As many here commented, Carney's a daft sod. The cut did nothing except harm savers and play into the 'we're in a mess so something must be done' narrative.
Edited extra bit: perhaps a shade over the top initially. Changed to 'daft sod'.
Hammond should call him into his office and tell him his services are no longer required.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
It might simply be a question of asserting identity. A bit like how beards and tattoos are now flavour of the month. People want to be different, and noticed, not to 'blend in' as such.
But it could also be a sign of increasing religiousity.
Small numbers integrate. Larger numbers naturally form enclaves and stick with whatever culture they had from before they arrived.
The total infatuation Blair et al. had with multi-culturalism, and seeming contempt for British (and English) culture meant there was far less effort to promote integration when the floodgates were first opened.
Mr. Doethur, I'm sorry to have disappointed you when it comes to cock.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
I don't think Muslim communities are integrated, certainly not widely-spread. I sometimes never see a non-white face for weeks (one Kurdish family excepted), unless I leave the Welsh borderlands and visit somewhere like B'ham, although they're more numerous than 20 years ago.
Private Eye mentions the worrying rise of extreme Hinduism in India. 'Harming' a cow can now get you put to death. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or it's just more publicised than 40 years ago. OTOH in 1976 the worst religious extremism I remember was Mary Whitehouse attacking the allegedly 'un-Christian' liberal values.
Do we need accelerated/forced integration, via a rule that schools must have a mixed intake and may not be 90% Muslim?
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
It might simply be a question of asserting identity. A bit like how beards and tattoos are now flavour of the month. People want to be different, and noticed, not to 'blend in' as such.
But it could also be a sign of increasing religiousity.
It's probably a bit of both.
It's a step backwards whichever is true.
I agree.
But, to play devil's advocate, why should they integrate?
Westerners will barely defend their own values, and vision for society, and are hesitant to apply it consistently to cultures that may differ from their own. And very rarely do they do so robustly. Instead, there are constant apologies and concessions.
On the other hand, you have a strong, confident and forthright religious identity that offers certainty in its values, however different they may be from ours.
If we want people to integrate with us we must at first have respect for ourselves.
Small numbers integrate. Larger numbers naturally form enclaves and stick with whatever culture they had from before they arrived.
The total infatuation Blair et al. had with multi-culturalism, and seeming contempt for British (and English) culture meant there was far less effort to promote integration when the floodgates were first opened.
Mr. Doethur, I'm sorry to have disappointed you when it comes to cock.
"The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people."
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
It might simply be a question of asserting identity. A bit like how beards and tattoos are now flavour of the month. People want to be different, and noticed, not to 'blend in' as such.
But it could also be a sign of increasing religiousity.
It's probably a bit of both.
It's a step backwards whichever is true.
I'm kind of with SeanT on this. Headscarves, including those that wrap right under the chin like a wimple, are fine. It's the burqa that hides the face that is creepy and isolating. I'm certainly against banning burkinis for swimming but I do agree with banning the burqa. As do most Brits by more than a 2:1 margin: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/majority-public-backs-burka-ban/
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
I don't think Muslim communities are integrated, certainly not widely-spread. I sometimes never see a non-white face for weeks (one Kurdish family excepted), unless I leave the Welsh borderlands and visit somewhere like B'ham, although they're more numerous than 20 years ago.
Private Eye mentions the worrying rise of extreme Hinduism in India. 'Harming' a cow can now get you put to death. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or it's just more publicised than 40 years ago. OTOH in 1976 the worst religious extremism I remember was Mary Whitehouse attacking the allegedly 'un-Christian' liberal values.
Do we need accelerated/forced integration, via a rule that schools must have a mixed intake and may not be 90% Muslim?
How do you force people to go to a school they don't want to go to.... - That is the only way you would fix that issue...
Edited extra bit: it's also a pretty significant step to throw a governor overboard.
Better to just decide to not renew his contract. Raghuram Rajan of the RBI is available, he did a good job in India and resisted huge political pressure to stop inflation targeting. We could do with that here.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
I don't think Muslim communities are integrated, certainly not widely-spread. I sometimes never see a non-white face for weeks (one Kurdish family excepted), unless I leave the Welsh borderlands and visit somewhere like B'ham, although they're more numerous than 20 years ago.
Private Eye mentions the worrying rise of extreme Hinduism in India. 'Harming' a cow can now get you put to death. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or it's just more publicised than 40 years ago. OTOH in 1976 the worst religious extremism I remember was Mary Whitehouse attacking the allegedly 'un-Christian' liberal values.
Do we need accelerated/forced integration, via a rule that schools must have a mixed intake and may not be 90% Muslim?
How do you force people to go to a school they don't want to go to.... - That is the only way you would fix that issue...
This is the law, if your child doesn't attend this school you will face jail/unlimited fines. If you don't want that you are free to leave the county and hand in your citizenship at the border.
Mr. Max, but the Bank of England's prime objective these days is, allegedly, to focus on inflation. Unless you're referring to the general principle of resisting political pressure [which may be seen as a negative if one's a politician].
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
I don't think Muslim communities are integrated, certainly not widely-spread. I sometimes never see a non-white face for weeks (one Kurdish family excepted), unless I leave the Welsh borderlands and visit somewhere like B'ham, although they're more numerous than 20 years ago.
Private Eye mentions the worrying rise of extreme Hinduism in India. 'Harming' a cow can now get you put to death. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or it's just more publicised than 40 years ago. OTOH in 1976 the worst religious extremism I remember was Mary Whitehouse attacking the allegedly 'un-Christian' liberal values.
Do we need accelerated/forced integration, via a rule that schools must have a mixed intake and may not be 90% Muslim?
How do you force people to go to a school they don't want to go to.... - That is the only way you would fix that issue...
This is the law, if your child doesn't attend this school you will face jail/unlimited fines. If you don't want that you are free to leave the county and hand in your citizenship at the border.
Wouldn't that just push people to private muslim schools though?
Edited extra bit: it's also a pretty significant step to throw a governor overboard.
Better to just decide to not renew his contract. Raghuram Rajan of the RBI is available, he did a good job in India and resisted huge political pressure to stop inflation targeting. We could do with that here.
He will decide not to renew himself, I think. Then we need a governor who will work with the new grain of policy, not against it.
A few other changes at the MPC may also be appropriate.
"Improved sales volumes to markets such as the USA, Europe, China, South-East Asia, the MiddleEast and Norway led to a further increase in new export business during August. Moreover, the rate of growth accelerated to a 26-month high. The depreciation of the sterling currency was by far the main factor manufacturers cited as supporting the upswing in new export work."
Of course if you read the comments on here you will learn that depreciation never boosts exports.
Well just a note of caution, input prices are rising quite rapidly as well, so this is a sugar rush rather than a long term gain, unless we are able to onshore a lot of semi-manufactured goods production.
I'm a bit giddy on those numbers, though I imagine construction will be sobering as will services. In terms of inflation, most OECD countries would give their left nut to get some.
The underlying harm is going to be in the business investment figures I reckon. No one who really cares about SM membership will be advancing new UK investment.
I feel sorry for JK Rowling. She clearly is a Political Betting reader who has been greatly re-assured by the regular contributions from posts and threads (and even betting advice!) that Corbyn was going down to defeat.
Who knows it is even possible that she may have put some of her hard earned on the outcome. Now these hopes appear to have been dashed and she is clearly very upset and thinks it not at all funny.
I have only two thoughts. Why does she spend so much time answering ridiculous trolls on the net when she could be writing more books? Secondly does not the "Corbyn is going down in flames" stories on this site from Mike and others indicate the folly of betting when you have a clearly prejudiced view of the outcome?
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
I don't think Muslim communities are integrated, certainly not widely-spread. I sometimes never see a non-white face for weeks (one Kurdish family excepted), unless I leave the Welsh borderlands and visit somewhere like B'ham, although they're more numerous than 20 years ago.
Private Eye mentions the worrying rise of extreme Hinduism in India. 'Harming' a cow can now get you put to death. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or it's just more publicised than 40 years ago. OTOH in 1976 the worst religious extremism I remember was Mary Whitehouse attacking the allegedly 'un-Christian' liberal values.
Do we need accelerated/forced integration, via a rule that schools must have a mixed intake and may not be 90% Muslim?
How do you force people to go to a school they don't want to go to.... - That is the only way you would fix that issue...
This is the law, if your child doesn't attend this school you will face jail/unlimited fines. If you don't want that you are free to leave the county and hand in your citizenship at the border.
Wouldn't that just push people to private muslim schools though?
I'm sure those could be regulated out of existence if necessary.
Wouldn't that just push people to private muslim schools though?
Don't allow them to exist. It's our way or no way. Double standards or whatever, no other religion in the UK has had such huge problems with, err, mental illness.
Small numbers integrate. Larger numbers naturally form enclaves and stick with whatever culture they had from before they arrived.
The total infatuation Blair et al. had with multi-culturalism, and seeming contempt for British (and English) culture meant there was far less effort to promote integration when the floodgates were first opened.
Mr. Doethur, I'm sorry to have disappointed you when it comes to cock.
Correct.
The number of people on the Left who seem to desire what would amount to open door immigration never ceases to astound me. The only solution proposed seems to be to build as many homes, schools and hospitals as are needed, and "English" culture to be one of many all of whom would have equal status.
If we followed that policy we could have 80-100 million people living in the UK before 2050 (perhaps well before) but many living totally separate lives to one another, that barely mixed except in the workplace, and to very different values, and possibly laws. Public service and employment challenges would be solved by targets and quotas.
Call me picky, but that's not a future I fancy for my children and grandchildren.
I'm a bit confused about the new BBC iPlayer license fee law. If someone of no fixed address watches iPlayer on their phone, what happens? The whole system is based on the rather outdated concept of someone watching a television at a particular address where they live permanently.
I'm a bit confused about the new BBC iPlayer license fee law. If someone of no fixed address watches iPlayer on their phone, what happens? The whole system is based on the rather outdated concept of someone watching a television at a particular address where they live permanently.
That's a bit of a niche case. I'm sure the BBC would be happy to let that one slide.
But if you watch iPlayer on your phone, out and about, you need to have a license fee at home. I mean, it's unenforcable, but that's what the rules say man.
"Improved sales volumes to markets such as the USA, Europe, China, South-East Asia, the MiddleEast and Norway led to a further increase in new export business during August. Moreover, the rate of growth accelerated to a 26-month high. The depreciation of the sterling currency was by far the main factor manufacturers cited as supporting the upswing in new export work."
Of course if you read the comments on here you will learn that depreciation never boosts exports.
Well just a note of caution, input prices are rising quite rapidly as well, so this is a sugar rush rather than a long term gain, unless we are able to onshore a lot of semi-manufactured goods production.
I'm a bit giddy on those numbers, though I imagine construction will be sobering as will services. In terms of inflation, most OECD countries would give their left nut to get some.
The underlying harm is going to be in the business investment figures I reckon. No one who really cares about SM membership will be advancing new UK investment.
I honestly don't think that will be the case. If the UK government signals they are willing to get free goods trade then manufacturing investment will just continue as normal, we must also remember that only 40% of exported UK goods go to the EU, which leaves a huge domestic market and 60% of exports which won't be affected by European trade too much.
On services and construction, the former should bounce back a fair bit, the latter may not. Services will be the same as manufacturing, it will get a decent sugar rush from overseas buyers, except without the input price inflation. Construction is a tough one and will depend on the longer term future of the UK economy. It is clear that in the near term nothing has really changed, but over the long term when new starts will be looking to complete developers need to know that their projects will still fetch a good price. Until we get a good idea of what kind of economy we will have 5-7 years from now construction is going to be down.
I'm a bit confused about the new BBC iPlayer license fee law. If someone of no fixed address watches iPlayer on their phone, what happens? The whole system is based on the rather outdated concept of someone watching a television at a particular address where they live permanently.
That's a bit of a niche case. I'm sure the BBC would be happy to let that one slide.
But if you watch iPlayer on your phone, out and about, you need to have a license fee at home. I mean, it's unenforcable, but that's what the rules say man.
It isn't niche for people to watch on their phones outside their place of residence, so how do they prove that they live in a household that has paid the licence fee? Does everyone have to carry around proof of where they live?
Integration is a meaningless word, as it means different thing to different people.
One test: would you estrange (or worse) your son/daughter or son/daughter-in-law if he/she married someone from a different racial or religious background?
Interesting the stellar PMI numbers are third on the BBC business website, I remember it being headline news when the figures were bad.
"Inflation is raising its ugly head, however. Rates of increase in input prices and output charges both hit five-year highs, which manufacturers placed squarely at the door of the cost impact of sterling on import prices." They had to get that into the last paragraph.
I'm a bit giddy on those numbers, though I imagine construction will be sobering as will services. In terms of inflation, most OECD countries would give their left nut to get some.
The underlying harm is going to be in the business investment figures I reckon. No one who really cares about SM membership will be advancing new UK investment.
I honestly don't think that will be the case. If the UK government signals they are willing to get free goods trade then manufacturing investment will just continue as normal, we must also remember that only 40% of exported UK goods go to the EU, which leaves a huge domestic market and 60% of exports which won't be affected by European trade too much.
On services and construction, the former should bounce back a fair bit, the latter may not. Services will be the same as manufacturing, it will get a decent sugar rush from overseas buyers, except without the input price inflation. Construction is a tough one and will depend on the longer term future of the UK economy. It is clear that in the near term nothing has really changed, but over the long term when new starts will be looking to complete developers need to know that their projects will still fetch a good price. Until we get a good idea of what kind of economy we will have 5-7 years from now construction is going to be down.
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Integration is a meaningless word, as it means different thing to different people.
One test: would you estrange (or worse) your son/daughter or son/daughter-in-law if he/she married someone from a different racial or religious background?
Oh we've moved on from the cricket test.
No I wouldn't but that is your test, every other person has a different test. That's my point.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
In that case why do more Muslim women in Britain wear headscarfs today than they did 40 years ago?
I don't think Muslim communities are integrated, certainly not widely-spread. I sometimes never see a non-white face for weeks (one Kurdish family excepted), unless I leave the Welsh borderlands and visit somewhere like B'ham, although they're more numerous than 20 years ago.
Private Eye mentions the worrying rise of extreme Hinduism in India. 'Harming' a cow can now get you put to death. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or it's just more publicised than 40 years ago. OTOH in 1976 the worst religious extremism I remember was Mary Whitehouse attacking the allegedly 'un-Christian' liberal values.
Do we need accelerated/forced integration, via a rule that schools must have a mixed intake and may not be 90% Muslim?
How do you force people to go to a school they don't want to go to.... - That is the only way you would fix that issue...
It is a problem. Fifty years ago in the USA they had segregated schools. It was seen as a very bad thing and action was taken to put an end to it. South African apartheid was seen as evil in and of itself. In the UK we have in some places, it would seem, voluntary apartheid but don't seem to be able to make up our mind if that is a good thing or not.
Integration is a meaningless word, as it means different thing to different people.
One test: would you estrange (or worse) your son/daughter or son/daughter-in-law if he/she married someone from a different racial or religious background?
Oh we've moved on from the cricket test.
No I wouldn't but that is your test, every other person has a different test. That's my point.
Nah. Too easy to go the next step any then say it's too hard to define/agree on a test, and therefore that shows we don't need one and integration isn't a problem.
At its core, it requires people within a nation to share a common social affinity with each other - a sense of "we" - with some basic shared values and no objections to social relationships forming.
Otherwise you end up with a society fragmenting and dividing on ethno-religious lines.
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Well this is one of the reasons I was comfortable with voting leave. The importance of the single market to our overseas trade is massively overstated, as long as we get free goods trade with the EU we should be fine, given that we have such a huge deficit in goods with them the chances of this are high. Free trade in services with the EU has a higher cost than benefit, we must adhere to EU regulations, but there isn't really a single market for services. It damages our ability to export services outside of the EU where companies do not have to adhere to EU regulation and we don't see much of a bonus from being inside the single market because it is incomplete. If we lose free trade in services, or at least only gain tariff free trade rather than ending NTBs for services, it won't be the end of the world. If the EU wants to say that shares listed in Europe can only be traded within the single market then that is up to them, but it is a one way ticket to long term irrelevance for them to close shop.
I'm a bit confused about the new BBC iPlayer license fee law. If someone of no fixed address watches iPlayer on their phone, what happens? The whole system is based on the rather outdated concept of someone watching a television at a particular address where they live permanently.
That's a bit of a niche case. I'm sure the BBC would be happy to let that one slide.
But if you watch iPlayer on your phone, out and about, you need to have a license fee at home. I mean, it's unenforcable, but that's what the rules say man.
It isn't niche for people to watch on their phones outside their place of residence, so how do they prove that they live in a household that has paid the licence fee? Does everyone have to carry around proof of where they live?
The licence is normally linked to each self-contained premise. So if you were using your device in your friend's house you would be covered if he has a licence. You would be covered by your own licence only if you receive the broadcast on a mobile battery driven device.
If broadcast consumption has been detected at your premises without a licence you would have to demonstrate someone else with a licence was at your premises and using a mobile device.
It isn't about catching every last licence dodger, it is about making non-compliance worrying enough that most people pay up. I think I read somewhere non-payment of TV licences is the single most common charge in our court system.
Integration is a meaningless word, as it means different thing to different people.
One test: would you estrange (or worse) your son/daughter or son/daughter-in-law if he/she married someone from a different racial or religious background?
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Well this is one of the reasons I was comfortable with voting leave. The importance of the single market to our overseas trade is massively overstated, as long as we get free goods trade with the EU we should be fine, given that we have such a huge deficit in goods with them the chances of this are high. Free trade in services with the EU has a higher cost than benefit, we must adhere to EU regulations, but there isn't really a single market for services. It damages our ability to export services outside of the EU where companies do not have to adhere to EU regulation and we don't see much of a bonus from being inside the single market because it is incomplete. If we lose free trade in services, or at least only gain tariff free trade rather than ending NTBs for services, it won't be the end of the world. If the EU wants to say that shares listed in Europe can only be traded within the single market then that is up to them, but it is a one way ticket to long term irrelevance for them to close shop.
I suspect it's still a big deal since nothing has been done about it, rather than due to suspicion nothing will be done about it.
It could be both, of course.
Interesting that, of the top six issues, four are traditionally Conservative leading - exlcuding the NHS, which is traditionally Labour, and also Housing, where both parties have ballsed it up for decades.
I think you're being too hard on politicians on the housing question. They can't create land which doesn't exist.
We have abundant land. Politicians need to find the courage to build on a small fraction of the 89% of this country that isn't already built up, to offset the damage which their unrestricted EU immigration policies have caused.
Presumably from someone who doesn't know that the reason we have fields is to grow food - you don't get much from concreted-over land.
Presumably from someone who doesn't know that food can be, and indeed is, imported as well as grown at home. Or from someone who doesn't know that half the food we buy is wasted anyway.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
The problem there is the assumption that immigrant communities become more integrated with time. I would suggest that Bangladeshis coming to UK now can live in a community that is entirely Bangladeshi in terms of food, church, language and dress with no need to adapt to anything but the weather. 50 years ago, a Bangladeshi would have more need to adapt to British ways.
I wonder why unemployment among that group is so high & educational achievement so low?
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Well this is one of the reasons I was comfortable with voting leave. The importance of the single market to our overseas trade is massively overstated, as long as we get free goods trade with the EU we should be fine, given that we have such a huge deficit in goods with them the chances of this are high. Free trade in services with the EU has a higher cost than benefit, we must adhere to EU regulations, but there isn't really a single market for services. It damages our ability to export services outside of the EU where companies do not have to adhere to EU regulation and we don't see much of a bonus from being inside the single market because it is incomplete. If we lose free trade in services, or at least only gain tariff free trade rather than ending NTBs for services, it won't be the end of the world. If the EU wants to say that shares listed in Europe can only be traded within the single market then that is up to them, but it is a one way ticket to long term irrelevance for them to close shop.
You know there are no tariffs on services, right?
That assumes a WTO starting point rather than our current position.
I suspect it's still a big deal since nothing has been done about it, rather than due to suspicion nothing will be done about it.
It could be both, of course.
Interesting that, of the top six issues, four are traditionally Conservative leading - exlcuding the NHS, which is traditionally Labour, and also Housing, where both parties have ballsed it up for decades.
I think you're being too hard on politicians on the housing question. They can't create land which doesn't exist.
We have abundant land. Politicians need to find the courage to build on a small fraction of the 89% of this country that isn't already built up, to offset the damage which their unrestricted EU immigration policies have caused.
Presumably from someone who doesn't know that the reason we have fields is to grow food - you don't get much from concreted-over land.
Presumably from someone who doesn't know that food can be, and indeed is, imported as well as grown at home. Or from someone who doesn't know that half the food we buy is wasted anyway.
No reason to make it worse - after all it removes money from the economy if we have to send it abroad to buy food.
Good manufacturing PMIs. Of course this is manufacturing only, so we need to see what the more important services figure comes out at. If we do see a little inflation from the fall in sterling, that's not a bad thing in current circumstances. Looks like Carney judged it right.
On a separate matter, this initiative by the (very talented) Chris Philp looks very interesting:
The question re iPlayer is why the bbc are totally against using a system like sky? Where you have to put in say your licence number & each is tied to x devices per household?
Integration is a meaningless word, as it means different thing to different people.
One test: would you estrange (or worse) your son/daughter or son/daughter-in-law if he/she married someone from a different racial or religious background?
Oh we've moved on from the cricket test.
No I wouldn't but that is your test, every other person has a different test. That's my point.
Nah. Too easy to go the next step any then say it's too hard to define/agree on a test, and therefore that shows we don't need one and integration isn't a problem.
At its core, it requires people within a nation to share a common social affinity with each other - a sense of "we" - with some basic shared values and no objections to social relationships forming.
Otherwise you end up with a society fragmenting and dividing on ethno-religious lines.
This is hard. On the one hand I am a small government minded person, I believe government really should not be involved in personal lives as much as possible, but it also has a duty to create social cohesion. In my experience I haven't personally seen a problem with family members marrying from "back home" all of the spouse's have adapted quite easily however my family live mainly in north west London where one religion/culture/ethnicity does not dominate maybe its different in the east end.
I really don't see what government can do about one culture creating a sort of enclave without central planning. I would like to see people lose JSA if they go to job interviews not properly dressed, so if they are applying for jobs with face veils they lose their JSA. I truly believe having a job and mixing with people you would never normally come across can open minds. Not always of course but there will always be a problem fringe.
I suspect it's still a big deal since nothing has been done about it, rather than due to suspicion nothing will be done about it.
It could be both, of course.
Interesting that, of the top six issues, four are traditionally Conservative leading - exlcuding the NHS, which is traditionally Labour, and also Housing, where both parties have ballsed it up for decades.
I think you're being too hard on politicians on the housing question. They can't create land which doesn't exist.
We have abundant land. Politicians need to find the courage to build on a small fraction of the 89% of this country that isn't already built up, to offset the damage which their unrestricted EU immigration policies have caused.
Presumably from someone who doesn't know that the reason we have fields is to grow food - you don't get much from concreted-over land.
Presumably from someone who doesn't know that food can be, and indeed is, imported as well as grown at home. Or from someone who doesn't know that half the food we buy is wasted anyway.
Good also to point out that self sufficiency in food and food security are two diametrically opposite things. If we were self-sufficient we would all be at risk of a bad harvest / UK weather etc. By spreading a our food source eggs across multiple baskets we get much improved security of supply. We're the 5th largest economy and a diverse economic powerhouse. We don't remotely need to feed ourselves. We do need to be able to buy food securely. Leaving the EU means leaving the CAP. We will be free to import a much, much wider range of foods at much, much reduced cost. This will be brilliant for the UK consumer but probably quite sucky at first for UK farmers. We need to emulate NZ and copy their 'compete or die' approach - which was a renaissance of NZ farming fortunes.
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Well this is one of the reasons I was comfortable with voting leave. The importance of the single market to our overseas trade is massively overstated, as long as we get free goods trade with the EU we should be fine, given that we have such a huge deficit in goods with them the chances of this are high. Free trade in services with the EU has a higher cost than benefit, we must adhere to EU regulations, but there isn't really a single market for services. It damages our ability to export services outside of the EU where companies do not have to adhere to EU regulation and we don't see much of a bonus from being inside the single market because it is incomplete. If we lose free trade in services, or at least only gain tariff free trade rather than ending NTBs for services, it won't be the end of the world. If the EU wants to say that shares listed in Europe can only be traded within the single market then that is up to them, but it is a one way ticket to long term irrelevance for them to close shop.
You know there are no tariffs on services, right?
That assumes a WTO starting point rather than our current position.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
The problem there is the assumption that immigrant communities become more integrated with time. I would suggest that Bangladeshis coming to UK now can live in a community that is entirely Bangladeshi in terms of food, church, language and dress with no need to adapt to anything but the weather. 50 years ago, a Bangladeshi would have more need to adapt to British ways.
I wonder why unemployment among that group is so high & educational achievement so low?
Its improved hugely. (the grades I mean, the jobs will come).
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Well this is one of the reasons I was comfortable with voting leave. The importance of the single market to our overseas trade is massively overstated, as long as we get free goods trade with the EU we should be fine, given that we have such a huge deficit in goods with them the chances of this are high. Free trade in services with the EU has a higher cost than benefit, we must adhere to EU regulations, but there isn't really a single market for services. It damages our ability to export services outside of the EU where companies do not have to adhere to EU regulation and we don't see much of a bonus from being inside the single market because it is incomplete. If we lose free trade in services, or at least only gain tariff free trade rather than ending NTBs for services, it won't be the end of the world. If the EU wants to say that shares listed in Europe can only be traded within the single market then that is up to them, but it is a one way ticket to long term irrelevance for them to close shop.
Interesting statistics here about the percentage of GDP that goes on exports. In the UK's case there was a boost when it joined the EU but has remained static ever since. Membership of the Euro massively boosted exports for participant countries. It is likely we will see British exports as a percentage of GDP decline on exit from the EU, but not so much as if it were a member of the Euro.
A new recently-launched program by leading online EU broker, EZTrader, called ‘EZ Events’, addresses the need of many traders, who have struggled to make a profit from an event’s outcome, to make the most of its financial impact on the markets.
"EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker faces embarrassment over sweetheart tax deals signed by Luxembourg with Amazon and McDonald's when he was prime minister.
Amazon faces similar claims that it lowered its tax bill by making sales to European customers through an arm of the company in Luxembourg. In 2014, the online retailer’s UK business paid £11.9million in tax on £5.3billion of sales to British shoppers. McDonald’s and Amazon both deny any wrongdoing."
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
The question re iPlayer is why the bbc are totally against using a system like sky? Where you have to put in say your licence number & each is tied to x devices per household?
It could be that they secretly fear a lot of their viewers are extremely casual, in the sense that if they had to make any effort whatsoever — such as having to type in a ID code — they wouldn't bother watching BBC and would watch something else instead.
A new recently-launched program by leading online EU broker, EZTrader, called ‘EZ Events’, addresses the need of many traders, who have struggled to make a profit from an event’s outcome, to make the most of its financial impact on the markets.
The question re iPlayer is why the bbc are totally against using a system like sky? Where you have to put in say your licence number & each is tied to x devices per household?
Cost. And practicality. It would certainly piss people off. A lot.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
The problem there is the assumption that immigrant communities become more integrated with time. I would suggest that Bangladeshis coming to UK now can live in a community that is entirely Bangladeshi in terms of food, church, language and dress with no need to adapt to anything but the weather. 50 years ago, a Bangladeshi would have more need to adapt to British ways.
I wonder why unemployment among that group is so high & educational achievement so low?
Its improved hugely. (the grades I mean, the jobs will come).
Have you got a link to that? The last data I saw that was broken down beyond wide racial groups ie Asian, stated that Chinese & Indian kids where the highest attainers & Somali & bangleshi at the bottom.
The question re iPlayer is why the bbc are totally against using a system like sky? Where you have to put in say your licence number & each is tied to x devices per household?
Cost. And practicality. It would certainly piss people off. A lot.
Or because it would be easy for it to become a subscription option rather than enforced on everybody who wants to watch a TV (whether they want BBC or not).
Small numbers integrate. Larger numbers naturally form enclaves and stick with whatever culture they had from before they arrived.
The total infatuation Blair et al. had with multi-culturalism, and seeming contempt for British (and English) culture meant there was far less effort to promote integration when the floodgates were first opened.
Mr. Doethur, I'm sorry to have disappointed you when it comes to cock.
Correct.
The number of people on the Left who seem to desire what would amount to open door immigration never ceases to astound me. The only solution proposed seems to be to build as many homes, schools and hospitals as are needed, and "English" culture to be one of many all of whom would have equal status.
If we followed that policy we could have 80-100 million people living in the UK before 2050 (perhaps well before) but many living totally separate lives to one another, that barely mixed except in the workplace, and to very different values, and possibly laws. Public service and employment challenges would be solved by targets and quotas.
Call me picky, but that's not a future I fancy for my children and grandchildren.
Some people would consider that to be wonderful future, as they assume that they'll be the ones in charge, playing off one ethnic/religious group against another. Basically, it would be converting the UK into something like the Ottoman Empire, which is not a future I'd welcome.
To my mind, supporting free migration is about as realistic as supporting the abolition of private property.
"EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker faces embarrassment over sweetheart tax deals signed by Luxembourg with Amazon and McDonald's when he was prime minister.
Amazon faces similar claims that it lowered its tax bill by making sales to European customers through an arm of the company in Luxembourg. In 2014, the online retailer’s UK business paid £11.9million in tax on £5.3billion of sales to British shoppers. McDonald’s and Amazon both deny any wrongdoing."
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Past Stock Performance Amazon stock was trading at $1.73 on May 12, 1997, in its market debut.
The question re iPlayer is why the bbc are totally against using a system like sky? Where you have to put in say your licence number & each is tied to x devices per household?
Cost. And practicality. It would certainly piss people off. A lot.
Cost...bugger all...it's off the shelf software. Certainly way less than what they would gain in extra licence fees and whatever they have spent on these mystical enforcement technologies.
As for pissing people off, really...it takes 2 seconds to do it and everybody is used to putting in a code for everything these days. You would only have to do it once for a device and make it say 10 devices i.e plenty to cover one household worth of tv / phones / tablets...
Small numbers integrate. Larger numbers naturally form enclaves and stick with whatever culture they had from before they arrived.
The total infatuation Blair et al. had with multi-culturalism, and seeming contempt for British (and English) culture meant there was far less effort to promote integration when the floodgates were first opened.
Mr. Doethur, I'm sorry to have disappointed you when it comes to cock.
Correct.
The number of people on the Left who seem to desire what would amount to open door immigration never ceases to astound me. The only solution proposed seems to be to build as many homes, schools and hospitals as are needed, and "English" culture to be one of many all of whom would have equal status.
If we followed that policy we could have 80-100 million people living in the UK before 2050 (perhaps well before) but many living totally separate lives to one another, that barely mixed except in the workplace, and to very different values, and possibly laws. Public service and employment challenges would be solved by targets and quotas.
Call me picky, but that's not a future I fancy for my children and grandchildren.
Some people would consider that to be wonderful future, as they assume that they'll be the ones in charge, playing off one ethnic/religious group against another. Basically, it would be converting the UK into something like the Ottoman Empire, which is not a future I'd welcome.
To my mind, supporting free migration is about as realistic as supporting the abolition of private property.
Although a very large proportion of free migrants are perfectly content to settle down and integrate with the rest of the population (both native born and other free migrants regardless of origin).
The issue is those who aren't and they are not representative of all migrants.
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Well this is one of the reasons I was comfortable with voting leave. The importance of the single market to our overseas trade is massively overstated, as long as we get free goods trade with the EU we should be fine, given that we have such a huge deficit in goods with them the chances of this are high. Free trade in services with the EU has a higher cost than benefit, we must adhere to EU regulations, but there isn't really a single market for services. It damages our ability to export services outside of the EU where companies do not have to adhere to EU regulation and we don't see much of a bonus from being inside the single market because it is incomplete. If we lose free trade in services, or at least only gain tariff free trade rather than ending NTBs for services, it won't be the end of the world. If the EU wants to say that shares listed in Europe can only be traded within the single market then that is up to them, but it is a one way ticket to long term irrelevance for them to close shop.
You know there are no tariffs on services, right?
The barriers to trade in services are regulatory rather than financial. The much maligned ECJ generally aims to knock out such non-tariff barriers when they get to rule on them. We are in as a good position as anyone to trade in services with the EU right now, with the minimum number of non-tariff barriers, but we won't be on exit.
"EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker faces embarrassment over sweetheart tax deals signed by Luxembourg with Amazon and McDonald's when he was prime minister.
Amazon faces similar claims that it lowered its tax bill by making sales to European customers through an arm of the company in Luxembourg. In 2014, the online retailer’s UK business paid £11.9million in tax on £5.3billion of sales to British shoppers. McDonald’s and Amazon both deny any wrongdoing."
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
"EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker faces embarrassment over sweetheart tax deals signed by Luxembourg with Amazon and McDonald's when he was prime minister.
Amazon faces similar claims that it lowered its tax bill by making sales to European customers through an arm of the company in Luxembourg. In 2014, the online retailer’s UK business paid £11.9million in tax on £5.3billion of sales to British shoppers. McDonald’s and Amazon both deny any wrongdoing."
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Any shareholder who sells shares and realises a profit is subject to whatever form of Capital Gains Taxes is relevant in that jurisdiction. Shares aren't taxed if they're held onto because the gain is only on paper until it is actually sold and the gain is realised (and could quite possibly plummet back down towards zero in the future if not sold at a profit).
Kevin Hague, scourge of innumerate Nats, elegant demolition of Prof Haslett's letter to the FT (the one where he didn't under the difference between revenue and profit - and he's one of the Nats' "experts"!
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
And replace it with what? Amazon are accumulating wealth at a rate possibly only Apple can match. How do we ensure that those gaining from that wealth accumulation pay their share of the society that generates the profit? When the shareholdings of these companies are so international very little of the wealth gained in the UK would be taxed here.
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
And replace it with what? Amazon are accumulating wealth at a rate possibly only Apple can match. How do we ensure that those gaining from that wealth accumulation pay their share of the society that generates the profit? When the shareholdings of these companies are so international very little of the wealth gained in the UK would be taxed here.
"EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker faces embarrassment over sweetheart tax deals signed by Luxembourg with Amazon and McDonald's when he was prime minister.
Amazon faces similar claims that it lowered its tax bill by making sales to European customers through an arm of the company in Luxembourg. In 2014, the online retailer’s UK business paid £11.9million in tax on £5.3billion of sales to British shoppers. McDonald’s and Amazon both deny any wrongdoing."
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
How would you replace the £35 - £40 Bn of revenue ?
The question re iPlayer is why the bbc are totally against using a system like sky? Where you have to put in say your licence number & each is tied to x devices per household?
Cost. And practicality. It would certainly piss people off. A lot.
Or because it would be easy for it to become a subscription option rather than enforced on everybody who wants to watch a TV (whether they want BBC or not).
I think this is closer to the truth of the outdated mentality of the BBC, but the weird thing is...Want to watch 4Catchup...guess what you have to sign up. Nobody really thinks that because of that the chances of Channel4 becoming a subscription service are any higher.
"EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker faces embarrassment over sweetheart tax deals signed by Luxembourg with Amazon and McDonald's when he was prime minister.
Amazon faces similar claims that it lowered its tax bill by making sales to European customers through an arm of the company in Luxembourg. In 2014, the online retailer’s UK business paid £11.9million in tax on £5.3billion of sales to British shoppers. McDonald’s and Amazon both deny any wrongdoing."
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Past Stock Performance Amazon stock was trading at $1.73 on May 12, 1997, in its market debut.
What a missed opportunity !
Very true but I'm not bitter (much). I just resent the fact that they have put a lot of companies and above all book shops out of business by utilising a completely unfair playing field.
How many of the Labour supporters are still sticking by the party in the hope that it might yet come to its senses, a notion that they are very likely to be disabused of within the next month?
Mr. L, if I had a nearby bookshop I'd use that as much as possible. There's one within walking distance, with a terrible selection. So, going bricks and mortar means spend* probably an hour to an hour and a half plus over a fiver.
Hard for high street stores to compete, sadly. [Wasn't helped by Borders going under due to the financial crisis].
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
And replace it with what? Amazon are accumulating wealth at a rate possibly only Apple can match. How do we ensure that those gaining from that wealth accumulation pay their share of the society that generates the profit? When the shareholdings of these companies are so international very little of the wealth gained in the UK would be taxed here.
Maybe a revenue tax of some kind?
Like VAT, which we already have?
Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Students buy tv licences these days....crickey times have changed.
"EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker faces embarrassment over sweetheart tax deals signed by Luxembourg with Amazon and McDonald's when he was prime minister.
Amazon faces similar claims that it lowered its tax bill by making sales to European customers through an arm of the company in Luxembourg. In 2014, the online retailer’s UK business paid £11.9million in tax on £5.3billion of sales to British shoppers. McDonald’s and Amazon both deny any wrongdoing."
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
How would you replace the £35 - £40 Bn of revenue ?
There wouldn't be a £35- £40bn black hole to replace as investment would flood into the UK to take advantage of the tax laws boosting employment (and associated taxes), expenditure (and associated taxes), shares (and associated taxes) etc.
Ballpark estimate I'd guess the black hole would be about half of the headline figure, which is a small fraction of our deficit.
Mr. L, if I had a nearby bookshop I'd use that as much as possible. There's one within walking distance, with a terrible selection. So, going bricks and mortar means spend* probably an hour to an hour and a half plus over a fiver.
Hard for high street stores to compete, sadly. [Wasn't helped by Borders going under due to the financial crisis].
Edited extra bit: *spending.
I try very hard to buy my books from real bookshops and only buy online stuff that is not readily accessible there. I love bookshops and a couple of extra quid on a book seems an eminently reasonable way of making sure they stay around.
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Well this is one of the reasons I was comfortable with voting leave. The importance of the single market to our overseas trade is massively overstated, as long as we get free goods trade with the EU we should be fine, given that we have such a huge deficit in goods with them the chances of this are high. Free trade in services with the EU has a higher cost than benefit, we must adhere to EU regulations, but there isn't really a single market for services. It damages our ability to export services outside of the EU where companies do not have to adhere to EU regulation and we don't see much of a bonus from being inside the single market because it is incomplete. If we lose free trade in services, or at least only gain tariff free trade rather than ending NTBs for services, it won't be the end of the world. If the EU wants to say that shares listed in Europe can only be traded within the single market then that is up to them, but it is a one way ticket to long term irrelevance for them to close shop.
You know there are no tariffs on services, right?
It's all very easy to get round anyway. We will just open an office in the EU and do our EU business from there. The hassle of leaving the single market is not so much the direct missed business opportunity, but the increased bureaucracy it will involve from tax through to customs, with loads more in between. If you are still in the EU, of course, that's not a problem. The only challenge will be to repatriate the profits effectively. What it will mean, though, is less recruitment in the UK and more outside. But that's business, I guess.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Students buy tv licences these days....crickey times have changed.
Well my kids do! Seriously, I think they are much more inclined to do so now because the BBC are much more aggressive in chasing them. It would be a bloody stupid thing to get a criminal record for.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Students buy tv licences these days....crickey times have changed.
Well my kids do! Seriously, I think they are much more inclined to do so now because the BBC are much more aggressive in chasing them. It would be a bloody stupid thing to get a criminal record for.
I wouldn't bother if I was living in my house by myself, but my other half works from home (nights) so it'd be unfair on her should the license people come knocking when she's sleeping in the day.
Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should.
Incorrect VAT is quite literally paid by companies, I have just calculated our VAT return and will be sending a sum over to HMRC within the next week. Companies theoretically pass on the cost to the end user, as they do in any tax and would with your proposed one too.
However given that we at this side of the Atlantic quote prices inclusive of VAT (unlike in America/Canada were sales taxes are added on to the quoted price) and given the tendency to require round prices, the notion its passed on the end user is even then not accurate. In the last few years we have had VAT rates of 17.5%, 15%, 17.5% again and 20% yet regardless of what VAT rate was, end-user prices were almost universally and swiftly rounded by businesses as is standard.
All of any company's profit goes ultimately to its providers of capital: Shareholders and debt holders. We could simplify CT enormously by abolishing it and replacing with a regime which taxed instead the cash flows from a company to its providers of capital. This would also have the advantage of making the Apples and Starbucks of the world unable to avoid tax - if they ever wanted to pay a dividend or a loan repayment.
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
And replace it with what? Amazon are accumulating wealth at a rate possibly only Apple can match. How do we ensure that those gaining from that wealth accumulation pay their share of the society that generates the profit? When the shareholdings of these companies are so international very little of the wealth gained in the UK would be taxed here.
Maybe a revenue tax of some kind?
Like VAT, which we already have?
Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should.
Yes, I spent part of my time being an unpaid arm of HRMC. We do the accounting on their behalf.
DavidL "Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should. "
All business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. They are an expense that a company needs to cover if it wants to make an adequate return.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
The problem there is the assumption that immigrant communities become more integrated with time. I would suggest that Bangladeshis coming to UK now can live in a community that is entirely Bangladeshi in terms of food, church, language and dress with no need to adapt to anything but the weather. 50 years ago, a Bangladeshi would have more need to adapt to British ways.
I wonder why unemployment among that group is so high & educational achievement so low?
Its improved hugely. (the grades I mean, the jobs will come).
Have you got a link to that? The last data I saw that was broken down beyond wide racial groups ie Asian, stated that Chinese & Indian kids where the highest attainers & Somali & bangleshi at the bottom.
Yes Indian and Chinese perform the best, but Bangladeshi students have gone from below the avreave in 2004 to above white Britons in 2013, so a big improvement and not at the bottom of the table.
Comments
Small numbers integrate. Larger numbers naturally form enclaves and stick with whatever culture they had from before they arrived.
The total infatuation Blair et al. had with multi-culturalism, and seeming contempt for British (and English) culture meant there was far less effort to promote integration when the floodgates were first opened.
Mr. Doethur, I'm sorry to have disappointed you when it comes to cock.
Private Eye mentions the worrying rise of extreme Hinduism in India. 'Harming' a cow can now get you put to death. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or it's just more publicised than 40 years ago. OTOH in 1976 the worst religious extremism I remember was Mary Whitehouse attacking the allegedly 'un-Christian' liberal values.
Do we need accelerated/forced integration, via a rule that schools must have a mixed intake and may not be 90% Muslim?
Edited extra bit: it's also a pretty significant step to throw a governor overboard.
But, to play devil's advocate, why should they integrate?
Westerners will barely defend their own values, and vision for society, and are hesitant to apply it consistently to cultures that may differ from their own. And very rarely do they do so robustly. Instead, there are constant apologies and concessions.
On the other hand, you have a strong, confident and forthright religious identity that offers certainty in its values, however different they may be from ours.
If we want people to integrate with us we must at first have respect for ourselves.
George Washington to John Adams, 1794
This, from @timesredbox this morning, is a joke, yes? #CorbynOut https://t.co/ocitEiRP67
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/majority-public-backs-burka-ban/
A few other changes at the MPC may also be appropriate.
The underlying harm is going to be in the business investment figures I reckon. No one who really cares about SM membership will be advancing new UK investment.
Who knows it is even possible that she may have put some of her hard earned on the outcome. Now these hopes appear to have been dashed and she is clearly very upset and thinks it not at all funny.
I have only two thoughts. Why does she spend so much time answering ridiculous trolls on the net when she could be writing more books? Secondly does not the "Corbyn is going down in flames" stories on this site from Mike and others indicate the folly of betting when you have a clearly prejudiced view of the outcome?
The number of people on the Left who seem to desire what would amount to open door immigration never ceases to astound me. The only solution proposed seems to be to build as many homes, schools and hospitals as are needed, and "English" culture to be one of many all of whom would have equal status.
If we followed that policy we could have 80-100 million people living in the UK before 2050 (perhaps well before) but many living totally separate lives to one another, that barely mixed except in the workplace, and to very different values, and possibly laws. Public service and employment challenges would be solved by targets and quotas.
Call me picky, but that's not a future I fancy for my children and grandchildren.
I'm a bit confused about the new BBC iPlayer license fee law. If someone of no fixed address watches iPlayer on their phone, what happens? The whole system is based on the rather outdated concept of someone watching a television at a particular address where they live permanently.
I mean, he's a busted flush at this point. An Osbornian loose end, stinking out the MPC, about as wanted as a spare dick in a brothel.
But if you watch iPlayer on your phone, out and about, you need to have a license fee at home. I mean, it's unenforcable, but that's what the rules say man.
On services and construction, the former should bounce back a fair bit, the latter may not. Services will be the same as manufacturing, it will get a decent sugar rush from overseas buyers, except without the input price inflation. Construction is a tough one and will depend on the longer term future of the UK economy. It is clear that in the near term nothing has really changed, but over the long term when new starts will be looking to complete developers need to know that their projects will still fetch a good price. Until we get a good idea of what kind of economy we will have 5-7 years from now construction is going to be down.
"Inflation is raising its ugly head, however. Rates of increase in input prices and output charges both hit five-year highs, which manufacturers placed squarely at the door of the cost impact of sterling on import prices." They had to get that into the last paragraph.
Samuel Tombs @samueltombs
Manuf. PMI signals swift return to growth in Aug. But sector only 10% of GDP & others will benefit less from ↓£
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
No I wouldn't but that is your test, every other person has a different test. That's my point.
At its core, it requires people within a nation to share a common social affinity with each other - a sense of "we" - with some basic shared values and no objections to social relationships forming.
Otherwise you end up with a society fragmenting and dividing on ethno-religious lines.
If broadcast consumption has been detected at your premises without a licence you would have to demonstrate someone else with a licence was at your premises and using a mobile device.
It isn't about catching every last licence dodger, it is about making non-compliance worrying enough that most people pay up. I think I read somewhere non-payment of TV licences is the single most common charge in our court system.
(Joke, btw)
On a separate matter, this initiative by the (very talented) Chris Philp looks very interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/01/fund-manager-backs-mps-plan-to-rein-in-executive-pay
I really don't see what government can do about one culture creating a sort of enclave without central planning. I would like to see people lose JSA if they go to job interviews not properly dressed, so if they are applying for jobs with face veils they lose their JSA. I truly believe having a job and mixing with people you would never normally come across can open minds. Not always of course but there will always be a problem fringe.
A new recently-launched program by leading online EU broker, EZTrader, called ‘EZ Events’, addresses the need of many traders, who have struggled to make a profit from an event’s outcome, to make the most of its financial impact on the markets.
Lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2016
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Today:
- unfollow Pope
- mute Lutherans
- block Thomas More
- report monasteries as spam
- get #ChurchOfEngland trending
- RT gout
To my mind, supporting free migration is about as realistic as supporting the abolition of private property.
Amazon stock was trading at $1.73 on May 12, 1997, in its market debut.
What a missed opportunity
As for pissing people off, really...it takes 2 seconds to do it and everybody is used to putting in a code for everything these days. You would only have to do it once for a device and make it say 10 devices i.e plenty to cover one household worth of tv / phones / tablets...
The issue is those who aren't and they are not representative of all migrants.
Maybe a revenue tax of some kind?
Hard for high street stores to compete, sadly. [Wasn't helped by Borders going under due to the financial crisis].
Edited extra bit: *spending.
Ballpark estimate I'd guess the black hole would be about half of the headline figure, which is a small fraction of our deficit.
Haha, looks like @LabourEoin has been purged. https://t.co/BtdWUDxpT7
http://order-order.com/2016/09/01/burgon-impressing-shadow-cabinet-colleagues-in-new-brief/
Also she is a fan of Bake Off
However given that we at this side of the Atlantic quote prices inclusive of VAT (unlike in America/Canada were sales taxes are added on to the quoted price) and given the tendency to require round prices, the notion its passed on the end user is even then not accurate. In the last few years we have had VAT rates of 17.5%, 15%, 17.5% again and 20% yet regardless of what VAT rate was, end-user prices were almost universally and swiftly rounded by businesses as is standard.
All business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. They are an expense that a company needs to cover if it wants to make an adequate return.
Yes Indian and Chinese perform the best, but Bangladeshi students have gone from below the avreave in 2004 to above white Britons in 2013, so a big improvement and not at the bottom of the table.