Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
As with a lot of things I am a firm believer in the value of tradition. Depending on your relationship with the child, the silver christening cup may not have much practical use but in the long term it becomes a family heirloom. Such things can be part of the glue that holds families together by providing a physical reminder of shared history and being part of something bigger than one's self.
The value of the cup is not really to the child but to that child's children and grand-children in may be eighty to a hundred years time and then on into the future after that.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
A long term trend of people moving to the suburbs, the new boundary changes are already out of date, Tories should have even more seats. Makes the 47% Leave figure in Newham all the more surprising. Where did the votes come from?
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
It's not about winning a Commons vote. It's about avoiding that vote being hedged around with unhelpful amendments, and - more seriously - there then being a campaign of resistance in the House of Lords (which REMAIN have already signalled they would organise).
In short, avoiding all the opportunities parliamentary procedures give for dragging the process out and wasting government time and resources.
"Osborne is gone and good riddance to him. But what’s the use of sacking the organ grinder if his devious little monkey is still in place up to its usual dirty tricks? "
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
It's not about winning a Commons vote. It's about avoiding that vote being hedged around with unhelpful amendments, and - more seriously - there then being a campaign of resistance in the House of Lords (which REMAIN have already signalled they would organise).
In short, avoiding all the opportunities parliamentary procedures give for dragging the process out and wasting government time and resources.
Quite so, Mr. Mede. I am also at a loss as to what would be the motion on which Parliament would asked to vote?
http://www.open-britain.co.uk/ "Three of our leading cross-party political supporters, Anna Soubry, Pat McFadden and Norman Lamb, have written this piece in the Sunday Times about why Britain is at its best when it is open. The full article is reprinted below."
A couple at a German music festival have been attacked by a knifeman who witnesses claim was heard shouting "Allahu Akbar".
A 66-year-old woman, believed to be the other victim's wife, is said to be fighting for her life.
The other victim - a 57-year-old man - is seriously injured however he still managed to overpower the man who was then arrested by police officers in Oberhausen.
The attack took place just after 7pm on Saturday evening.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
Not many mooslims in Boston, if that is what you are trying to suggest or immigrants in general in Hull.
Connection seems to be they are all shitholes full of rather unintelligent lower class people whos ancestors went there due to the agricultural revolution meaning they were no longer needed in the countryside coinciding with unskilled indusrtrial jobs being plentiful due to the level of technology between the first industrial revolution with the invention of powered mechanical technology and the second with the invention of electronic means of controlling such technology. After the second industrial revolution you no longer needed to employ hordes of rather dim people to do mind numbing repetitive work which has left these areas with a lot of useless eaters who are often not very socially conditioned and tend to be aggressive if challenged.
As a result anyone with get up and go gets up and goes...
Really nice post about your fellow britons,maybe the dim people should have said fcuk you when it came to be the countries saviour.
She may have miscalculated how solid the government position is and so felt the risk was trivial. Obviously we haven't seen the advice, it seems like it should be solid enough, and she might feel the risk is worth the build up of goodwill. If the courts say she has to go to parliament it is not as though she could not use that - the Leaver fury would be massive and could be harnessed.
Why would Leavers be furious that our elected representatives get to scrutinise and approve this decision?
Leavers are jumpy because they know as well as I do that whilst the general all-things-to-all-men concept of Brexit scraped a majority of less than 4% no specific form of Brexit would command a majority in the country if remaining was still an option. Completely out would not win a referendum and nor would an EFTA-style out.
Cameron was an arrogant fool in the careless way he set up the referendum. There should have been a vote on the concept and a second vote on the specific deal.
I am not questioning the result of the referendum but I am questioning whether it is right that nobody has no further say on the Brexit we get.
If the Leavers are so confident that what they are doing why dont they urge the government to put the final deal to a referendum? As it is we will end up with making a monumental change which a majority of the population may well be opposed to from the off.
Which is all irrelevant. Once A50 is invoked, the clock starts ticking and there is no off switch. A eecond referendum could not be In/Out because In would no longer be on the table. The choice would be 'leave in a controlled manner' / 'leave in chaos'.
I don't accept that, an accommodation could almost certainly be reached with the EU if we wanted to put a final agreement to a vote.
If we trigger a Brexit which 70% of the population don't really support (the 48'% remain plus which ever chunk of Leave doesn't get its preferred option) then I believe you are storing up huge political problems for the future. I accept this doesn't bother anyone for whom Brexit is an end in itself.
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
It's not about winning a Commons vote. It's about avoiding that vote being hedged around with unhelpful amendments, and - more seriously - there then being a campaign of resistance in the House of Lords (which REMAIN have already signalled they would organise).
In short, avoiding all the opportunities parliamentary procedures give for dragging the process out and wasting government time and resources.
I think winning an Article 50 vote would cut short the sort of wrangling that you describe. I suspect that many Remain MPs would abstain and it to pass easily.
If there is no debate and vote then crown perogative will always look illegitimate to many MPs, who are rather jealous of their powers, and will feel justified in later objections.
Personally I think "Brexit means Brexit" means "Brexit means Hard Brexit" and that is what should be planned for. It is the default position for when the clock stops. It also means that we cannot be blackmailed by the other side when a poor deal is the only one on the table with a month to go. It is also the only way to satisfy the immigration and budget contribution questions.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
Not many mooslims in Boston, if that is what you are trying to suggest or immigrants in general in Hull.
Connection seems to be they are all shitholes full of rather unintelligent lower class people whos ancestors went there due to the agricultural revolution meaning they were no longer needed in the countryside coinciding with unskilled indusrtrial jobs being plentiful due to the level of technology between the first industrial revolution with the invention of powered mechanical technology and the second with the invention of electronic means of controlling such technology. After the second industrial revolution you no longer needed to employ hordes of rather dim people to do mind numbing repetitive work which has left these areas with a lot of useless eaters who are often not very socially conditioned and tend to be aggressive if challenged.
As a result anyone with get up and go gets up and goes...
I would like to know where are they moving to? The home counties? If you own a £500,000 home in London then you can buy a huge house in the north I'm trying to convince my mum and dad to do that as they won't be able to live on his pension.
Doesn't appear to be. Remoaners are surely trying to prevent Brexit. This appears to be some of those who might well have been Remoaners moving on to recognizing a more achievable goal (though i would suggest difficult to achieve goal) is pushing for a Soft Brexit.
Open Britain, which will be launching this week, will be a cross-party grassroots campaign for Britain to have the best possible relationship with Europe in the future now that the country has voted to leave
Moving on from losing the war to attempting to win the peace is a step in the right direction for them.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
It would be interesting to see the opposite list, i.e. the top ten towns/cities into which people are moving. I suspect that MK, the home of the concrete cows, would be pretty near the top of such a list.
Ho hum - another outbreak of mental illness A couple at a German music festival have been attacked by a knifeman who witnesses claim was heard shouting "Allahu Akbar". A 66-year-old woman, believed to be the other victim's wife, is said to be fighting for her life. The other victim - a 57-year-old man - is seriously injured however he still managed to overpower the man who was then arrested by police officers in Oberhausen. The attack took place just after 7pm on Saturday evening. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germany-stabbing-knifeman-shouts-allahu-8722043#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Islam does seem to have a strong correlation with mental illness - at least according to the authorities who feed info to the media.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
Not many mooslims in Boston, if that is what you are trying to suggest or immigrants in general in Hull.
Connection seems to be they are all shitholes full of rather unintelligent lower class people whos ancestors went there due to the agricultural revolution meaning they were no longer needed in the countryside coinciding with unskilled indusrtrial jobs being plentiful due to the level of technology between the first industrial revolution with the invention of powered mechanical technology and the second with the invention of electronic means of controlling such technology. After the second industrial revolution you no longer needed to employ hordes of rather dim people to do mind numbing repetitive work which has left these areas with a lot of useless eaters who are often not very socially conditioned and tend to be aggressive if challenged.
As a result anyone with get up and go gets up and goes...
I would like to know where are they moving to? The home counties? If you own a £500,000 home in London then you can buy a huge house in the north I'm trying to convince my mum and dad to do that as they won't be able to live on his pension.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
"Osborne is gone and good riddance to him. But what’s the use of sacking the organ grinder if his devious little monkey is still in place up to its usual dirty tricks? "
If it sounds like a conspiracy by the elite against the ordinary people, that’s exactly what it is. Policies like money-printing (quantitative easing), ultra-low (or even negative) interest rates and the mooted and inevitable ‘helicopter money’, are designed to keep asset prices (housing, shares, etc) high and government borrowing cheap. Which is great news if you’re wealthy already or you’re a chancellor with a reputation for austerity who needs discreetly to conjure up more cash with which to bribe the electorate. But apart from creating bubbles, profligacy and cronyism, it also leads to the kind of spectacular, disgusting inequality which may, ironically, have contributed to the popular revolt of the Brexit vote.
French presidential candidates tripping over themselves to ape the position of the FN?
Anyone would think they've had several horrific attacks in the past year.
Seriously, though, why are they bothering to talk/worry about the border with Britain? Were not most of the attacks from French citizens? And if the infiltration of extremists from outside is a worry, then why not police the borders preventing illegals entrance to France anyway? And, radical plan I know, enforce the protocol which states asylum must be sought in the first safe country....
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
A long term trend of people moving to the suburbs, the new boundary changes are already out of date, Tories should have even more seats. Makes the 47% Leave figure in Newham all the more surprising. Where did the votes come from?
Wealthier suburbs often voted Remain, depressed areas with a large number of white working class voters were the strongest Leave areas, even Newham still has a fair number of white working class voters despite the majority ethnic minority population
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
She doesn't see the upside.
At a minimum has to disclose her negotiating position. Worst case parliament amends the notion to tie her hands.
Vote later once the deal is done. Always useful to get people to dip their hands in blood. Especially few months before a General Election
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
I suppose you will claim that the same thing happened for Brexit. However the Clinton lead IS about the same that Remain held in the polls - the question is: have all the pollsters got it wrong again - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is enemy action?
Whether the hidden voters of Brexit has a parallel or not in the US elections, I bet the fear of it is playing on the mind of US liberals (in the american sense of the word).
Witness Clinton's histrionics at the 'alt right'. I would say she was, to quote another lady politician - frit.
Alt-Right and Farage has really spooked Clinton. Her reaction to Nigel was bizarre. 90% of Trumpers didn't know who he was before he spoke - a point SkyNews went on about at considerable length.
And all of sudden she's inadvertently making him an icon of anti-establishment politics - and spouting OTT half quotes. Rattled doesn't come close.
This is a really weird election and isn't getting more sensible with only 3 months to go.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
It would be interesting to see the opposite list, i.e. the top ten towns/cities into which people are moving. I suspect that MK, the home of the concrete cows, would be pretty near the top of such a list.
Christchurch in Dorset was near the top of the list
Ho hum - another outbreak of mental illness A couple at a German music festival have been attacked by a knifeman who witnesses claim was heard shouting "Allahu Akbar". A 66-year-old woman, believed to be the other victim's wife, is said to be fighting for her life. The other victim - a 57-year-old man - is seriously injured however he still managed to overpower the man who was then arrested by police officers in Oberhausen. The attack took place just after 7pm on Saturday evening. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germany-stabbing-knifeman-shouts-allahu-8722043#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Islam does seem to have a strong correlation with mental illness - at least according to the authorities who feed info to the media.
Yes it does.
People with psychopathy, mental disorders, petty criminality, and addiction issues are particularly drawn to an Islamist philosophy that justifies and celebrates violent attention seeking behaviour.
It is no coincidence that the Ridley killers, shoe bomber, Paris murderers come from this sort of background of social inadequates. There are some, but fewer, who come from a background of lifelong Islamic piety, but generally the profile of the Islamic terrorist is of someone who was from a Muslim background who becomes exposed to Islamism in prison or backstreets and develops the fervour of a fanatical convert.
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
It's not about winning a Commons vote. It's about avoiding that vote being hedged around with unhelpful amendments, and - more seriously - there then being a campaign of resistance in the House of Lords (which REMAIN have already signalled they would organise).
In short, avoiding all the opportunities parliamentary procedures give for dragging the process out and wasting government time and resources.
The government has no need to accept amendments; a simple resolution along the lines of "This House acknowledges the vote of the British people and wills the Executive the power invoke Article 50."
The government could then three line whip against any amendments of any kind to that.
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
I suppose you will claim that the same thing happened for Brexit. However the Clinton lead IS about the same that Remain held in the polls - the question is: have all the pollsters got it wrong again - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is enemy action?
Whether the hidden voters of Brexit has a parallel or not in the US elections, I bet the fear of it is playing on the mind of US liberals (in the american sense of the word).
Witness Clinton's histrionics at the 'alt right'. I would say she was, to quote another lady politician - frit.
Alt-Right and Farage has really spooked Clinton. Her reaction to Nigel was bizarre. 90% of Trumpers didn't know who he was before he spoke - a point SkyNews went on about at considerable length.
And all of sudden she's inadvertently making him an icon of anti-establishment politics - and spouting OTT half quotes. Rattled doesn't come close.
This is a really weird election and isn't getting more sensible with only 3 months to go.
Farage's speech at the Trump rally just been on BBC Parliament, it went down a storm with the crowd, it was actually even better than Trump's speech. Farage would probably beat Hillary if he was American and the GOP candidate rather than Trump
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
It's not about winning a Commons vote. It's about avoiding that vote being hedged around with unhelpful amendments, and - more seriously - there then being a campaign of resistance in the House of Lords (which REMAIN have already signalled they would organise).
In short, avoiding all the opportunities parliamentary procedures give for dragging the process out and wasting government time and resources.
The government has no need to accept amendments; a simple resolution along the lines of "This House acknowledges the vote of the British people and wills the Executive the power invoke Article 50."
The government could then three line whip against any amendments of any kind to that.
And what happens if enough MPs rebel against the three line whip?
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
It's not about winning a Commons vote. It's about avoiding that vote being hedged around with unhelpful amendments, and - more seriously - there then being a campaign of resistance in the House of Lords (which REMAIN have already signalled they would organise).
In short, avoiding all the opportunities parliamentary procedures give for dragging the process out and wasting government time and resources.
The government has no need to accept amendments; a simple resolution along the lines of "This House acknowledges the vote of the British people and wills the Executive the power invoke Article 50."
The government could then three line whip against any amendments of any kind to that.
I think that would effectively tie the Commons to the mast, heading for some very stormy seas. It forces MPs to choose, rather than rebel later.
The reason I think we need to have a vote is because it was a very narrow victory. I think there is a small but real chance Brexit could be overturned in the event of the government falling between now and the conclusion of Brexit negotiations. Unlikely? Yes. But if the House of Commons recognises the will of the people it will be much harder to back out of later. (And a vote now would be won by a massive majority.)
Oh yeah, and it would be good to make the Labour Party squirm.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
A long term trend of people moving to the suburbs, the new boundary changes are already out of date, Tories should have even more seats. Makes the 47% Leave figure in Newham all the more surprising. Where did the votes come from?
Wealthier suburbs often voted Remain, depressed areas with a large number of white working class voters were the strongest Leave areas, even Newham still has a fair number of white working class voters despite the majority ethnic minority population
But according to UK polling repory, Eastham is only 13% white Brit, and Westham is 20% white Brit, there must of been huge turnout differentials for that result.
"Osborne is gone and good riddance to him. But what’s the use of sacking the organ grinder if his devious little monkey is still in place up to its usual dirty tricks? "
Mark Carney's five year term of office as BoE Governor is due to expire less than two years hence on 30 June 2018. At the time of his appointment he, and more especially his wife, made it clear that there were no circumstances under which they would extend their stay in the UK. Assuming that remains the case, I would expect his successor to be named in the second half of next year, and possibly earlier if Carney is in any way anxious to hand over the reins earlier as a result of Brexit, etc, with which he profoundly disagrees
Ho hum - another outbreak of mental illness A couple at a German music festival have been attacked by a knifeman who witnesses claim was heard shouting "Allahu Akbar". A 66-year-old woman, believed to be the other victim's wife, is said to be fighting for her life. The other victim - a 57-year-old man - is seriously injured however he still managed to overpower the man who was then arrested by police officers in Oberhausen. The attack took place just after 7pm on Saturday evening. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germany-stabbing-knifeman-shouts-allahu-8722043#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Islam does seem to have a strong correlation with mental illness - at least according to the authorities who feed info to the media.
Yes it does.
People with psychopathy, mental disorders, petty criminality, and addiction issues are particularly drawn to an Islamist philosophy that justifies and celebrates violent attention seeking behaviour.
It is no coincidence that the Ridley killers, shoe bomber, Paris murderers come from this sort of background of social inadequates. There are some, but fewer, who come from a background of lifelong Islamic piety, but generally the profile of the Islamic terrorist is of someone who was from a Muslim background who becomes exposed to Islamism in prison or backstreets and develops the fervour of a fanatical convert.
And handwringing excuses it all as a coincidence. Seriously, no other philosophy has created this sort of horror.
We aren't seeing upset hipsters or Christians or lesbians or miners or BHS checkout staff or anyone effing else.
I remember WHOLE YEARS when we didn't hear about Muslims moaning about something.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
Not many mooslims in Boston, if that is what you are trying to suggest or immigrants in general in Hull.
Connection seems to be they are all shitholes full of rather unintelligent lower class people whos ancestors went there due to the agricultural revolution meaning they were no longer needed in the countryside coinciding with unskilled indusrtrial jobs being plentiful due to the level of technology between the first industrial revolution with the invention of powered mechanical technology and the second with the invention of electronic means of controlling such technology. After the second industrial revolution you no longer needed to employ hordes of rather dim people to do mind numbing repetitive work which has left these areas with a lot of useless eaters who are often not very socially conditioned and tend to be aggressive if challenged.
As a result anyone with get up and go gets up and goes...
I would like to know where are they moving to? The home counties? If you own a £500,000 home in London then you can buy a huge house in the north I'm trying to convince my mum and dad to do that as they won't be able to live on his pension.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
And if you do move out of London and downsize you need to move somewhere that does not have a housing estate nearby full of feral scallies, who will wage an antisocial class war against you for being middle class southerners and make your life a misery.
Especially when you find the local police force, run by a labour police committee for as long as anyone can remember, has similar class resentments and wont intervene until you have an altercation with said scallies - at which point they will be on you for assault like a ton of bricks.
All of which can be a problem in goodly parts of t' north with the bits that don't have the problem often as expensive to buy in as the south if not more expensive.
The reason I think we need to have a vote is because it was a very narrow victory. I think there is a small but real chance Brexit could be overturned in the event of the government falling between now and the conclusion of Brexit negotiations. Unlikely? Yes. But if the House of Commons recognises the will of the people it will be much harder to back out of later. (And a vote now would be won by a massive majority.)
Oh yeah, and it would be good to make the Labour Party squirm.
Would Parliament be voting on triggering Article 50 had Remain won 52-48?
"Osborne is gone and good riddance to him. But what’s the use of sacking the organ grinder if his devious little monkey is still in place up to its usual dirty tricks? "
If it sounds like a conspiracy by the elite against the ordinary people, that’s exactly what it is. Policies like money-printing (quantitative easing), ultra-low (or even negative) interest rates and the mooted and inevitable ‘helicopter money’, are designed to keep asset prices (housing, shares, etc) high and government borrowing cheap. Which is great news if you’re wealthy already or you’re a chancellor with a reputation for austerity who needs discreetly to conjure up more cash with which to bribe the electorate. But apart from creating bubbles, profligacy and cronyism, it also leads to the kind of spectacular, disgusting inequality which may, ironically, have contributed to the popular revolt of the Brexit vote.
I see no conspiracy just stupid economics that creates distoritions in the markets. Whilst having a £1,000 pa cut in my mortgage payments is nice, I do not approve of the action by Carney.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
A long term trend of people moving to the suburbs, the new boundary changes are already out of date, Tories should have even more seats. Makes the 47% Leave figure in Newham all the more surprising. Where did the votes come from?
Wealthier suburbs often voted Remain, depressed areas with a large number of white working class voters were the strongest Leave areas, even Newham still has a fair number of white working class voters despite the majority ethnic minority population
But according to UK polling repory, Eastham is only 13% white Brit, and Westham is 20% white Brit, there must of been huge turnout differentials for that result.
Nope - the commonwealth ethnic minorities were sick of seeing a racially discriminatory immigration regime where an Indian with a PhD and a good job here needs to jump through numerous hoops and pay large sums in visa fees while an unemployed Romanian with a criminal record as long as his armed can come here and be self employed selling the big issue without let or hindrance.
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
I think I'll miss the texture of the paper ones. The plastic ones from other countries feel quite naff.
Rob - that being the case, maybe you should invest in a number of pristine, uncirculated paper fivers before they become extinct. This assumes that they are still to be had, which I very much doubt as I suspect the De La Rue presses have already been working overtime on the plastic variety for some months ...... now there's an idea - perhaps I should invest instead in a few De La Rue shares as a Christening gift!
Careful! The trend in demand for cash is down, being replaced by (a different kind of ) plastic.
Not so ..... recent data shows that in Europe at least the quantity of physical money in circulation has actually increased. That said, if you're right, then notes and coinage will over time attract a rarity value, especially if of the "first day issue" variety to which I was referring.
"Osborne is gone and good riddance to him. But what’s the use of sacking the organ grinder if his devious little monkey is still in place up to its usual dirty tricks? "
If it sounds like a conspiracy by the elite against the ordinary people, that’s exactly what it is. Policies like money-printing (quantitative easing), ultra-low (or even negative) interest rates and the mooted and inevitable ‘helicopter money’, are designed to keep asset prices (housing, shares, etc) high and government borrowing cheap. Which is great news if you’re wealthy already or you’re a chancellor with a reputation for austerity who needs discreetly to conjure up more cash with which to bribe the electorate. But apart from creating bubbles, profligacy and cronyism, it also leads to the kind of spectacular, disgusting inequality which may, ironically, have contributed to the popular revolt of the Brexit vote.
I see no conspiracy just stupid economics that creates distoritions in the markets. Whilst having a £1,000 pa cut in my mortgage payments is nice, I do not approve of the action by Carney.
I suspect we will pay for it with painfully high interest rates (eg 5%) before too long just as we did when Lawson made the same error of keeping interest rates too low in a boom in the 1980s.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
I'd like a vote, if nothing else, to see who's brave. Presumably the likes of David Lammy who's own constituents voted to Remain wouldn't have a problem voting against the motion. Of course, just because people voted to Remain in Tottenham doesn't mean they'd be particularly impressed with their MP voting against the will of the people.
But would any Labour MPs in areas with substantial Leave votes dare to vote against triggering Article 50? And if they did, would it really affect their chances of being re-elected in 2020?
If the vote was to stop Article 50 then that would be a valid reason for a snap election, in which I think there would be a Tory majority of 150 or so.
If May is so uncertain that she could win a vote to invoke A50, it doesn't bode well for her confidence in getting anything controversial through.
I was a Remainer, but that is history. We will Leave and I believe it will be a hard Brexit due to the intransigence of the Bitter Enders and also the plodding nature of EU treaty processes, with lots of EU countries holding their own redlines that are incompatable with ours.
Is May refusing to allow a vote simply because she is not certain of getting it through? Surely it's more a point of principle. I'll admit as a leaver I only want a vote to see Labour squirm. There will be plenty of time for parliament to debate the way forward post Article 50.
It's not about winning a Commons vote. It's about avoiding that vote being hedged around with unhelpful amendments, and - more seriously - there then being a campaign of resistance in the House of Lords (which REMAIN have already signalled they would organise).
In short, avoiding all the opportunities parliamentary procedures give for dragging the process out and wasting government time and resources.
The government has no need to accept amendments; a simple resolution along the lines of "This House acknowledges the vote of the British people and wills the Executive the power invoke Article 50."
The government could then three line whip against any amendments of any kind to that.
Were the Government to be defeated in the HoC on such a straightforward resolution, then this would almost certainly trigger an immediate General Election, which May would presumably be confident of winning. Makes those odds of 5/2 (Corals) against a GE being held in 2017 look quite interesting, if not compelling, especially since Yours Truly was backing such an eventuality well into double digit odds prior to the referendum and when hyper-cautious Dave was still in charge.
"Osborne is gone and good riddance to him. But what’s the use of sacking the organ grinder if his devious little monkey is still in place up to its usual dirty tricks? "
If it sounds like a conspiracy by the elite against the ordinary people, that’s exactly what it is. Policies like money-printing (quantitative easing), ultra-low (or even negative) interest rates and the mooted and inevitable ‘helicopter money’, are designed to keep asset prices (housing, shares, etc) high and government borrowing cheap. Which is great news if you’re wealthy already or you’re a chancellor with a reputation for austerity who needs discreetly to conjure up more cash with which to bribe the electorate. But apart from creating bubbles, profligacy and cronyism, it also leads to the kind of spectacular, disgusting inequality which may, ironically, have contributed to the popular revolt of the Brexit vote.
I see no conspiracy just stupid economics that creates distoritions in the markets. Whilst having a £1,000 pa cut in my mortgage payments is nice, I do not approve of the action by Carney.
That's probably right. You shouldn't for a second assume that elite know what they are doing. The clever ones probably know the limitations of their power, but the dumb ones like Osborne actually think they are masters of the universe.
And as for you benefiting from a cut in mortgage payments, you should give the difference to a charity (like, Islingtonians for Europe) to appease Mr Meeks!
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
I think I'll miss the texture of the paper ones. The plastic ones from other countries feel quite naff.
Rob - that being the case, maybe you should invest in a number of pristine, uncirculated paper fivers before they become extinct. This assumes that they are still to be had, which I very much doubt as I suspect the De La Rue presses have already been working overtime on the plastic variety for some months ...... now there's an idea - perhaps I should invest instead in a few De La Rue shares as a Christening gift!
Careful! The trend in demand for cash is down, being replaced by (a different kind of ) plastic.
Not so ..... recent data shows that in Europe at least the quantity of physical money in circulation has actually increased. That said, if you're right, then notes and coinage will over time attract a rarity value, especially if of the "first day issue" variety to which I was referring.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
Not many mooslims in Boston, if that is what you are trying to suggest or immigrants in general in Hull.
Connection seems to be they are all shitholes full of rather unintelligent lower class people whos ancestors went there due to the agricultural revolution meaning they were no longer needed in the countryside coinciding with unskilled indusrtrial jobs being plentiful due to the level of technology between the first industrial revolution with the invention of powered mechanical technology and the second with the invention of electronic means of controlling such technology. After the second industrial revolution you no longer needed to employ hordes of rather dim people to do mind numbing repetitive work which has left these areas with a lot of useless eaters who are often not very socially conditioned and tend to be aggressive if challenged.
As a result anyone with get up and go gets up and goes...
I would like to know where are they moving to? The home counties? If you own a £500,000 home in London then you can buy a huge house in the north I'm trying to convince my mum and dad to do that as they won't be able to live on his pension.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
And if you do move out of London and downsize you need to move somewhere that does not have a housing estate nearby full of feral scallies, who will wage an antisocial class war against you for being middle class southerners and make your life a misery.
Especially when you find the local police force, run by a labour police committee for as long as anyone can remember, has similar class resentments and wont intervene until you have an altercation with said scallies - at which point they will be on you for assault like a ton of bricks.
All of which can be a problem in goodly parts of t' north with the bits that don't have the problem often as expensive to buy in as the south if not more expensive.
You really are a troll of the first order, wonder who thought you up
"Osborne is gone and good riddance to him. But what’s the use of sacking the organ grinder if his devious little monkey is still in place up to its usual dirty tricks? "
If it sounds like a conspiracy by the elite against the ordinary people, that’s exactly what it is. Policies like money-printing (quantitative easing), ultra-low (or even negative) interest rates and the mooted and inevitable ‘helicopter money’, are designed to keep asset prices (housing, shares, etc) high and government borrowing cheap. Which is great news if you’re wealthy already or you’re a chancellor with a reputation for austerity who needs discreetly to conjure up more cash with which to bribe the electorate. But apart from creating bubbles, profligacy and cronyism, it also leads to the kind of spectacular, disgusting inequality which may, ironically, have contributed to the popular revolt of the Brexit vote.
I see no conspiracy just stupid economics that creates distoritions in the markets. Whilst having a £1,000 pa cut in my mortgage payments is nice, I do not approve of the action by Carney.
That's probably right. You shouldn't for a second assume that elite know what they are doing. The clever ones probably know the limitations of their power, but the dumb ones like Osborne actually think they are masters of the universe. And as for you benefiting from a cut in mortgage payments, you should give the difference to a charity (like, Islingtonians for Europe) to appease Mr Meeks!
Agree on Osborne. As to a charity I support several but have no wish to help the soap dodgers in Islington.
"Osborne is gone and good riddance to him. But what’s the use of sacking the organ grinder if his devious little monkey is still in place up to its usual dirty tricks? "
If it sounds like a conspiracy by the elite against the ordinary people, that’s exactly what it is. Policies like money-printing (quantitative easing), ultra-low (or even negative) interest rates and the mooted and inevitable ‘helicopter money’, are designed to keep asset prices (housing, shares, etc) high and government borrowing cheap. Which is great news if you’re wealthy already or you’re a chancellor with a reputation for austerity who needs discreetly to conjure up more cash with which to bribe the electorate. But apart from creating bubbles, profligacy and cronyism, it also leads to the kind of spectacular, disgusting inequality which may, ironically, have contributed to the popular revolt of the Brexit vote.
I see no conspiracy just stupid economics that creates distoritions in the markets. Whilst having a £1,000 pa cut in my mortgage payments is nice, I do not approve of the action by Carney.
That's probably right. You shouldn't for a second assume that elite know what they are doing. The clever ones probably know the limitations of their power, but the dumb ones like Osborne actually think they are masters of the universe.
And as for you benefiting from a cut in mortgage payments, you should give the difference to a charity (like, Islingtonians for Europe) to appease Mr Meeks!
Just remember that your investments may be making less than the £1000 pa - Many people, understandably, went haywire in the 1990s when interest rates were cut without spotting the fact that the investments they had chosen to pay off the capital (endowments) were similarly showing reduced returns.
Marr is not working for the BBC when he writes. You must complain instead about the biased Times.
Marr is still an employee of the BBC. His article expresses his real personal views that he is pro-immigration. He should be impartial.... yes impossible for an ex editor of a left leaning paper and husband of a socialist writer. So why do the BBC still employ him in a role that should be impartial?
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
A long term trend of people moving to the suburbs, the new boundary changes are already out of date, Tories should have even more seats. Makes the 47% Leave figure in Newham all the more surprising. Where did the votes come from?
Wealthier suburbs often voted Remain, depressed areas with a large number of white working class voters were the strongest Leave areas, even Newham still has a fair number of white working class voters despite the majority ethnic minority population
But according to UK polling repory, Eastham is only 13% white Brit, and Westham is 20% white Brit, there must of been huge turnout differentials for that result.
Newham overall is 29% white so even in Newham the white working class probably made up a majority of the Leave vote
Marr is not working for the BBC when he writes. You must complain instead about the biased Times.
Marr is still an employee of the BBC. His article expresses his real personal views that he is pro-immigration. He should be impartial.... yes impossible for an ex editor of a left leaning paper and husband of a socialist writer. So why do the BBC still employ him in a role that should be impartial?
As long as in his guise a BBC correspondent he expresses impartial opinions I don't see the problem. No one is 100% impartial after all.
Marr is not working for the BBC when he writes. You must complain instead about the biased Times.
Marr is still an employee of the BBC. His article expresses his real personal views that he is pro-immigration. He should be impartial.... yes impossible for an ex editor of a left leaning paper and husband of a socialist writer. So why do the BBC still employ him in a role that should be impartial?
I actually don't have a problem with Marr writing such stuff. It gives Andrew Neil licence to do as he likes on Twitter.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
Not many mooslims in Boston, if that is what you are trying to suggest or immigrants in general in Hull.
Connection seems to be they are all shitholes full of rather unintelligent lower class people whos ancestors went there due to the agricultural revolution meaning they were no longer needed in the countryside coinciding with unskilled indusrtrial jobs being plentiful due to the level of technology between the first industrial revolution with the invention of powered mechanical technology and the second with the invention of electronic means of controlling such technology. After the second industrial revolution you no longer needed to employ hordes of rather dim people to do mind numbing repetitive work which has left these areas with a lot of useless eaters who are often not very socially conditioned and tend to be aggressive if challenged.
As a result anyone with get up and go gets up and goes...
Who suggested anything? The data shows these are the places people don't want to live, not for me to say why
Judging by this video clip, http://tinyurl.com/j2kfue7 , the new plastic fiver due to be introduced in just over two weeks time looks quite sexy. I have in mind to order, say £100 worth of these from the bank in the hope that the notes will bear very early serial numbers, say AA 00 000001 - AA 00 000020 or something along these lines, as a gift at a Christening taking place in a few months' time. This is in the hope that they might appreciate rather more than simply sticking said sum in a deposit account or worse still investing it in premium bonds and which also ultimately has more practical value than some silver artefact or other. Unless that is, PBers have better ideas for such a gift.
I think I'll miss the texture of the paper ones. The plastic ones from other countries feel quite naff.
Rob - that being the case, maybe you should invest in a number of pristine, uncirculated paper fivers before they become extinct. This assumes that they are still to be had, which I very much doubt as I suspect the De La Rue presses have already been working overtime on the plastic variety for some months ...... now there's an idea - perhaps I should invest instead in a few De La Rue shares as a Christening gift!
Careful! The trend in demand for cash is down, being replaced by (a different kind of ) plastic.
Not so ..... recent data shows that in Europe at least the quantity of physical money in circulation has actually increased. That said, if you're right, then notes and coinage will over time attract a rarity value, especially if of the "first day issue" variety to which I was referring.
Is that because after what happened in Cyprus people are withdrawing their savings from banks and hiding them under the mattress?
Well the paper says, for instance,
"Despite consumers increasingly moving to other payment methods, the value of Bank of England notes in circulation continues to grow, and has trebled over the past two decades .... This growth, which has been concentrated in the two highest denominations — £20 and £50 notes — has outpaced growth in aggregate spending ... "
There has been an astonishing rise (over 400% in 12 years) in notes in circulation in Europe, but a decline in Sweden. Hoarding, the shadow economy, i.e. "non-transactional growth in demand for cash", seem to be important.
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
I suppose you will claim that the same thing happened for Brexit. However the Clinton lead IS about the same that Remain held in the polls - the question is: have all the pollsters got it wrong again - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is enemy action?
The polls that were split 50/50 between leave and remain leads?
The current presidential polling and the Brexit polling ate completely dissimilar.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Agree, they should abolish it and replace it with a land value tax.
How did Hamilton get up to 5th? I thought he had to start from the back of the car park?
He was up to 12th thanks to some first lap incidents and a few overtakes, then a load of drivers pitted for tyres under the safety car. That the race got red flagged means Lewis gets a completely free tyre change, so he's genuinely 5th now. Alonso, who started at the back with Hamilton, is 4th.
Trump has double the number of Facebook followers than Hillary and millions more twitter followers.
He also many more small donations under $200 than HRC.
I know these are just anecdotes but in a two horse race maybe they are more meaningful than in a multi party system like ours?
I suppose you will claim that the same thing happened for Brexit. However the Clinton lead IS about the same that Remain held in the polls - the question is: have all the pollsters got it wrong again - Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is enemy action?
The polls that were split 50/50 between leave and remain leads?
The current presidential polling and the Brexit polling ate completely dissimilar.
The polls that also showed Labour close to the Tories in 2015 - which is more like the current presidential polling. To most people they were actually voting for the party (and in particular Mr Cameron) than the candidate on the form.
It would appear that polling in 2015 and 2016 has an inherent left-of centre bias of about 3 or 4% (Unless they have changed methodology).
How did Hamilton get up to 5th? I thought he had to start from the back of the car park?
He was up to 12th thanks to some first lap incidents and a few overtakes, then a load of drivers pitted for tyres under the safety car. That the race got red flagged means Lewis gets a completely free tyre change, so he's genuinely 5th now.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
It'll be interesting to look at the technical report from that crash. I'd guess he stopped from around 140mph in about 20'. He'll have a stiff neck and shoulders tomorrow morning.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Arguably the banding could be used to encourage downsizing, given SDLT is paid by the purchaser rather than the vendor.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Agree, they should abolish it and replace it with a land value tax.
Paid annually (by freeholder - not leaseholder or tenant) - not one off
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
The top 10 places that British people move away from according to ONS
1. Newham (London)
2. Brent (London)
3. Luton
4. Waltham Forest (London)
5. Blackburn with Darwen
6. Ealing (London)
7. Bradford
8. Haringey (London)
9. Kingston upon Hull
10. Boston
A long term trend of people moving to the suburbs, the new boundary changes are already out of date, Tories should have even more seats. Makes the 47% Leave figure in Newham all the more surprising. Where did the votes come from?
47% Leave in Newham 46% Leave in neighbouring Redbridge (where I'm posting from), despite being less ethnic minority dominated than Newham
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Arguably the banding could be used to encourage downsizing, given SDLT is paid by the purchaser rather than the vendor.
Not really, because you don't pay the duty for not moving.
Downsize into a £450,000 property? That'll be £12,500.00 tax for moving. Plus other assorted moving costs.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
The whole business of moving is now fraught with bureacracy and cost of which stamp duty is the tip of the iceberg.
Fear of future litigation meaning indemnities all round. Not helped by a court case in circa 2000 ending the six year limitation on councils having power to enforce building regulation issues and the Blair government massively increasing the scope of the building regs to include things like rewiring central heating and window glass meaning a huge paperchase is needed to find all the evidence of compliance - or yet more indemnity fees.
Means the whole thing is best avoided wherever possible.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Devon.
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
Ok, but please read again my post we can't downsize too much, without hammering our lifestyle, and the financials only work if we move to a really cheap area. So the good Dr. Sox's idea of, say, Dorset just doesn't work - to move to a slightly smaller house there would actually cost us money, not free up capital.
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Do first time buyers pay it?
They pay the same rate as everyone else.
Which in the SE/South of England means that anyone wanting to buy a house to live in will have to hand over 5% of the purchase price to HMG. To put that in context: in this area anyone who buys a two-up two down terraced in need of renovation will have to find a minimum of £12,500 up front for the government, on top of the minimum deposit of £25,000. How the hell are young people supposed to accumulate nearly forty grand out of taxed income?
Property prices are absurd and our late, and unlamented, Chancellor's attitude to stamp duty was absolutely barking.
Retired people generally do not need a huge house, and the nicer retirement spots in the North are not cheap! Look at prices in York or Chester for example.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
We have looked hard at this idea as our house is really much too big for just the two of us. However, it doesn't really work. House prices in, say, Dorset are not that different to West Sussex and then there is the costs of moving (stamp duty, estate agents fees etc. etc.). Financially such a move seems to be only viable is one goes somewhere really much cheaper but still nice (we have narrowed that down to Northumberland, The Netherlands, around Coimbra in Portugal).
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
Why not look at long term storage for some of the furniture / items? It's not that expensive, certainly compared to the capital freed up by downsizing (I assume you will be a big winner from house price inflation over the last 20 years)
I'm with the estimable @HurstLama here. I haven't done the numbers since Jenny and I looked at them in early 2014, but back then the payback time for downsizing was around 18 years. Wales had a revaluation for council tax in 2005, so its even more regressive than England.
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
I've 200k in the bank and looking for somewhere freehold to buy. All suggestions welcome.
Well, here's Hereford on Rightmove. Probably do much better oop North.
Comments
The value of the cup is not really to the child but to that child's children and grand-children in may be eighty to a hundred years time and then on into the future after that.
Do make sure it is suitably inscribed, though.
Makes the 47% Leave figure in Newham all the more surprising. Where did the votes come from?
In short, avoiding all the opportunities parliamentary procedures give for dragging the process out and wasting government time and resources.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/george-osbornes-gone-thank-god-whys-mark-carney-still-around/
http://www.open-britain.co.uk/
"Three of our leading cross-party political supporters, Anna Soubry, Pat McFadden and Norman Lamb, have written this piece in the Sunday Times about why Britain is at its best when it is open. The full article is reprinted below."
Both methods would, one would think, be quite flawed.
(Just 52 minutes to landing! This may be my last post... until I get to my hotel room.)
blockquote class="Quote" rel="david_herdson">
If there is no debate and vote then crown perogative will always look illegitimate to many MPs, who are rather jealous of their powers, and will feel justified in later objections.
Personally I think "Brexit means Brexit" means "Brexit means Hard Brexit" and that is what should be planned for. It is the default position for when the clock stops. It also means that we cannot be blackmailed by the other side when a poor deal is the only one on the table with a month to go. It is also the only way to satisfy the immigration and budget contribution questions.
Open Britain, which will be launching this week, will be a cross-party grassroots campaign for Britain to have the best possible relationship with Europe in the future now that the country has voted to leave
Moving on from losing the war to attempting to win the peace is a step in the right direction for them.
Better to downsize, and be somewhere the kids and grandkids want to visit within a couple of hours drive. Pick a place with a decent healthcare, and outside of commuter range. Norfolk or Dorset for example.
If it sounds like a conspiracy by the elite against the ordinary people, that’s exactly what it is. Policies like money-printing (quantitative easing), ultra-low (or even negative) interest rates and the mooted and inevitable ‘helicopter money’, are designed to keep asset prices (housing, shares, etc) high and government borrowing cheap. Which is great news if you’re wealthy already or you’re a chancellor with a reputation for austerity who needs discreetly to conjure up more cash with which to bribe the electorate. But apart from creating bubbles, profligacy and cronyism, it also leads to the kind of spectacular, disgusting inequality which may, ironically, have contributed to the popular revolt of the Brexit vote.
Anyone would think they've had several horrific attacks in the past year.
Seriously, though, why are they bothering to talk/worry about the border with Britain? Were not most of the attacks from French citizens? And if the infiltration of extremists from outside is a worry, then why not police the borders preventing illegals entrance to France anyway? And, radical plan I know, enforce the protocol which states asylum must be sought in the first safe country....
At a minimum has to disclose her negotiating position. Worst case parliament amends the notion to tie her hands.
Vote later once the deal is done. Always useful to get people to dip their hands in blood. Especially few months before a General Election
And all of sudden she's inadvertently making him an icon of anti-establishment politics - and spouting OTT half quotes. Rattled doesn't come close.
This is a really weird election and isn't getting more sensible with only 3 months to go.
People with psychopathy, mental disorders, petty criminality, and addiction issues are particularly drawn to an Islamist philosophy that justifies and celebrates violent attention seeking behaviour.
It is no coincidence that the Ridley killers, shoe bomber, Paris murderers come from this sort of background of social inadequates. There are some, but fewer, who come from a background of lifelong Islamic piety, but generally the profile of the Islamic terrorist is of someone who was from a Muslim background who becomes exposed to Islamism in prison or backstreets and develops the fervour of a fanatical convert.
The government could then three line whip against any amendments of any kind to that.
Oh yeah, and it would be good to make the Labour Party squirm.
Assuming that remains the case, I would expect his successor to be named in the second half of next year, and possibly earlier if Carney is in any way anxious to hand over the reins earlier as a result of Brexit, etc, with which he profoundly disagrees
We aren't seeing upset hipsters or Christians or lesbians or miners or BHS checkout staff or anyone effing else.
I remember WHOLE YEARS when we didn't hear about Muslims moaning about something.
Especially when you find the local police force, run by a labour police committee for as long as anyone can remember, has similar class resentments and wont intervene until you have an altercation with said scallies - at which point they will be on you for assault like a ton of bricks.
All of which can be a problem in goodly parts of t' north with the bits that don't have the problem often as expensive to buy in as the south if not more expensive.
So they voted Brexit too.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/thank-you-poland-for-lending-us-your-young-a-migration-that-really-works-pdlchvnpt
Andrew Marr
"The audit will be led by a new dedicated Whitehall unit situated in the Cabinet Office, reporting jointly to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Ben Gummer. The first data is expected to be published before the summer 2017 "
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-orders-government-audit-to-tackle-racial-disparities-in-public-service-outcomes
There is also the question of how much smaller can we go? I will still require a study, we will still want a separate dining room, we will need two spare bedrooms for when we have guests (no good not having somewhere for when the boy and, eventually, the grandchildren want to visit). We have a house full of furniture (many pieces are family heirlooms), of books, of pictures and then there is the content of the attics. What are we to do with all those if we downsize?
The idea of downsizing, at least before my son has his own household, really doesn't work for us and, I might say, a lot of our friends have come to the same conclusion. We are still talking about it but I don't think we'll ever do it.
And as for you benefiting from a cut in mortgage payments, you should give the difference to a charity (like, Islingtonians for Europe) to appease Mr Meeks!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3759895/Wish-10-places-people-want-live-UK-revealed-Tendring-Essex-number-one.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK#ixzz4Ic0BCIYw
"Despite consumers increasingly moving to other payment methods, the value of Bank of England notes in circulation continues to grow, and has trebled over the past two decades .... This growth, which has been concentrated in the two highest denominations — £20 and £50 notes — has outpaced growth in aggregate spending ... "
There has been an astonishing rise (over 400% in 12 years) in notes in circulation in Europe, but a decline in Sweden. Hoarding, the shadow economy, i.e. "non-transactional growth in demand for cash", seem to be important.
The current presidential polling and the Brexit polling ate completely dissimilar.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/28/notting-hill-carnival-revellers-complain-of-bureaucracy
Suppose though that we did free up capital by accepting a reduction in our lifestyle, what on earth would we do with it? I cannot think of a more profitable investment for people like us and the sums involved than property in mid-Sussex and that is where the capital already is.
Moving Tax (aka Stamp Duty) is a pernicious tax.
It should 0% for people's main home. The idea that people are taxed thousands of pounds, just for wanting to move home, is frankly disgusting.
It impairs freedom of movement, it prevents downsizing (which would benefit society), and makes it harder for people to take jobs further away (or they commute further and clog up the roads).
Beaten to it.
A very lucky young man was in that car.
It would appear that polling in 2015 and 2016 has an inherent left-of centre bias of about 3 or 4% (Unless they have changed methodology).
They pay the same rate as everyone else.
AP
BREAKING: Germany's economy minister says free trade talks between the European Union and the United States have failed.
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/769584259745144832
https://twitter.com/GHealy1980/status/769593179003883521
Given that the returns on capital are quite poor (my portfolio has made 6.8% in 18 months), I might as well squat in this house for the forseeable.
You would need a heart of stone not to laugh. Imagine if we had voted remain then this happened....
Would have said Dorset until a few years ago - but prices here are bonkers now.
46% Leave in neighbouring Redbridge (where I'm posting from), despite being less ethnic minority dominated than Newham
Not really, because you don't pay the duty for not moving.
Downsize into a £450,000 property? That'll be £12,500.00 tax for moving. Plus other assorted moving costs.
Why do it?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/769877706586619904
Fear of future litigation meaning indemnities all round. Not helped by a court case in circa 2000 ending the six year limitation on councils having power to enforce building regulation issues and the Blair government massively increasing the scope of the building regs to include things like rewiring central heating and window glass meaning a huge paperchase is needed to find all the evidence of compliance - or yet more indemnity fees.
Means the whole thing is best avoided wherever possible.
Property prices are absurd and our late, and unlamented, Chancellor's attitude to stamp duty was absolutely barking.
http://bit.ly/2bJhVdn