"“The latest PMI indicates that the UK manufacturing sector remained in good health during November. Although the recent growth spurt showed further signs of slowing, the pace of expansion is still solid and above its long-term trend. This should be sufficient to ensure manufacturing is a positive contributor to fourth quarter GDP." https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/5b8850ae3e93410d9f4e2aa782a22660
BBC reporting markiteconomics: "UK manufacturing sector growth slowed in November, a closely-watched survey has indicated.
The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index (PMI) fell to 53.4 from 54.2 in October. A figure above 50 indicates expansion.
It really is remarkable. It is even more remarkable that the majority of the country just does not want to listen to them anymore. It must be very frustrating.
David, the quality of financial reporting in the mainstream press is absolutely awful. Instead of just presenting the facts and letting people draw their own conclusions they now try and fit everything to a narrative. The current narrative is "despite Brexit" for positive news and "because Brexit" for negative news or neutral news which can be spun as negative (as seen above). The IFS suffers from this as well, they started doing it just around the time when Paul Johnson joined.
"“The latest PMI indicates that the UK manufacturing sector remained in good health during November. Although the recent growth spurt showed further signs of slowing, the pace of expansion is still solid and above its long-term trend. This should be sufficient to ensure manufacturing is a positive contributor to fourth quarter GDP." https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/5b8850ae3e93410d9f4e2aa782a22660
BBC reporting markiteconomics: "UK manufacturing sector growth slowed in November, a closely-watched survey has indicated.
The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index (PMI) fell to 53.4 from 54.2 in October. A figure above 50 indicates expansion.
It really is remarkable. It is even more remarkable that the majority of the country just does not want to listen to them anymore. It must be very frustrating.
David, the quality of financial reporting in the mainstream press is absolutely awful. Instead of just presenting the facts and letting people draw their own conclusions they now try and fit everything to a narrative. The current narrative is "despite Brexit" for positive news and "because Brexit" for negative news or neutral news which can be spun as negative (as seen above). The IFS suffers from this as well, they started doing it just around the time when Paul Johnson joined.
I agree. Whilst there is a need to put things in context (unlike, say AEP, who seizes on a minor trend or variation and explains, again, how the collapse of the Euro is now inevitable and imminent) that context should not be an agenda pointing one way or the other. It's poor.
"“The latest PMI indicates that the UK manufacturing sector remained in good health during November. Although the recent growth spurt showed further signs of slowing, the pace of expansion is still solid and above its long-term trend. This should be sufficient to ensure manufacturing is a positive contributor to fourth quarter GDP." https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/5b8850ae3e93410d9f4e2aa782a22660
BBC reporting markiteconomics: "UK manufacturing sector growth slowed in November, a closely-watched survey has indicated.
The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index (PMI) fell to 53.4 from 54.2 in October. A figure above 50 indicates expansion.
It really is remarkable. It is even more remarkable that the majority of the country just does not want to listen to them anymore. It must be very frustrating.
"The weakening of the pound following the Brexit vote pushed up costs for manufacturers." Of course it does nothing for the overseas demand for their products, no siree!
I don't see this happening at all. Had there been an official Tory candidate in Richmond I suspect UKIP would have stood too.They were never going to do well here and by technically standing aside the Tories gave UKIP the perfect excuse to do likewise. I also believe such a move would be counterproductive in that many former working class Labour voters have switched to UKIP precisely because they are NOT Tories. Any form of alliance or agreement with them would significantly reduce their appeal to such voters.
...which of course is the same problem Labour and the LibDems have. If the LibDems stand down, a chunk of their support (probably including me right now) wouldn't transfer to Labour; in reverse this is less true, but Labour's backing would still be a mixed blessing for the LibDems, many of whose supporters chose them precisely because they are centre-left but without the undesirable features of the Labour Party.
Mike has this right in the header - when there is an over-riding single issue in a election, these sorts of deals can work (as they have before, if you go far enough back into electoral history). In a truly "general" election, they don't.
In by-elections, overriding issues are not uncommon. But it has been many decades since we had a single-issue General Election. That (i.e. the looming possibility) is the real story here?
I actually believe that many Labour voters would refuse to vote LibDem - the desire to punish them for the Coalition remains very strong.
@PaulBrandITV: Senior Labour HQ source tells me the party could lose its deposit in Richmond. Not entirely sure if it's dark humour or totally serious.
In 2010 Labour were on 5%, so quite feasible.
Certainly the inside gossip is Libs reckon 42% (What they said in newspaper is different to what senior Libs told me), Zac at about 50%. Lab hovering about 6%. I believe they were on 12% at GE.
I've no idea but I don't see how Zac will command 50% of vote as an indie, but I am often wrong. IE, weak 3rd party means 2nd party bigger chance of winning against Indie.
The rate of Eurozone unemployment, a lagging indicator in the economic cycle, fell to 9.8 percent in October from a revised 9.9 percent in September, the European Union's statistics agency Eurostat reported. Eurostat initially estimated the September rate at 10.0 percent.
Of the 17 euro zone nations to report data for October, the rate fell in 14, was stable in Cyprus and Lithuania and rose slightly in Malta. There were no figures for Estonia and Greece.
I was at a social event a couple of days ago. Mostly in their twenties and early thirties doing typical somewhat insecure millennial generation customer service type jobs. Mostly not very political. I was surprised at the levels of anger with Brexit. This is a generation that takes it completely for granted that you could up sticks and hang out in France for a while, even if you don't actually do it. They indiscriminately have friends from other parts of Europe, in some cases partners. The people at that event absolutely blamed the older generation for screwing them over.
Edinburgh, so not typical of Scotland, let alone the UK. It needs also to be put up against the anger of those that have been ignored by globalisation and who are dedicated Brexiteers. Nevertheless the assumption that Remain voters are reluctant and will easily fall into line doesn't seem to be materialising. If anything positions are hardening.
... and writes off large parts of the country, sending the message that the party isn't interested in them...
I think you'll find the voting system does that exceedingly well already
Except it doesn't. Everyone starts on zero and every vote counts. There have been enough so-called 'safe' seats lost (and won) by all three main parties that it should be obvious not to write off anywhere.
- Who would have thought that Labour could lose Glasgow East or Blaenau Gwent, or could encroach well into Tory shire territory, as in 1997?
- Who would have thought that the Tories could win Gower or Normanton (as was), or could lose Tatton?
- Who would have thought in 1996 that the Lib Dems could win over 60 seats, or be reduced to eight?
Seats worked over time can become winnable in the right circumstances, just as the reverse is true those neglected.
An unusually naïve reply from you, Mr Herdson. If you genuinely think that the parties put as much effort in everywhere, I suspect you are in a very small minority. As a voter I have lived in marginal seats and safe seats, and I can assure you that the difference in experience - not just at elections but between times as well - is utterly dramatic.
Not to mention the never-ending quest for the marketing marginal swing-voter sweet spot, Basildon Man or Worcester Woman and all such nonsense
No, obviously parties don't put in the same effort everywhere (and for that matter, don't put the same effort into the same seats at different elections). But for all that, there is a substantial difference between putting up a candidate and fighting the election 'light', and deliberately standing down and endorsing a different party.
On Article 50, there will be a deal because both sides want one. Unless both sides drastically shift their rhetoric it's going to be a minimal deal. Hard Brexit in other words. Hard Brexit is a lot easier to achieve than Soft Brexit.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
A bit of clear blue water between us and the Frogs for 5th largest global economy.
I think €1.20 and $1.30 are fair long term rates for soft-Brexit Britain. Our internal devaluation won't be as tough either, even if oil goes up to $60, although I don't rate those chances because US and Canadian shale will drive prices back down to ~$50 which feels like the new equilibrium.
Quite. OPEC no longer controls the price of oil, let alone the price of energy. There is too much shale gas and oil available, with more to come, worldwide. And fracking is getting cheaper. And solar is really kicking in.
Poor old OPEC. Heh.
As Robert points out, we should all thank Alexander Kirk for commercialising Shale so many years ago. It will eventually be why we win the war on terrorism and Islamists. I'm not as bullish on solar, but generally I think renewables will begin to become economically viable, sadly right around the time when Hinkley Point C is scheduled to start producing energy.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
"“The latest PMI indicates that the UK manufacturing sector remained in good health during November. Although the recent growth spurt showed further signs of slowing, the pace of expansion is still solid and above its long-term trend. This should be sufficient to ensure manufacturing is a positive contributor to fourth quarter GDP." https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/5b8850ae3e93410d9f4e2aa782a22660
BBC reporting markiteconomics: "UK manufacturing sector growth slowed in November, a closely-watched survey has indicated.
The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index (PMI) fell to 53.4 from 54.2 in October. A figure above 50 indicates expansion.
It really is remarkable. It is even more remarkable that the majority of the country just does not want to listen to them anymore. It must be very frustrating.
David, the quality of financial reporting in the mainstream press is absolutely awful. Instead of just presenting the facts and letting people draw their own conclusions they now try and fit everything to a narrative. The current narrative is "despite Brexit" for positive news and "because Brexit" for negative news or neutral news which can be spun as negative (as seen above). The IFS suffers from this as well, they started doing it just around the time when Paul Johnson joined.
I agree. Whilst there is a need to put things in context (unlike, say AEP, who seizes on a minor trend or variation and explains, again, how the collapse of the Euro is now inevitable and imminent) that context should not be an agenda pointing one way or the other. It's poor.
Yes, context is fine. Editorialising is not. It's the reason I've shifted the IFS from "must-read" to "ignore". Their forecasts are still reasonable but it feels like they are trying to fit the data to a narrative. For an organisation which is supposed to be neutral that is not acceptable.
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
A bit of clear blue water between us and the Frogs for 5th largest global economy.
I think €1.20 and $1.30 are fair long term rates for soft-Brexit Britain. Our internal devaluation won't be as tough either, even if oil goes up to $60, although I don't rate those chances because US and Canadian shale will drive prices back down to ~$50 which feels like the new equilibrium.
Quite. OPEC no longer controls the price of oil, let alone the price of energy. There is too much shale gas and oil available, with more to come, worldwide. And fracking is getting cheaper. And solar is really kicking in.
Poor old OPEC. Heh.
As Robert points out, we should all thank Alexander Kirk for commercialising Shale so many years ago. It will eventually be why we win the war on terrorism and Islamists. I'm not as bullish on solar, but generally I think renewables will begin to become economically viable, sadly right around the time when Hinkley Point C is scheduled to start producing energy.
Shale, solar, battery tech and increasing energy efficiency will all keep improving methinks. The cost of that white elephant in Bristol will be looked back on in 2050 as something truly remarkable.
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
In UK constituencies with ~60,000 votes I think it's unheard of to shift it more than 100 votes?
@PaulBrandITV: Senior Labour HQ source tells me the party could lose its deposit in Richmond. Not entirely sure if it's dark humour or totally serious.
That's 5% isn't it?
They got 12% last time, I would have expected 8-9% this time.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
@PaulBrandITV: Senior Labour HQ source tells me the party could lose its deposit in Richmond. Not entirely sure if it's dark humour or totally serious.
That's 5% isn't it?
They got 12% last time, I would have expected 8-9% this time.
It is a poor bet, the Greens are not standing and Labour will gain some of their votes. I reckon 9 odd % too. In fact bear in mind UKIP aren't standing and the residual climbs even higher for Labour.
Some DfID does go to the EU already, doesn't it? I am not sure if it is simply being rebadged as EU contributions but still goes to good causes world wide. For some reason I think it is 1-2 billion...
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
A bit of clear blue water between us and the Frogs for 5th largest global economy.
I think €1.20 and $1.30 are fair long term rates for soft-Brexit Britain. Our internal devaluation won't be as tough either, even if oil goes up to $60, although I don't rate those chances because US and Canadian shale will drive prices back down to ~$50 which feels like the new equilibrium.
Quite. OPEC no longer controls the price of oil, let alone the price of energy. There is too much shale gas and oil available, with more to come, worldwide. And fracking is getting cheaper. And solar is really kicking in.
Poor old OPEC. Heh.
As Robert points out, we should all thank Alexander Kirk for commercialising Shale so many years ago. It will eventually be why we win the war on terrorism and Islamists. I'm not as bullish on solar, but generally I think renewables will begin to become economically viable, sadly right around the time when Hinkley Point C is scheduled to start producing energy.
Shale, solar, battery tech and increasing energy efficiency will all keep improving methinks. The cost of that white elephant in Bristol will be looked back on in 2050 as something truly remarkable.
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
Q: You were in the Mayor’s Office during the actual attacks. What was your and others’ reaction inside the Mayor’s Office?
Atma: I watched the attacks unfolding while I was in my office as one officer had come into my office in the Mayoral corridor to inform me about them. Then, as the situation unfolded, I went into the Mayoral Press Officer’s room to watch the terrible events. I was disturbed to see a few people cheering the events. Others watched soberly and others talked matter-of-fact about the consequences for London.
Q: Celebrating the attacks?
Atma: Yes.
Bloody hell. But it would be interesting to have confirmation.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
Q: You were in the Mayor’s Office during the actual attacks. What was your and others’ reaction inside the Mayor’s Office?
Atma: I watched the attacks unfolding while I was in my office as one officer had come into my office in the Mayoral corridor to inform me about them. Then, as the situation unfolded, I went into the Mayoral Press Officer’s room to watch the terrible events. I was disturbed to see a few people cheering the events. Others watched soberly and others talked matter-of-fact about the consequences for London.
Q: Celebrating the attacks?
Atma: Yes.
Bloody hell. But it would be interesting to have confirmation.
This bill is really really bad....it is amazing how much uproar we had about ID card database back in the day, but hardly a whimper about this stuff.
It is one thing the government legislating for GCHQ to be able to get the order to hack somebody, but having the Gambling Commission and Food Standards etc giving snooping powers contained within this bill is nuts.
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
They have yet to reach the acceptance stage
I follow a self proclaimed Aspergers guy on Twitter who noticed that the Stein recount funds were a constant $160k per hour that seemed rather odd - he's so data savvy and a killer of stooge accounts that I'm very inclined to believe him.
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
Hand counts of votes may cause errors
Hand counting of votes in post election audit or recount procedures can result in error rates of up to two percent, according to a new study.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
Hand counts of votes may cause errors
Hand counting of votes in post election audit or recount procedures can result in error rates of up to two percent, according to a new study.
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
Q: You were in the Mayor’s Office during the actual attacks. What was your and others’ reaction inside the Mayor’s Office?
Atma: I watched the attacks unfolding while I was in my office as one officer had come into my office in the Mayoral corridor to inform me about them. Then, as the situation unfolded, I went into the Mayoral Press Officer’s room to watch the terrible events. I was disturbed to see a few people cheering the events. Others watched soberly and others talked matter-of-fact about the consequences for London.
Q: Celebrating the attacks?
Atma: Yes.
Bloody hell. But it would be interesting to have confirmation.
Honestly, the culture wars going on right now are outrageous. It's beyond polarised and been creeping up for a decade or two.
There's been far too much appeasement, looking the other way, weasel-speak and blaming those who disagree.
It's all coming back to roost. Thank Eff it's now being run out of town.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
It's a payment into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. It is aid spending, just in Europe.
Some DfID does go to the EU already, doesn't it? I am not sure if it is simply being rebadged as EU contributions but still goes to good causes world wide. For some reason I think it is 1-2 billion...
We do credit a portion of our EU subscription towards our meeting the UN foreign aid target, it is true. Hence the attraction to the Government of making future contributions to the EU that can be classified as aid, since they can net the spending off from the overall aid budget. They will/would of course need to deduct the amount we are already crediting, so there would be some net cost overall (compared to making no contributions at all).
Payments to the EU? Suits me. If it's in billions then not only will most Brexiters not understand it, but they will group it into general government spending anyway.
So we get tariff free access to the SM but would not be members is that right?
Payments to the EU? Suits me. If it's in billions then not only will most Brexiters not understand it, but they will group it into general government spending anyway.
So we get tariff free access to the SM but would not be members is that right?
Some DfID does go to the EU already, doesn't it? I am not sure if it is simply being rebadged as EU contributions but still goes to good causes world wide. For some reason I think it is 1-2 billion...
We do credit a portion of our EU subscription towards our meeting the UN foreign aid target, it is true. Hence the attraction to the Government of making future contributions to the EU that can be classified as aid, since they can net the spending off from the overall aid budget. They will/would of course need to deduct the amount we are already crediting, so there would be some net cost overall (compared to making no contributions at all).
There would be non-aid contributions to pay as well. Research programmes, administrative spending etc... However, the bulk will be for the solitary fund which is aid spending in any other name.
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
Q: You were in the Mayor’s Office during the actual attacks. What was your and others’ reaction inside the Mayor’s Office?
Atma: I watched the attacks unfolding while I was in my office as one officer had come into my office in the Mayoral corridor to inform me about them. Then, as the situation unfolded, I went into the Mayoral Press Officer’s room to watch the terrible events. I was disturbed to see a few people cheering the events. Others watched soberly and others talked matter-of-fact about the consequences for London.
Q: Celebrating the attacks?
Atma: Yes.
Bloody hell. But it would be interesting to have confirmation.
@carlmaxim: David Davis wanted to leave Netflix but then secured a special deal where he pays them £7.49 a month in return for access to their content.
@carlmaxim: David Davis wanted to leave Netflix but then secured a special deal where he pays them £7.49 a month in return for access to their content.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
UK Aid spending is covered by the following limitations:
"(3) Aid falls within this subsection if— (a) it is either not subject to a condition restricting the states from which goods or services may be purchased using the aid, or (if it is subject to such a condition) the states from which goods or services may be purchased using the aid include all the member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and substantially all states which receive aid from any source, and (b) the provider of the aid has, so far as reasonably practicable, secured that there will be no significant impediment in the purchasing process which would have the effect of a narrower restriction than that mentioned in paragraph (a) on the states from which goods or services will be purchased using the aid."
I don't know if funnelling money to the EU Regional Aid Fund via DFID would be contraindicated by this legislation.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
It's a payment into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. It is aid spending, just in Europe.
LOL. I look forward to the EU agreeing to that fudge! Even if it goes ahead, is still money going into the EU and will free money up to be spent elsewhere if they wanted.
I mean, you wouldn't want to tell the EU what to do even after we'd left, would you?
Payments to the EU? Suits me. If it's in billions then not only will most Brexiters not understand it, but they will group it into general government spending anyway.
So we get tariff free access to the SM but would not be members is that right?
Yes.
I would have thought a tariff free relationship would have in any case been an early agreement within the negotiations.
Funnily enough while I believe that the no running commentary strategy is impractical, I think it a mistake to have signalled that we would be prepared to pay for this mutually beneficial position.
Hence it can't just be access it must be for a seat at the table also a la EFTA/EEA members.
OT I've had three Windows 10 or 8 laptops that are awful re interweb access - whilst my Sony Android smartphone using the same Wifi is superfast.
I've tested W10 to destruction and can't be bothered with it anymore. What Android laptops or tablets would PBers recommend? Just average person use to look at YouTube or sites.
@PaulBrandITV: Senior Labour HQ source tells me the party could lose its deposit in Richmond. Not entirely sure if it's dark humour or totally serious.
In 2010 Labour were on 5%, so quite feasible.
I was assuming it would be 6% (down from 12%). If it is 5% and they have transferred to the LibDems, that is another 400 votes. Could make the difference.
OT I've had three Windows 10 or 8 laptops that are awful re interweb access - whilst my Sony Android smartphone using the same Wifi is superfast.
I've tested W10 to destruction and can't be bothered with it anymore. What Android laptops or tablets would PBers recommend? Just average person use to look at YouTube or sites.
It really is remarkable. It is even more remarkable that the majority of the country just does not want to listen to them anymore. It must be very frustrating.
Is this the "fake news" that people are getting worried about?
OT I've had three Windows 10 or 8 laptops that are awful re interweb access - whilst my Sony Android smartphone using the same Wifi is superfast.
I've tested W10 to destruction and can't be bothered with it anymore. What Android laptops or tablets would PBers recommend? Just average person use to look at YouTube or sites.
Loathe to suggest this with @JosiasJessop around , but have you tried a Macbook? Maybe the old model, the new one looks a bit crap.
Payments to the EU? Suits me. If it's in billions then not only will most Brexiters not understand it, but they will group it into general government spending anyway.
So we get tariff free access to the SM but would not be members is that right?
Yes.
I would have thought a tariff free relationship would have in any case been an early agreement within the negotiations.
Funnily enough while I believe that the no running commentary strategy is impractical, I think it a mistake to have signalled that we would be prepared to pay for this mutually beneficial position.
Hence it can't just be access it must be for a seat at the table also a la EFTA/EEA members.
I'd guess tariff elimination and mutual recognition of goods standards in return for a multi-billion payment to the regional development fund. Mutual recognition would have been tough 5-7 years ago, but today the WTO is extending its reach into NTB elimination and since the UK and EU will both be members it makes sense to have mutual recognition.
OT I've had three Windows 10 or 8 laptops that are awful re interweb access - whilst my Sony Android smartphone using the same Wifi is superfast.
I've tested W10 to destruction and can't be bothered with it anymore. What Android laptops or tablets would PBers recommend? Just average person use to look at YouTube or sites.
Loathe to suggest this with @JosiasJessop around , but have you tried a Macbook? Maybe the old model, the new one looks a bit crap.
I've hated Macs since I endured them for 4yrs back in the early 90s. They also don't agree with my SmartTV.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
It's a payment into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. It is aid spending, just in Europe.
LOL. I look forward to the EU agreeing to that fudge! Even if it goes ahead, is still money going into the EU and will free money up to be spent elsewhere if they wanted.
I mean, you wouldn't want to tell the EU what to do even after we'd left, would you?
How we class our spending is nothing to do with them, as long as they get their money I'm sure they won't care what we call it.
OT I've had three Windows 10 or 8 laptops that are awful re interweb access - whilst my Sony Android smartphone using the same Wifi is superfast.
I've tested W10 to destruction and can't be bothered with it anymore. What Android laptops or tablets would PBers recommend? Just average person use to look at YouTube or sites.
Loathe to suggest this with @JosiasJessop around , but have you tried a Macbook? Maybe the old model, the new one looks a bit crap.
I've hated Macs since I endured them for 4yrs back in the early 90s. They also don't agree with my SmartTV.
The OS has significantly improved since then , but fair point re: the TV.
OT I've had three Windows 10 or 8 laptops that are awful re interweb access - whilst my Sony Android smartphone using the same Wifi is superfast.
I've tested W10 to destruction and can't be bothered with it anymore. What Android laptops or tablets would PBers recommend? Just average person use to look at YouTube or sites.
Why not get a Sony tablet?
Do they still make them? Haven't seen a new one since the Z4 tablet.
Shale, solar, battery tech and increasing energy efficiency will all keep improving methinks. The cost of that white elephant in Bristol will be looked back on in 2050 as something truly remarkable.
If it does prove to be a white elephant that will be because the alternatives will be thriving. I'd be quite happy if that turns out to be the case.
Payments to the EU? Suits me. If it's in billions then not only will most Brexiters not understand it, but they will group it into general government spending anyway.
So we get tariff free access to the SM but would not be members is that right?
Yes.
I would have thought a tariff free relationship would have in any case been an early agreement within the negotiations.
Funnily enough while I believe that the no running commentary strategy is impractical, I think it a mistake to have signalled that we would be prepared to pay for this mutually beneficial position.
Hence it can't just be access it must be for a seat at the table also a la EFTA/EEA members.
I'd guess tariff elimination and mutual recognition of goods standards in return for a multi-billion payment to the regional development fund. Mutual recognition would have been tough 5-7 years ago, but today the WTO is extending its reach into NTB elimination and since the UK and EU will both be members it makes sense to have mutual recognition.
But mutual recognition is just that. Why would we say we want to pay on top?
Just finished three hours knocking up. The old local authority houses (now £1m+) are generally Brexit having swung a bit from tactical LD to UKIP (or Zac in this case). The big houses (£3m+) which are generally city or wealthy intellectuals are all Remainers and very pro LD. Quite a switch since I last did this eleven years ago.
A quick mug of soup then off out knocking up again.
UK Aid spending is covered by the following limitations:
"(3) Aid falls within this subsection if— (a) it is either not subject to a condition restricting the states from which goods or services may be purchased using the aid, or (if it is subject to such a condition) the states from which goods or services may be purchased using the aid include all the member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and substantially all states which receive aid from any source, and (b) the provider of the aid has, so far as reasonably practicable, secured that there will be no significant impediment in the purchasing process which would have the effect of a narrower restriction than that mentioned in paragraph (a) on the states from which goods or services will be purchased using the aid."
I don't know if funnelling money to the EU Regional Aid Fund via DFID would be contraindicated by this legislation.
Sticking Priti Patel into DfID is one of the reasons I think TMay is going to pursue this avenue. Both of them are aid sceptics, but won't want to unwind the 0.7% GDP commitment. Amending the current guidelines to include EU solidarity payments would be an easy enough fudge to pass, IMO.
Payments to the EU? Suits me. If it's in billions then not only will most Brexiters not understand it, but they will group it into general government spending anyway.
So we get tariff free access to the SM but would not be members is that right?
Yes.
I would have thought a tariff free relationship would have in any case been an early agreement within the negotiations.
Funnily enough while I believe that the no running commentary strategy is impractical, I think it a mistake to have signalled that we would be prepared to pay for this mutually beneficial position.
Hence it can't just be access it must be for a seat at the table also a la EFTA/EEA members.
I'd guess tariff elimination and mutual recognition of goods standards in return for a multi-billion payment to the regional development fund. Mutual recognition would have been tough 5-7 years ago, but today the WTO is extending its reach into NTB elimination and since the UK and EU will both be members it makes sense to have mutual recognition.
But mutual recognition is just that. Why would we say we want to pay on top?
Because the EU is a protection racket. Has been since the beginning.
OT I've had three Windows 10 or 8 laptops that are awful re interweb access - whilst my Sony Android smartphone using the same Wifi is superfast.
I've tested W10 to destruction and can't be bothered with it anymore. What Android laptops or tablets would PBers recommend? Just average person use to look at YouTube or sites.
Loathe to suggest this with @JosiasJessop around , but have you tried a Macbook? Maybe the old model, the new one looks a bit crap.
I've hated Macs since I endured them for 4yrs back in the early 90s. They also don't agree with my SmartTV.
The OS has significantly improved since then , but fair point re: the TV.
I screencast a lot and LG still haven't got updated with W10 - all my W7 playlists won't work on either - its so pissed me off. 2500 tunes are now a giant list with no categories.
Upgrades that remove great functionality for no reason. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
Yes, in the imaginary reality of the reactionary right there is non so oppressed as a right winger.
They often say this from their national newspaper columsn or TV shows.
In the the imaginary reality Obama never says Merry Christmas and that reality somehow holds even after 30 seconds of googling shows a video clip of Obama saying Merry Christmas.
It is something normal decent people who accept actual real reality will have to deal with, that fantasists have seized control of power in America.
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
In UK constituencies with ~60,000 votes I think it's unheard of to shift it more than 100 votes?
Not so. I was once told a story by Bob Mitchell a former Labour - later SDP - MP about the count at Southampton Test in 1964. The Tories were defending a majority of circa 7000 from 1959. At the end of the initial count Mitchell was down by circa 1600 in relation to his Tory opponent.He explained that for some reason he was not entirely happy with the conduct of the count so he asked for a recount. Attempts were made to talk him out of it , but he stood his ground and was eventually granted a 'bundle' recount.In the course of that, one of the counters suddenly shouted 'Stop!'. It was then discovered that several bundles of Mitchell's votes - each bundle being 100 votes - had been wrongly included in the Tory pile. The effect of the adjustment was to reduce the Tory majority to about 300 - and a full recount then followed which pretty well confirmed that margin.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
That's not actually true. Norway makes a number of different payments to the EU, some of which are specifically for regional development. It also opts-in to programmes such as Erasmus, CERN, Gallileo, etc.
It's a payment into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. It is aid spending, just in Europe.
LOL. I look forward to the EU agreeing to that fudge! Even if it goes ahead, is still money going into the EU and will free money up to be spent elsewhere if they wanted.
I mean, you wouldn't want to tell the EU what to do even after we'd left, would you?
How we class our spending is nothing to do with them, as long as they get their money I'm sure they won't care what we call it.
The EU might not care, but the great British public might.
If we give money to the EU, it needs to be crystal clear how much is given each year, and where it is coming from. If you wish to take it out of the DFiD budget, then you should make it clear which current projects you are defunding.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
That's not actually true. Norway makes a number of different payments to the EU, some of which are specifically for regional development. It also opts-in to programmes such as Erasmus, CERN, Gallileo, etc.
Yes, single market access without tariffs basically requires the nation to pay into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. If we choose to opt into other programmes we can fund those from BEI or Education.
It's a payment into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. It is aid spending, just in Europe.
LOL. I look forward to the EU agreeing to that fudge! Even if it goes ahead, is still money going into the EU and will free money up to be spent elsewhere if they wanted.
I mean, you wouldn't want to tell the EU what to do even after we'd left, would you?
How we class our spending is nothing to do with them, as long as they get their money I'm sure they won't care what we call it.
The EU might not care, but the great British public might.
If we give money to the EU, it needs to be crystal clear how much is given each year, and where it is coming from. If you wish to take it out of the DFiD budget, then you should make it clear which current projects you are defunding.
I have to say I think most people won't care and the majority who do care will like the fudge. A small minority in the charity sector will bitch but I don't see it really making much difference.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
That's not actually true. Norway makes a number of different payments to the EU, some of which are specifically for regional development. It also opts-in to programmes such as Erasmus, CERN, Gallileo, etc.
Yes, single market access without tariffs basically requires the nation to pay into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. If we choose to opt into other programmes we can fund those from BEI or Education.
Norway's single market access is governed by the ECJ.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
That's not actually true. Norway makes a number of different payments to the EU, some of which are specifically for regional development. It also opts-in to programmes such as Erasmus, CERN, Gallileo, etc.
Then it needs to be stated in the deal that the money is going for those purposes, and the EU has to agree to it.
Also, are those opt-in programs paid for as separate programs at the moment, or was it all lumped into the infamous "£350 miillion" figure? If it is separate than it's irrelevant.
Just finished three hours knocking up. The old local authority houses (now £1m+) are generally Brexit having swung a bit from tactical LD to UKIP (or Zac in this case). The big houses (£3m+) which are generally city or wealthy intellectuals are all Remainers and very pro LD. Quite a switch since I last did this eleven years ago.
A quick mug of soup then off out knocking up again.
Another world...
How is the telling looking, is the Lib Dem vote coming out in expected numbers ? Are Zac's chaps and ladies heading out ?
Just shocking to learn how widespread this is. Many people must of covered it up.
"It comes as the NSPCC said its hotline - set up to offer support to victims of child sex abuse within football - had received 860 calls in its first week."
Well, looking at the street crime statistics in London - 80% East European - it looks as though the EU has been emptying its prisons and lunatic asylums here. We shouldn't let it happen.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
That's not actually true. Norway makes a number of different payments to the EU, some of which are specifically for regional development. It also opts-in to programmes such as Erasmus, CERN, Gallileo, etc.
Yes, single market access without tariffs basically requires the nation to pay into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. If we choose to opt into other programmes we can fund those from BEI or Education.
Norway's single market access is governed by the ECJ.
That kind of access is surely not what you mean?
Surely with the imbalance in goods trade between the EU and UK, the EU should be paying us for access to our single market, rather than us paying them for the privilege of running a trade deficit...
It's a payment into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. It is aid spending, just in Europe.
LOL. I look forward to the EU agreeing to that fudge! Even if it goes ahead, is still money going into the EU and will free money up to be spent elsewhere if they wanted.
I mean, you wouldn't want to tell the EU what to do even after we'd left, would you?
How we class our spending is nothing to do with them, as long as they get their money I'm sure they won't care what we call it.
The EU might not care, but the great British public might.
If we give money to the EU, it needs to be crystal clear how much is given each year, and where it is coming from. If you wish to take it out of the DFiD budget, then you should make it clear which current projects you are defunding.
I have to say I think most people won't care and the majority who do care will like the fudge. A small minority in the charity sector will bitch but I don't see it really making much difference.
I don't agree. Some newspapers at least will be screaming and calling it a betrayal. And it will be easy to sell it as such.
Whatever we do, it needs to be clear and honest. Taking it from the DfID seems to be neither.
I don't see how you could get the electorate to vote for continuing payments to the EU. I notice the Italian bank in trouble in the news made its first call to raise money in London - shouldn't we be charging for access?
It will depend on the terms on offer. A substantially smaller fee, combined with freedom from the CJEU and Commission directives (at least as far as internal UK matters goes) and an end to the freedom of movement, in return for tariff- and quota-free access to the Single Market would probably be saleable, for example.
Especially if we shift the burden of payments to DfID. It would represent a real saving then.
No, no and thrice no. Such payments would not be within the purview of DfID, and would restrict their work.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
The money paid to the EU after we leave will be pretty much exclusively used for regional development. It is aid for poor European regions. If we pay into the EU research budget then that can come from Education or BEI. There is no hiding involved, we are classing regional development spending as aid spending, which is probably fair.
We would not be paying them to further regional development. We would be paying them so we can access things we want.
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
That's not actually true. Norway makes a number of different payments to the EU, some of which are specifically for regional development. It also opts-in to programmes such as Erasmus, CERN, Gallileo, etc.
Then it needs to be stated in the deal that the money is going for those purposes, and the EU has to agree to it.
Also, are those opt-in programs paid for as separate programs at the moment, or was it all lumped into the infamous "£350 miillion" figure? If it is separate than it's irrelevant.
Yes all those programmes are included in the 350m.
@PaulBrandITV: Senior Labour HQ source tells me the party could lose its deposit in Richmond. Not entirely sure if it's dark humour or totally serious.
That's 5% isn't it?
They got 12% last time, I would have expected 8-9% this time.
It is a poor bet, the Greens are not standing and Labour will gain some of their votes. I reckon 9 odd % too. In fact bear in mind UKIP aren't standing and the residual climbs even higher for Labour.
If Labour lose their deposit, I reckon Libs will win.
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
Q: You were in the Mayor’s Office during the actual attacks. What was your and others’ reaction inside the Mayor’s Office?
Atma: I watched the attacks unfolding while I was in my office as one officer had come into my office in the Mayoral corridor to inform me about them. Then, as the situation unfolded, I went into the Mayoral Press Officer’s room to watch the terrible events. I was disturbed to see a few people cheering the events. Others watched soberly and others talked matter-of-fact about the consequences for London.
Q: Celebrating the attacks?
Atma: Yes.
Bloody hell. But it would be interesting to have confirmation.
Sounds a balanced & reasonable chap, with no axe to grind..
'9/11 was a turning point for me. I became ardent in my defence of Western and global democracies against Islamic terrorism.'
'I discovered that Sadiq Khan had a dubious record on Islamism. He had been defending Islamist terrorists and extremists on civil rights grounds as a lawyer.'
'He backed the corrupt and criminal Hillary Clinton against Donald J Trump, now President Elect.'
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
In UK constituencies with ~60,000 votes I think it's unheard of to shift it more than 100 votes?
Not so. I was once told a story by Bob Mitchell a former Labour - later SDP - MP about the count at Southampton Test in 1964. The Tories were defending a majority of circa 7000 from 1959. At the end of the initial count Mitchell was down by circa 1600 in relation to his Tory opponent.He explained that for some reason he was not entirely happy with the conduct of the count so he asked for a recount. Attempts were made to talk him out of it , but he stood his ground and was eventually granted a 'bundle' recount.In the course of that, one of the counters suddenly shouted 'Stop!'. It was then discovered that several bundles of Mitchell's votes - each bundle being 100 votes - had been wrongly included in the Tory pile. The effect of the adjustment was to reduce the Tory majority to about 300 - and a full recount then followed which pretty well confirmed that margin.
Not just a story - it happened to me on a smaller scale in May. From our sampling at verification stage, I weighted the box counts with postals and thought that I'd win by 400. The first count came out with me 600 ahead. My opponents flipped a lid and even I raised a quizzical eyebrow. We both agreed a quick bundle check. 100 of their votes were in my pile. Switched over, that made a majority of 397 (so feeling a bit smug both about winning well and getting such a good estimate from the verification.) There seemed little point in going for a full recount based on this, so we agreed to declare that.
A bundle check is much quicker than a full recount, and far more likely to switch a serious number of votes over. A full recount only needed if it's wafer thin margin or you think the counting team have not been up to scratch.
TBH, PB hasn't covered itself in glory for the best part of 20-15/16. It's noticeably biased against conservative views. Dismissing opinions that aren't liberal is the default. They're an aberration that reflects all the worst of civilisation. Actually, we aren't. We simply disagree for very good reasons - those liberals/globalists don't understand or even try to appreciate our POV.
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
Yes, in the imaginary reality of the reactionary right there is non so oppressed as a right winger.
They often say this from their national newspaper columsn or TV shows.
In the the imaginary reality Obama never says Merry Christmas and that reality somehow holds even after 30 seconds of googling shows a video clip of Obama saying Merry Christmas.
It is something normal decent people who accept actual real reality will have to deal with, that fantasists have seized control of power in America.
They can only seize power if a large and significant number of people believe them. Speaking to my own family members who spew conspiracy theories as if they are gospel I'm not surprised really. Everyone has their own sources now, we are down the rabbit hole and never going back.
Norway's single market access is governed by the ECJ.
That kind of access is surely not what you mean?
As long as it's limited to trade I'd take that as an interim deal and eventually work towards a bilateral ISDS similar to the outline in CETA. Its removing ourselves from the political project I care about. I think I've been upfront about that as well. Global trade is eventually going to be done on the same standards anyway, whether that is adjudicated in Luxembourg, Geneva or London it's really not such a big deal.
Just finished three hours knocking up. The old local authority houses (now £1m+) are generally Brexit having swung a bit from tactical LD to UKIP (or Zac in this case). The big houses (£3m+) which are generally city or wealthy intellectuals are all Remainers and very pro LD. Quite a switch since I last did this eleven years ago.
A quick mug of soup then off out knocking up again.
Another world...
How is the telling looking, is the Lib Dem vote coming out in expected numbers ? Are Zac's chaps and ladies heading out ?
I'm not privy to the numbers. I'm just a lowly foot soldier. It's not as brisk as it was earlier. This evening will be the challenge as people come home from work between 6 and 7, tired and cold - and we have to persuade them to go out into the darkness again and vote.
It's a payment into the solidarity fund which is used for regional development. It is aid spending, just in Europe.
LOL. I look forward to the EU agreeing to that fudge! Even if it goes ahead, is still money going into the EU and will free money up to be spent elsewhere if they wanted.
I mean, you wouldn't want to tell the EU what to do even after we'd left, would you?
How we class our spending is nothing to do with them, as long as they get their money I'm sure they won't care what we call it.
The EU might not care, but the great British public might.
If we give money to the EU, it needs to be crystal clear how much is given each year, and where it is coming from. If you wish to take it out of the DFiD budget, then you should make it clear which current projects you are defunding.
I have to say I think most people won't care and the majority who do care will like the fudge. A small minority in the charity sector will bitch but I don't see it really making much difference.
I don't agree. Some newspapers at least will be screaming and calling it a betrayal. And it will be easy to sell it as such.
Whatever we do, it needs to be clear and honest. Taking it from the DfID seems to be neither.
The same newspapers that would love to see the aid budget cut to nil? It would be the Guardian and the BBC who would bitch about it, not the Mail or Telegraph who would shout with glee from the rooftops as to how the government have been smart to embarrass the EU by classing payments as aid.
UK Aid spending is covered by the following limitations:
"(3) Aid falls within this subsection if— (a) it is either not subject to a condition restricting the states from which goods or services may be purchased using the aid, or (if it is subject to such a condition) the states from which goods or services may be purchased using the aid include all the member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and substantially all states which receive aid from any source, and (b) the provider of the aid has, so far as reasonably practicable, secured that there will be no significant impediment in the purchasing process which would have the effect of a narrower restriction than that mentioned in paragraph (a) on the states from which goods or services will be purchased using the aid."
I don't know if funnelling money to the EU Regional Aid Fund via DFID would be contraindicated by this legislation.
Sticking Priti Patel into DfID is one of the reasons I think TMay is going to pursue this avenue. Both of them are aid sceptics, but won't want to unwind the 0.7% GDP commitment. Amending the current guidelines to include EU solidarity payments would be an easy enough fudge to pass, IMO.
I don't think it is that easy... Cameron govt already made several attempts to see what spending could be reclassified as ODA... Rules are quite strict and are set internationally... Aid only counts as ODA of it goes to certain countres and I don't think aby of EU 27 are on the lost..
I think what you are saying would require repealing the international development act.
Would they actually be privy to that information, if there as a secret deal? Saying that, the government did clearly deny that there was any such deal.
Comments
Of course it does nothing for the overseas demand for their products, no siree!
I've no idea but I don't see how Zac will command 50% of vote as an indie, but I am often wrong. IE, weak 3rd party means 2nd party bigger chance of winning against Indie.
The rate of Eurozone unemployment, a lagging indicator in the economic cycle, fell to 9.8 percent in October from a revised 9.9 percent in September, the European Union's statistics agency Eurostat reported. Eurostat initially estimated the September rate at 10.0 percent.
Of the 17 euro zone nations to report data for October, the rate fell in 14, was stable in Cyprus and Lithuania and rose slightly in Malta. There were no figures for Estonia and Greece.
Edinburgh, so not typical of Scotland, let alone the UK. It needs also to be put up against the anger of those that have been ignored by globalisation and who are dedicated Brexiteers. Nevertheless the assumption that Remain voters are reluctant and will easily fall into line doesn't seem to be materialising. If anything positions are hardening.
https://twitter.com/gusskabbara/status/804283192526176257
!!!
http://patch.com/pennsylvania/salisbury/s/fydxd/heres-the-latest-on-the-pennsylvania-presidential-election-recount?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=politics+&+government&utm_campaign=recirc&utm_content=aol
Stein also is raising enough money to follow through on her vow to request a recount of votes in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states that swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump by razor-thin margins.
Florida was "razor thin" back in 2000, 100,000 votes simply is not.
They got 12% last time, I would have expected 8-9% this time.
If you want a debate on restricting the money spent on DfID, fair enough. Let's have one. Reducing it by 'hiding' payments to the EU in it treats the voters with contempt.
It is a poor bet, the Greens are not standing and Labour will gain some of their votes. I reckon 9 odd % too. In fact bear in mind UKIP aren't standing and the residual climbs even higher for Labour.
https://twitter.com/gusskabbara
The MSM is the same - it's terribly misleading on so many levels and particularly so re betting.
We're now the dominate electoral force, and liberals are about to experience what we've felt for the last 30yrs.
Atma: I watched the attacks unfolding while I was in my office as one officer had come into my office in the Mayoral corridor to inform me about them. Then, as the situation unfolded, I went into the Mayoral Press Officer’s room to watch the terrible events. I was disturbed to see a few people cheering the events. Others watched soberly and others talked matter-of-fact about the consequences for London.
Q: Celebrating the attacks?
Atma: Yes.
Bloody hell. But it would be interesting to have confirmation.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_powers_act_backdoors/
This bill is really really bad....it is amazing how much uproar we had about ID card database back in the day, but hardly a whimper about this stuff.
It is one thing the government legislating for GCHQ to be able to get the order to hack somebody, but having the Gambling Commission and Food Standards etc giving snooping powers contained within this bill is nuts.
Hand counting of votes in post election audit or recount procedures can result in error rates of up to two percent, according to a new study.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202151713.htm
It is up to the EU how they spend that money; in fact, how they spend it would be none of our business.They could spend it on regional development, an EU army, a space program; anything.
Do we need a debate on the DfID budget and its spending? Yes. Let's have that debate. But trying to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes by pretending we are not paying the EU would be wrong.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-recount-is-unlikely-to-change-the-north-carolina-governors-race/
Edit: actually, not sure how many of those are valid comparisons, since they need to be machine-counted first, I guess?
There's been far too much appeasement, looking the other way, weasel-speak and blaming those who disagree.
It's all coming back to roost. Thank Eff it's now being run out of town.
So we get tariff free access to the SM but would not be members is that right?
"(3) Aid falls within this subsection if— (a) it is either not subject to a condition restricting the states from which goods or services may be purchased using the aid, or (if it is subject to such a condition) the states from which goods or services may be purchased using the aid include all the member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and substantially all states which receive aid from any source, and (b) the provider of the aid has, so far as reasonably practicable, secured that there will be no significant impediment in the purchasing process which would have the effect of a narrower restriction than that mentioned in paragraph (a) on the states from which goods or services will be purchased using the aid."
I don't know if funnelling money to the EU Regional Aid Fund via DFID would be contraindicated by this legislation.
I mean, you wouldn't want to tell the EU what to do even after we'd left, would you?
Funnily enough while I believe that the no running commentary strategy is impractical, I think it a mistake to have signalled that we would be prepared to pay for this mutually beneficial position.
Hence it can't just be access it must be for a seat at the table also a la EFTA/EEA members.
I've tested W10 to destruction and can't be bothered with it anymore. What Android laptops or tablets would PBers recommend? Just average person use to look at YouTube or sites.
A quick mug of soup then off out knocking up again.
Upgrades that remove great functionality for no reason. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
They often say this from their national newspaper columsn or TV shows.
In the the imaginary reality Obama never says Merry Christmas and that reality somehow holds even after 30 seconds of googling shows a video clip of Obama saying Merry Christmas.
It is something normal decent people who accept actual real reality will have to deal with, that fantasists have seized control of power in America.
The Tories were defending a majority of circa 7000 from 1959. At the end of the initial count Mitchell was down by circa 1600 in relation to his Tory opponent.He explained that for some reason he was not entirely happy with the conduct of the count so he asked for a recount. Attempts were made to talk him out of it , but he stood his ground and was eventually granted a 'bundle' recount.In the course of that, one of the counters suddenly shouted 'Stop!'. It was then discovered that several bundles of Mitchell's votes - each bundle being 100 votes - had been wrongly included in the Tory pile. The effect of the adjustment was to reduce the Tory majority to about 300 - and a full recount then followed which pretty well confirmed that margin.
If we give money to the EU, it needs to be crystal clear how much is given each year, and where it is coming from. If you wish to take it out of the DFiD budget, then you should make it clear which current projects you are defunding.
That kind of access is surely not what you mean?
Also, are those opt-in programs paid for as separate programs at the moment, or was it all lumped into the infamous "£350 miillion" figure? If it is separate than it's irrelevant.
How is the telling looking, is the Lib Dem vote coming out in expected numbers ?
Are Zac's chaps and ladies heading out ?
"It comes as the NSPCC said its hotline - set up to offer support to victims of child sex abuse within football - had received 860 calls in its first week."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38157275
Whatever we do, it needs to be clear and honest. Taking it from the DfID seems to be neither.
'9/11 was a turning point for me. I became ardent in my defence of Western and global democracies against Islamic terrorism.'
'I discovered that Sadiq Khan had a dubious record on Islamism. He had been defending Islamist terrorists and extremists on civil rights grounds as a lawyer.'
'He backed the corrupt and criminal Hillary Clinton against Donald J Trump, now President Elect.'
A bundle check is much quicker than a full recount, and far more likely to switch a serious number of votes over. A full recount only needed if it's wafer thin margin or you think the counting team have not been up to scratch.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/30/politics/banerian-death-threats-cnntv/index.html
https://youtu.be/_vQiW9Yu0eU
I think what you are saying would require repealing the international development act.