No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored. There were victims coming forward who got ignored. There was evidence discovered that got ignored. There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
Such voters are hardly likely to warm to Corbyn after his continued backing for unrestricted free movement though now are they? They are more likely to vote Tory in a May v Corbyn battle in my view than they would have been in a Cameron v Brown or Ed Miliband battle given such voters will be socially conservative, concerned about immigration and have backed Leave
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
Good point HYUFD - maybe Labour aren't the shoo-in I had imagined (and posted to such effect). It could be close ..... very close.
Yes if the Tories get some defections from UKIP and Labour lose a few to the LDs the Tories could scrape home, on a swing from 2015 matching the latest yougov it would be literally tied
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
"Certain people" is too easy. Name names or shut up.
I didn't want to be rude by naming names especially if they're not here to defend themselves. I can do if you really want, I think many people will read that and think of a name but I don't personally like the idea of "name and shame" do you REALLY want names to be named?
Well, you could start by naming any Peebies who are among their number. I find it a good rule, when I don't know all the ins and outs of an issue, to look at what the neo-fascists recommend - and then go the opposite way!
No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored. There were victims coming forward who got ignored. There was evidence discovered that got ignored. There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Griffin should have been listened to.
Or do crimes only count if the person reporting them is socially / politically acceptable?
Mind you, the way this country acts sometimes I do wonder.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
Yes, the Tories will certainly want a good local candidate
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
Yep - it was Tory cabinet ministers and a back bench Labour MP telling lies about the NHS.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
"Certain people" is too easy. Name names or shut up.
I didn't want to be rude by naming names especially if they're not here to defend themselves. I can do if you really want, I think many people will read that and think of a name but I don't personally like the idea of "name and shame" do you REALLY want names to be named?
Well, you could start by naming any Peebies who are among their number. I find it a good rule, when I don't know all the ins and outs of an issue, to look at what the neo-fascists recommend - and then go the opposite way!
I'll name just one then (although he's not the only one) since he's quite vocal on this subject and writes thread headers on it too but our own Mr Meeks has made this claim repeatedly. I'm not going to name any other names as I don't see how it helps and think it's rude.
Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.
The spate o diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.
The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?
It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.
It turned out to be unreasonable.
If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.
It turned out sources.
OK
You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.
While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.
No, you follow up ony. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
Oh, I get it.
You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'
That went well.
You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.
I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.
Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000
A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.
A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.
Really Southam, that's all it was?
well sorry, but - bollocks
You don't think ignore credible sources like the actual victims was a shame?
No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored. There were victims coming forward who got ignored. There was evidence discovered that got ignored. There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.
Nick Griffin was probably a part of the reason why they were ignored. People tend to assume bad motives to people who come up with the same answer as nasty people even if they happen to arrive at those answers for virtuous reasons, and in isolation from those nasty people.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Griffin should have been listened to.
Or do crimes only count if the person reporting them is socially / politically acceptable?
Mind you, the way this country acts sometimes I do wonder.
No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored. There were victims coming forward who got ignored. There was evidence discovered that got ignored. There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.
Nick Griffin was probably a part of the reason why they were ignored. People tend to assume bad motives to people who come up with the same answer as nasty people even if they happen to arrive at those answers for virtuous reasons, and in isolation from those nasty people.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.
Griffin was never the original source of the crime reporting. He made hay out of the fact reported.crimes were being ignored. Had the authorities done their jobs and listened to the victims in the first place then Griffin would never have got the chance to get involved. He is a side show.
No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored. There were victims coming forward who got ignored. There was evidence discovered that got ignored. There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.
Nick Griffin was probably a part of the reason why they were ignored. People tend to assume bad motives to people who come up with the same answer as nasty people even if they happen to arrive at those answers for virtuous reasons, and in isolation from those nasty people.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.
Yep, the fact that a white supremacist and holocaust denier latched onto the issue gave the wicked and the lazy a way to play the many credible sources down. Rotherham is undoubtedly a disgraceful low point for the PC left; not because Nick Griffin was ignored, but because he was used an excuse not to look into uncomfortable truths.
Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.
The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.
The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?
No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.
So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.
Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.
Indeed there were reasonable people bringing up the subject who got ignored. There were victims coming forward who got ignored. There was evidence discovered that got ignored. There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
Exactly. Nick Griffin is a total red herring. There were dozens of other credible sources. The wickedness was in ignoring them, not Nick Griffin.
Nick Griffin was probably a part of the reason why they were ignored. People tend to assume bad motives to people who come up with the same answer as nasty people even if they happen to arrive at those answers for virtuous reasons, and in isolation from those nasty people.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.
Yep, the fact that a white supremacist and holocaust denier latched onto the issue gave the wicked and the lazy a way to play the many credible sources down. Rotherham is undoubtedly a disgraceful low point for the PC left; not because Nick Griffin was ignored, but because he was used an excuse not to look into uncomfortable truths.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that way
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishment
the establishments havent swapped over yet
that will take at least a decade
We have a pro Brexit PM and Cabinet after a pro Remain PM and Cabinet and Trump and his Cabinet are about to replace the Obama administration, in a decade we could have a Labour PM and a Democratic President again, in political terms at least the new establishment runs the show for now
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that way
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishment
the establishments havent swapped over yet
that will take at least a decade
We have a pro Brexit PM and Cabinet after a pro Remain PM and Cabinet and Trump and his Cabinet are about to replace the Obama administration, in a decade we could have a Labour PM and a Democratic President again, in political terms at least the new establishment runs the show for now
changing the figureheads is only the start
the layers below need time to adopt the new realities, that means both culture and people changes all of which take time to get bedded in
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that way
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishment
the establishments havent swapped over yet
that will take at least a decade
We have a pro Brexit PM and Cabinet after a pro Remain PM and Cabinet and Trump and his Cabinet are about to replace the Obama administration, in a decade we could have a Labour PM and a Democratic President again, in political terms at least the new establishment runs the show for now
changing the figureheads is only the start
the layers below need time to adopt the new realities, that means both culture and people changes all of which take time to get bedded in
To an extent but the UK civil service is supposed to impartially serve whichever party forms the government of the day, hence Sir Ivan Roger's has resigned from the civil service and been replaced by Sir Tim Bristow while in the US the new administration appoints its own senior civil servants and ambassadors and the old ones will depart with Obama.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
He is specifically saying that Leave shouldn't be using £350m!!!
Yes it is possible to spend some of the EU money on the NHS, I didn't think anyone disputed that, it was saying £350m could be spent that was controversial
What Farage is saying is we could spend the net figure on a whole load of different things, not the gross figure on the NHS.. thanks for providing the link
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
Well we could spend £10bn per year extra if we wanted to. That money is available.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
He is specifically saying that Leave shouldn't be using £350m!!!
Yes it is possible to spend some of the EU money on the NHS, I didn't think anyone disputed that, it was saying £350m could be spent that was controversial
What Farage is saying is we could spend the net figure on a whole load of different things, not the gross figure on the NHS.. thanks for providing the link
Of course, the £200m or £350m or whatever is all dependent on Brexit not shrinking the economy as a whole (relative to what it would have been without Brexit).
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
He is specifically saying that Leave shouldn't be using £350m!!!
Yes it is possible to spend some of the EU money on the NHS, I didn't think anyone disputed that, it was saying £350m could be spent that was controversial
What Farage is saying is we could spend the net figure on a whole load of different things, not the gross figure on the NHS.. thanks for providing the link
Of course, the £200m or £350m or whatever is all dependent on Brexit not shrinking the economy as a whole (relative to what it would have been without Brexit).
Maybe. I suppose it could be more if the economy grew because of it as well.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
UKIP are not and never have been Tories on holiday. Tories = 35.8% vs Labour 42.3% in May 2015 are the relevant figures.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
In 2015 UKIP took many protest votes from the Lib Dems and took some working class C2,D,E votes from Labour.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
I suspect the Establishment dont see it that way
The old political establishment, in a post Brexit, Trump as POTUS world the forces which drove UKIP are now leading the new establishment
the establishments havent swapped over yet
that will take at least a decade
We have a pro Brexit PM and Cabinet after a pro Remain PM and Cabinet and Trump and his Cabinet are about to replace the Obama administration, in a decade we could have a Labour PM and a Democratic President again, in political terms at least the new establishment runs the show for now
changing the figureheads is only the start
the layers below need time to adopt the new realities, that means both culture and people changes all of which take time to get bedded in
The first of the new realities that will come as a shock to some will be the lack of synergy between Trump and Brexit.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.
I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.
*maybe we should call them the alt-right-on
We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
He says £10bn which is <£200mn a week. He specifies the rebate that doesn't go too.</p>
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
Tories + UKIP =52% in Copeland in May 2015. Labour got 42%
Issue will be at Copeland, who are motivated to vote. What is motivating Labour voters to vote in the seat of nuclear power in the UK, with a unilateralist anti-nuke leader? The NHS? Maybe. But an independent "Protect our NHS" candidate - a la Dr. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest - could have a dramatic impact. My guess would be disproportionately at Labour's expense.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
After Cameron left without invoking Article 50 the rest of the world concluded that it might never happen.
Yep, Texas, California and Arizona will be disproportionately hit, but the effect will be felt across large swathes of the US beyond that. Alaska and Hawaii probably immune!
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
And on that Brexit-based devaluation of sterling, do we think the French and Germans are going
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
PB's own medical examiner got the cause of death wrong - the patient is alive, well and chirpy - yet he refuses to accept it - and still wants him buried.
Ring that bell
"The fear of being buried alive peaked during the cholera epidemics of the 18th and 19th centuries but accounts of live burial have been recorded even further back. When his tomb was reopened, the philosopher John Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308) was reportedly found outside his coffin with his hands torn and bloody after attempting to escape. The fears of being buried alive were heightened by reports of doctors and accounts in literature and the newspapers. As well as dealing with the subject in "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Cask of Amontillado", Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Premature Burial", which was published in 1844. It contained accounts of supposedly genuine cases of premature burial as well as detailing the narrator's own (perceived) interment while still alive.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
And on that Brexit-based devaluation of sterling, do we think the French and Germans are going
a) Ha! That showed the Brits!
or
b) Bastards!!!
Neither, I expect
Though it obviously means earning in pounds is worth less compared to $ € CHF and ¥. This may make a difference to where mobile people want to work, whether financiers or cabbage pickers. Devaluation is not a sign of economic strength, but usually a correction showing overall lack of economic potential.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
And on that Brexit-based devaluation of sterling, do we think the French and Germans are going
a) Ha! That showed the Brits!
or
b) Bastards!!!
Neither, I expect
Though it obviously means earning in pounds is worth less compared to $ € CHF and ¥. This may make a difference to where mobile people want to work, whether financiers or cabbage pickers. Devaluation is not a sign of economic strength, but usually a correction showing overall lack of economic potential.
Shame that the Southern European economies are being wrecked because the Euro is run to suit Germany.
Out of curiosity - and many years after the thought first occurred - are you actually a morris dancer, or is it just a whimsical handle chosen for this forum?
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
After Cameron left without invoking Article 50 the rest of the world concluded that it might never happen.
Mr. Anorak, the sight of my wiffle stick being waved gaily through England's merry streets brings smiles to the faces of all who delight in its presence.
[I am not a morris dancer. I wanted a name that was both unmistakably British, yet also quite silly].
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
Yet I can remember lower rates of exchanges in last 10 years..........
I don't recall the end of the world then or even a massive spike in inflation.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
PB's own medical examiner got the cause of death wrong - the patient is alive, well and chirpy - yet he refuses to accept it - and still wants him buried.
Ring that bell
"The fear of being buried alive peaked during the cholera epidemics of the 18th and 19th centuries but accounts of live burial have been recorded even further back. When his tomb was reopened, the philosopher John Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308) was reportedly found outside his coffin with his hands torn and bloody after attempting to escape. The fears of being buried alive were heightened by reports of doctors and accounts in literature and the newspapers. As well as dealing with the subject in "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Cask of Amontillado", Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Premature Burial", which was published in 1844. It contained accounts of supposedly genuine cases of premature burial as well as detailing the narrator's own (perceived) interment while still alive.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
PB's own medical examiner got the cause of death wrong - the patient is alive, well and chirpy - yet he refuses to accept it - and still wants him buried.
Ring that bell
"The fear of being buried alive peaked during the cholera epidemics of the 18th and 19th centuries but accounts of live burial have been recorded even further back. When his tomb was reopened, the philosopher John Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308) was reportedly found outside his coffin with his hands torn and bloody after attempting to escape. The fears of being buried alive were heightened by reports of doctors and accounts in literature and the newspapers. As well as dealing with the subject in "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Cask of Amontillado", Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Premature Burial", which was published in 1844. It contained accounts of supposedly genuine cases of premature burial as well as detailing the narrator's own (perceived) interment while still alive.
Isn’t premature burial supposed to have contributed to the vampire myth; scratch marks on the inside of the coffin, when the corpses of those suspected were examined?
Mr. Anorak, the sight of my wiffle stick being waved gaily through England's merry streets brings smiles to the faces of all who delight in its presence.
[I am not a morris dancer. I wanted a name that was both unmistakably British, yet also quite silly].
I was 80% sure that was the case, but thought I'd check. Not that there is anything wrong with being a morris dancer, obviously.
Oh God. I've just remembered I've got a £10 1846/1 double on trump winning and then declaring war on mexico.
That's probably down to 50/1 now.
Please no.
presumably that bet requires a real rather than trade war!
Though check the fine print. As I recall only Congress can declare war, though Trump will be Commander in chief. An undeclared military war may not count. Formal declarations ofwar are so mid 20th century.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.
Mr. Anorak, the sight of my wiffle stick being waved gaily through England's merry streets brings smiles to the faces of all who delight in its presence.
[I am not a morris dancer. I wanted a name that was both unmistakably British, yet also quite silly].
From wiki: The term morris is believed to be from the late Middle English word morys, a variant of the word moorish – from the Moors of Morocco.
Maybe not so British
Although the penchant for blacking up does seem a particularly English affectation. Well pre-1980 England, anyway.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.
Are you sure about the increase in investment? The figures I saw showed a decrease. Consumer confidence is holding up, but as it's credit fuelled it isn't sustainable.
Trump doesn't really need a full blown trade war. Given that economic statistics are pretty easy to fudge, that Trump has apparently little problem in telling bare faced lies, and often suffers little negative effects from doing so, I expect him to claim victory on this point irrespective of the facts. More importantly, Obama's economic legacy is pretty decent, and stuff is happening completely independently of anything Trump will do which will significantly benefit US manufacturing jobs - for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-04/tesla-flips-the-switch-on-the-gigafactory
Trump is (IMO) a horse's ass, and likely a blunderer as President,but I do not write off the possibility of a second term.
A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.
Really Southam, that's all it was?
well sorry, but - bollocks
You don't think ignore credible sources like the actual victims was a shame?
It's a thought I suppose.
That whistling sound you heard was you missing the point in a rather spectacular fashion.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.
Are you sure about the increase in investment? The figures I saw showed a decrease. Consumer confidence is holding up, but as it's credit fuelled it isn't sustainable.
but as it's credit fuelled it isn't sustainable.
you mean like the UK economy for the last 30 years ?
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.
let's not forget those best ever car sales
Buy before the price goes up. Like any imprt the new stock will be more expensive.
There is a certain End of the Century bubble feeling in the air. I think that we are seeing the end of the long 20th Century.
A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.
Really Southam, that's all it was?
well sorry, but - bollocks
You don't think ignore credible sources like the actual victims was a shame?
It's a thought I suppose.
That whistling sound you heard was you missing the point in a rather spectacular fashion.
You obviously didn't think, I suppose.
I thought it was the noise made by the wind blowing in your left ear and straight out of the right one.
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.
let's not forget those best ever car sales
Buy before the price goes up. Like any imprt the new stock will be more expensive.
There is a certain End of the Century bubble feeling in the air. I think that we are seeing the end of the long 20th Century.
Mr. Anorak, well, the word Blighty is ultimately of Arabic derivation, I believe.
Most words and customs have long roots.
Just tweaking your nose, old bean. London is a name of Roman origin, after all. York is from Old Norse, etc, etc. A country named by its European conquerors!
Oh God. I've just remembered I've got a £10 1846/1 double on trump winning and then declaring war on mexico.
That's probably down to 50/1 now.
Please no.
How is ‘war’ defined?
By Tony Gallagher, or whoever writes the Sun's headlines.
The bet was laid by the sun newspaper's very own bookmaker. I'd be surprised if they argued on a technicality. Not paying out would cost them more than paying out.
Mr. Anorak, well, the word Blighty is ultimately of Arabic derivation, I believe.
Most words and customs have long roots.
Just tweaking your nose, old, bean. London is a name of Roman origin, after all. York is from Old Norse, etc, etc. A country named by its European conquerors!
Isn’t Blighty Hindi? And wasn’t there a British settlement in the Lomndon are, pre-Roman?
He was claiming the UK could spend shed loads of extra money on the NHS, thus contributing to the false picture that there would be shedloads of money to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. See previous thread header for the consequences of that.
There will be shed loads of money our net contribution is £10bn a year!
Provided the economy grows at the same rate.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
Albeit post Brexit the economy grew faster than predicted in 2016 if we voted Remain let alone Leave. If that continues there will be far more than just £10bn.
We haven't Brexited yet...
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
We have voted to Brexit and the now demonstrated to be fallacious claim was an immediate slump (and emergency budget) after the vote - not years later when we actually Brexit. A vote was supposed to be enough to crash confidence and thus the economy.
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
The only definite effect so far is the devaluation of Sterling. That much I agree.
Plus the increase in consumer confidence and the increase oin the purchasing managers' indices and the increase in overseas investment into the UK.
let's not forget those best ever car sales
Buy before the price goes up. Like any imprt the new stock will be more expensive.
There is a certain End of the Century bubble feeling in the air. I think that we are seeing the end of the long 20th Century.
Good.
Imports down. balance of payments up
next
It very much depends on price elasticity. If demand for BMW's goes down 10% but the price goes up by 10%, the balance of payments remains much the same. We just are denied the benefits of new cars...
Mr. Anorak, well, the word Blighty is ultimately of Arabic derivation, I believe.
Most words and customs have long roots.
Just tweaking your nose, old, bean. London is a name of Roman origin, after all. York is from Old Norse, etc, etc. A country named by its European conquerors!
Isn’t Blighty Hindi? And wasn’t there a British settlement in the Lomndon are, pre-Roman?
Not sure there was, not of any note in any case. This is rather heartening, though: Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD. This lasted only until around 61, when the Iceni tribe led by Queen Boudica stormed it, burning it to the ground.
Comments
There were victims coming forward who got ignored.
There was evidence discovered that got ignored.
There were witnesses that came forward that got ignored.
None of that should have happened. If Griffin and his cronies were the only source then that means no reasonable people, no victims, no evidence and no witnesses. In which case yes I think no/minimal follow up would be reasonable. And since there were no victims or anything else raping wouldn't have continued as there were no victims.
The rise in UKIP share in 2015 came almost exclusively from a fall in Lib Dem and Labour voters from 2010 not Tory ones.
I am not dipping my toe in this market until we know the full list of candidates.
Or do crimes only count if the person reporting them is socially / politically acceptable?
Mind you, the way this country acts sometimes I do wonder.
In 2017 UKIP may not get as many protest votes because people have got more used to them. UKIP are seen as part of the establishment now.
well sorry, but - bollocks
It's a thought I suppose.
People do that here all the time, its the same as saying most BNP members vote UKIP, and trying to imply by association that most kippers are fascists. Parties cant choose who supports them, and people reporting crimes cant choose who else reported them.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-06-10/mbe-for-rotherham-youth-worker-who-exposed-child-sexual-exploitation/
that will take at least a decade
They've met before, so she couldn't hide, had to say "hi..."
Oh, the horror. She's mortified.
Cant see it myself, more like Paul Newman
German socialists want to reduce foreign aid to countries that wont take back failed asylum seekers
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/einwanderungsdebatte-gabriel-csu-blockiert-loesung-bei-abschiebungen-nach-nordafrika-14608684.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8123832/Nick-Clegg-admits-breaking-tuition-fees-pledge.html
the layers below need time to adopt the new realities, that means both culture and people changes all of which take time to get bedded in
You are making my point for me!! Amazing
Yes it is possible to spend some of the EU money on the NHS, I didn't think anyone disputed that, it was saying £350m could be spent that was controversial
What Farage is saying is we could spend the net figure on a whole load of different things, not the gross figure on the NHS.. thanks for providing the link
Lets not bother eh?
Both the frontrunners are well known local councillors, pro nuclear with long track records of campaigning on health issues. Both look formidable.
To my mind markets and consumers work on very short horizons. The dip in the markets in Late June had recovered in a few months, but I expect that the ssme will happen again when A50 actually happens.
In reality Foxy's economic dictum applies : Things are never as bad as predicted nor as good as predicted
But we do not know yet what the economic growth will be and can never test the counterfactual.
Brexit will be like Stalins five year plan, declared a success, over a pile of (political) graves. History is written by the winners.
Jeremy Corbyn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38542076
Perhaps the Lib Dems should see if he's interested in being a candidate?
Also: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1iNrdtXAAUv1e2.jpg
Which is now demonstrably wrong.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q__bSi5rBlw
a) Ha! That showed the Brits!
or
b) Bastards!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFU0qlAmfRo&t=127s
Ring that bell
"The fear of being buried alive peaked during the cholera epidemics of the 18th and 19th centuries but accounts of live burial have been recorded even further back. When his tomb was reopened, the philosopher John Duns Scotus (1266 – 1308) was reportedly found outside his coffin with his hands torn and bloody after attempting to escape. The fears of being buried alive were heightened by reports of doctors and accounts in literature and the newspapers. As well as dealing with the subject in "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Cask of Amontillado", Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Premature Burial", which was published in 1844. It contained accounts of supposedly genuine cases of premature burial as well as detailing the narrator's own (perceived) interment while still alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin
Though it obviously means earning in pounds is worth less compared to $ € CHF and ¥. This may make a difference to where mobile people want to work, whether financiers or cabbage pickers. Devaluation is not a sign of economic strength, but usually a correction showing overall lack of economic potential.
That's probably down to 50/1 now.
Please no.
And good afternoon!
It might get a cheap headline, but it is just insulting in genuine crisis e.g. Syria and actually harms any sensible debate.
You show a huge capacity for self delusion.
[I am not a morris dancer. I wanted a name that was both unmistakably British, yet also quite silly].
I don't recall the end of the world then or even a massive spike in inflation.
Though check the fine print. As I recall only Congress can declare war, though Trump will be Commander in chief. An undeclared military war may not count. Formal declarations ofwar are so mid 20th century.
Perfect match!
Maybe not so British
Although the penchant for blacking up does seem a particularly English affectation. Well pre-1980 England, anyway.
More importantly, Obama's economic legacy is pretty decent, and stuff is happening completely independently of anything Trump will do which will significantly benefit US manufacturing jobs - for example:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-04/tesla-flips-the-switch-on-the-gigafactory
Trump is (IMO) a horse's ass, and likely a blunderer as President,but I do not write off the possibility of a second term.
So let's propose an experiment.
You claim triggering Article 50 was/is irrelevant to the market reaction.
Assuming we trigger in March (and I am not sure we will), will you stand by your assertion that it will have zero market impact?
You obviously didn't think, I suppose.
you mean like the UK economy for the last 30 years ?
Most words and customs have long roots.
There is a certain End of the Century bubble feeling in the air. I think that we are seeing the end of the long 20th Century.
Imports down. balance of payments up
next
The bet was laid by the sun newspaper's very own bookmaker. I'd be surprised if they argued on a technicality. Not paying out would cost them more than paying out.
I really hope it won't come to that though.
For the sake of the Mexicans.
King Cole, you might be right. Sometimes such confusions occur (such as so-called Arabic numerals/numbers, which are really Indian).
Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD. This lasted only until around 61, when the Iceni tribe led by Queen Boudica stormed it, burning it to the ground.