on redeveloping Temple Tube. I'm going to take them at their word. The incremental cost of a slightly stronger roof is marginal.
the HMT contribution is forgone VAT. If the Garden Bridge doesn't happen then they don't get the money to spend elsewhere.
Prestige buildings are usually "imposed" by some visionary or other. Things designed by consensus are rarely interesting.
The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well.
"The incremental cost of a slightly stronger roof is marginal."
I must say, that does make me LOL. Increase the strength (and therefore weight) of a roof, and you usually need a stronger support structure, and they need stronger foundations. The last place you want to add weight is the roof.
If TfL are spending £30 million on the tube, then surely that should not be counted as part of the bridge's budget?
And when it comes to the maintenance costs, it looks like Boris agreed to underwrite those costs,
"The "practical purpose" is to provide a public green space in central London. It does that well."
No, it really does not, and particularly not at £175m.
The £30m is budgeted to be spend on redeveloping Temple Tube *anyway*. It is included in the Bridge budget as part of the public contribution. My point was that terminating the bridge will save minimal amount of public money.
If the money is being spent on the station anyway, then it shouldn't be in the bridge's budget. If the money was due to be spent on something else on Temple tube and has been diverted, then it should. Simples.
Terminating the bridge now will save an awful lot of public money, excepting the millions of public money that have already been sunk in.
We'll have to wait to see what the various investigations by the NAO and Charity Commission into the project say.
A SNP MSP was ridiculed today after revealing he’s still boycotting a travel agent that opposed independence nearly two years after the referendum.
John Mason said he refused to use Barrhead Travel because of the position its boss took during the run-up to the September 2014 vote.
Writing on Twitter, the controversial Glasgow Shettleston MSP said: “I’m boycotting Barrhead Travel as they’re on the No side. Got euros elsewhere.”
The comment sparked a furious backlash, with many pointing out Mason sits on Holyrood’s economy and jobs committee and the travel agent employ around 850 people.
They even have a major office in Mason’s Shettleston constituency.
Comments
I gather that the government's welfare reforms are undermining this to some extent in any case.
The Battle of Chaeronea is the only decent battle fought on August the 2nd
http://email.connectstrategic.com/t/j-34549BEAED04456D
Clinton: 45
Trump: 42
Johnson: 4
Stein: 1
Undecided: 8
It does not need 'regenerating'. As someone who works in the area, it's nice that it is not overrun with camera-clutching tourists.
The money would be much better spent linking North East and South East London with a new crossing.
Might be nice for you. But there are pockets of real poverty in the area. A friend of mine was the vicar of St Mary Le Strand and I was surprised to discover how much work he did with deprived kids.
(And your end of Northbank is the nicer one)
I think people who are worried about poverty in Westminster desperately need to step outside zone 1, let alone the M25.
(Am not questioning your desire to improve the area, just don't think it should be a priority and don't agree with the proposal!)
There's real poverty in Westminster. Like London as a whole, it's a borough of contrasts. The presence of a lot of super-rich people pulls up the figures for average incomes in London to a misleading degree.
I don't dispute that. Does it really make sense though to house economically dependent people on some of the most valuable real estate in the world? I never understood why it's acceptable that 25% of housing is social in London vs 10% elsewhere.
I gather that the government's welfare reforms are undermining this to some extent in any case.
London is Labour and thus totally entitled to its social housing and is crying out for more.
Also, on this day 73 years ago, JFK had a narrow escape when his torpedo boat was rammed by a Japanese destroyer.
Is this achievable? I think it is a very big ask. But the EU will have to recognise that if the City is not inside the tent it will be outside and there is a major risk that a great deal of their more sophisticated and high end trade would effectively go offshore and beyond their control. There is simply nowhere in the EU that is even close to the liquidity, skill base and flexibility of the City and it would take a long time to recreate it. This threatens a significant trading disadvantage to their industry if they were denied these services. We do have cards to play.
Playing 'There's No Limit' from the loudhailer to get out the vote may have been counterproductive...
Can't see how it's a collision course at all
The real question will be what level of immigration control we get.
Whether this is a real cause for concern, I don't know, as I don't know what percentage of Germany's exports goes to such countries and whether German imports will be among the things that those countries chose to cut back on.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/02/child-refugees-calais-failed-by-britain
And of course no consideration of why France shouldn't be doing more nor why they haven't claimed asylum there. All nasty Britain's fault & failing.
Hyperbole much?
Yes, I probably would.
Would I put a guaranteed high exchange above a competitive economy, national sovereignty and monetary flexibility?
No.
Clinton looks like having a pretty safe margin.
You can only come to the UK if you have a guaranteed job with a salary above a certain de minimis
That's worth an awful lot. Even if we don't get the best deal now, in 10-20 years time it's likely to matter far less and can be ditched or renegotiated further.
Anyone have a link to the results?
Politically, all May needs to do is demonstrate a fall in numbers. She knows this and will calculate the most politically sustainable way she can do it.
When the backlash starts it will be popcorn time.
Cash/trade/migration - one has to give for the other.
I think slightly less on services, for a bit more on financial services, with a bit less on free movement for a bit more in cash contributions, for a bit more say in rules that affect us in return for a bit less than full flexibility in setting the terms of our own trade deals is probably where we are heading.
Right, must sign off. G'night.
It should have read there are two low skilled & one high skilled workers behind 3 doors...
Meanwhile As soon as we give them sanctuary then the rest of the family will follow claiming right to family life etc etc and the EU will enforce that on us. Yes they will of course they will. They seem completely blind to the French treatment of these people yet if we so much as say we prefer they don't come her the we are " little Englanders"
On the other hand let's think about this ....how many other safe countries have they passed through even to get to France let alone pass through France to Calais unchallenged. Who else is doing this? Who else that pose a threat to us. Why is it pur problem? It really is the EU and the French that are letting them in and the French spraying the tear gas as such it's a French problem. They allowed them across their borders it's for them to deal with it. The French should give these children sanctuary and protection and in the interim may I suggest they make a formal complaint to Merkel.
In the meantime yet again the Channel protects us from this EU folly
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-mp-had-to-wait-six-weeks-to-find-she-did-not-have-shadow-cabinet-role
The problem remaining with non-EU migration is "students" and family reunions. Those seeking work are now fairly well controlled.
The first thing they do is destroy any documents if they even have them . The occasions I dealt with this they had no documents. Couldn't send them back to anywhere because although we had and idea where they were from we couldn't definitely say so. Hence a flight out was not possible because no government would accept them. The fact is even if some governments know they are national they refuse to accept it. Dead end. I am certain they are resident now in the UK.
Suck it up at that point it's our problem. Nothing you can do about it. You can only send people back if you can prove from where they came. You most often cannot.
The channel is our best protection. The EU and open borders commonly is not.
The numbers are not coming down. May will have to suck it up.
Theresa May is like Gordon Brown without the charm.
*Thats the Sound of many foreheads hitting desk in front of them*
Ye gods...you guys really really have given up on political reality haven't you? Never ever thought I would see this in my lifetime though I am not sad in the slightest.
This is quite simply ........Labourkaze
They appear so infrequently you don't recognise them at first. Corbyn is a such a man. Gentle, but profound. Politics will never be the same.
The other three were lawyers.
Weirdest political landscape of my lifetime.
*PS if I'm wrong and you really meant it, seek help
'The City holds the purse strings so in the end what they say will go regardless of what HardBrexiteers may want, some access to the single market in return for free movement with some controls is the almost inevitable outcome of Brexit'
You seriously believe we go to the trouble of having a referendum which results in a Leave vote only to end up with basically the same arrangements as before ???
You are now, on this PB forum, formally placing Nick Clegg and Jetemy Corbyn on the same level as Lincoln , Ghandi and Mandela.
(Lincoln? Mmm...)
Clegg spoof
Fine, great, super........
WTF?
Said twice on the radio today by Dominic Grieve, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Said multiple times by Theresa May, Prime Minister......
(I watched that Johnny Depp film the other night. It were all right. Bit heavy on the CGI. Ali G was fun)
However, ignoring, or seeking to circumvent the referendum is a much worse idea.
The slogan isn't "utensil lickin' good" for a reason.
While out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump posted a photo on Twitter Monday evening that's prompting questions about his eating habits.
In the photo, Trump appears prepared to dig into a bucket of KFC fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy — but he won't be getting his hands on that chicken. He's using a knife and fork.
Many users commented on how the photo was an obvious ploy to appear more relatable, but that it clearly backfired
http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/donald-trump-kfc-1.3703796
More interesting was Warren Buffett's criticism of Trump's financial acumen. It may be the Democrats are taking the Rovian route of attacking their opponent's greatest strengths.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/08/02/donald-trump-eating-fried-chicken-with-fork-sends-internet-into-meltdown/
A SNP MSP was ridiculed today after revealing he’s still boycotting a travel agent that opposed independence nearly two years after the referendum.
John Mason said he refused to use Barrhead Travel because of the position its boss took during the run-up to the September 2014 vote.
Writing on Twitter, the controversial Glasgow Shettleston MSP said: “I’m boycotting Barrhead Travel as they’re on the No side. Got euros elsewhere.”
The comment sparked a furious backlash, with many pointing out Mason sits on Holyrood’s economy and jobs committee and the travel agent employ around 850 people.
They even have a major office in Mason’s Shettleston constituency.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snps-john-mason-ridiculed-boycotting-8545768#A6g57WEOCROm6LWJ.99
This conspiracy stuff's fun, isn't it?
Anyway, I'm expecting Trump to deny ever eating KFC shortly....
btw do listen to these podcasts:
http://www.untoldmurder.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jun/22/untold-daniel-morgan-murder-britains-dirtiest-cover-up-has-become-a-must-listen-podcast
Terminating the bridge now will save an awful lot of public money, excepting the millions of public money that have already been sunk in.
We'll have to wait to see what the various investigations by the NAO and Charity Commission into the project say.