Generally the better educated are more prone to irrational political opinions and political hysteria than the worse educated far from power. Why? In the field of political opinion they are more driven by fashion, a gang mentality, and the desire to pose about moral and political questions all of which exacerbate cognitive biases, encourage groupthink, and reduce accuracy. Those on average incomes are less likely to express political views to send signals; political views are much less important for signalling to one’s immediate in-group when you are on 20k a year. The former tend to see such questions in more general and abstract terms, and are more insulated from immediate worries about money. The latter tend to see such questions in more concrete and specific terms and ask ‘how does this affect me?’
Anyone know the background to his jibe at Matt Goodwin?
Or: "The people that agree with me are just *better*. They make better, more common-sense decisions and do not spend all their time virtue signalling. I have no evidence whatsoever to back this assertion up, but I just know it to be true."
Don't know how many focus groups you've sat in with 'ordinary punters' but I've sat in plenty and the phenomenon he describes is real.
In one classic case a middle class mum - to nodding approval from some in the group described how she really cared for the planet, was worried about her children's future so of course only used an 'environmentally friendly' (sic) washing powder - then went on to describe the many extra steps she had to take to make sure her kids clothes were actually clean.
The next, working class, mum simply said 'I just bung it in with Ariel and that does the job'.....
Ironically, the "bung it in with Ariel" approach probably uses less energy, chemicals etc than the myriad of "green" fads.
Which tend not to be green, scientific or rational.
Note how many posh middle class types install storage heaters, instead of underfloor heating linked to one or more combi boilers.
The sport's not in a critical state yet, but it's not hard to see how it could be soon. Coverage is shifting to pay TV, audiences are down, classic, popular circuits are at risk whilst new, rubbish circuits proliferate, the financial situation is indefensible and unsustainable, and some people are worried the new regulations will both increase Mercedes' advantage *and* make overtaking harder.
Read that when.it came out. Wings is a bullshitter, its his job and how he makes a living. He isn't going to stop now.
Although David Small of Bella Caledonia is stepping down - which is a pity because although I rarely agree with him, at least he argues his case, rather than the Vicar who just twists facts...
Evidently you even disagree with Mike Small on his name.
Of course your expertise on the Scottish media scene has always been legendary.
LOL and also claims to be "Scottish"
Joyous and civic, eh?
civil not civic
Off to the re-education camp with you!
It's a canard of the contemporary constitutional debate that Scottish Nationalism is "civic" rather than "ethnic" in nature, having long ago jettisoned its less attractive elements.
This is generally accepted by most observers of the political scene and backed by the "modernist" school of political science. It's a nice idea, and of course a convenient one for the modern SNP, but it doesn't quite tell the full story.
In terms of positioning, the shift is strongly associated with Alex Salmond. "The SNP is engaged in the process of reinforcing our identity as a civic national party"
' For the first few months, all sorts of things spewed from the Department causing chaos. The organisation was in meltdown. Everything that could go wrong went wrong. It was often impossible to distinguish between institutionalised incompetence and hostile action. Things were reported as ‘Gove announces…’ that he did not even know about, never mind agree with. Then pundits and bloggers would spin to themselves elaborate tales of how the latest leak was ‘really’ deliberate spin, preparing the ground for some diabolical scheme. (I would guess that <5% of the things people thought we leaked actually came from us – maybe <1%.)
From that day for over a year, about every 2 hours, officials would knock at our door bearing news of the latest cockup, disaster, leak, and shambles, all compounded with intermittent ‘ideas for announcements’ from Downing Street. The last one would be at about 9ish on Friday evening – thump, thump, thump down the corridor, the door opens, ‘Dominic, bad news I’m afraid…’
For all of these problems, Gove was held ‘responsible’. With all of them, regardless of how incompetently they had been handled – nobody was ever fired. '
and
snip
... Some people who make blunders like those described above are then deemed by the HR system to be ‘priority movers’. This means that a) they are regarded as among the worst performers but also means b) they have to be interviewed for new jobs ahead of people who are better qualified. It is a very bizarre system, made more bizarre by the fact that there are great efforts to keep it hidden from ministers and the outside world. '</p>
Why are we talking about Arlene Foster so early in the day ?
The civil service, I suspect, resembles a sausage machine. It is as well not to know the process that goes on.
First listening to the news this morning expecting to hear about Corbyn's conversion to restricting free movement of labour and instead we get capping max wages and that he would stand on the picket line in the Southern strike.
The man is quite simply riduculous and it does make you wonder how long this utter nonsense can continue. As a conservative I get no pleasure in the state of labour, we all need a functioning opposition but after this morning that seems further away than ever
Read that when.it came out. Wings is a bullshitter, its his job and how he makes a living. He isn't going to stop now.
Although David Small of Bella Caledonia is stepping down - which is a pity because although I rarely agree with him, at least he argues his case, rather than the Vicar who just twists facts...
Evidently you even disagree with Mike Small on his name.
Of course your expertise on the Scottish media scene has always been legendary.
LOL and also claims to be "Scottish"
Joyous and civic, eh?
civil not civic
Off to the re-education camp with you!
It's a canard of the contemporary constitutional debate that Scottish Nationalism is "civic" rather than "ethnic" in nature, having long ago jettisoned its less attractive elements.
This is generally accepted by most observers of the political scene and backed by the "modernist" school of political science. It's a nice idea, and of course a convenient one for the modern SNP, but it doesn't quite tell the full story.
In terms of positioning, the shift is strongly associated with Alex Salmond. "The SNP is engaged in the process of reinforcing our identity as a civic national party"
As some of us were predicting a few days ago, Diane Abbott looks like the character the momentum crowd will latch on to next.
Having said that, judging from my Facebook feed, a lot of my metropolitan leftie friends have already moved over to the Lib Dems or the Greens because of their unequivocal stance on Europe anyway.
Media management by Labour par excellence this morning. NHS in 'meltdown' and Corbyn manages to make today's story about a high income cap. Quite brilliant.
Alistair Campbell must have broken his radio this morning.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
You are making the mistake of confusing the exercise of fundamentally changing Labour's stance towards one of favouring controlled EU immigration to address what is now an acknowledged problem with the far less important exercise (for now) of defining the exact measures that it would be seeking to enact to put that into effect. The important point is that the leader of the Labour Party has now followed virtually the entire PLP in crossing the Rubicon and the party is now in a position to start defining a policy on immigration that will no longer alienate swathes of its core vote. I care far less about the detail at this stage.
Obviously detail is important in time, but we are getting ahead of ourselves in what is going to be a two way negotiating process, in which May has if anything "de-clarified" her own position just to make things more confusing.
A sensible next step for Labour would be to put forward the line that the Conservatives are only half-hearted about a long term commitment to the provisions of the EU Social Charter and that that will do far more to undermine the chances of mutually beneficial trade deals on Brexit than does the desire (which Labour now shares) for controlled EU migration.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
As some of us were predicting a few days ago, Diane Abbott looks like the character the momentum crowd will latch on to next.
Having said that, judging from my Facebook feed, a lot of my metropolitan leftie friends have already moved over to the Lib Dems or the Greens because of their unequivocal stance on Europe anyway.
If the accusation that he's not this principled man of principles sticks, then what else does he have, other than a nice beard and that annoying untrimmed plant outside his front door?
The sport's not in a critical state yet, but it's not hard to see how it could be soon. Coverage is shifting to pay TV, audiences are down, classic, popular circuits are at risk whilst new, rubbish circuits proliferate, the financial situation is indefensible and unsustainable, and some people are worried the new regulations will both increase Mercedes' advantage *and* make overtaking harder.
But apart from that, everything's going well.
It's sad to think Manor's not going to be on the grid next year.
Ferrari's 'extra' contribution has long been an anomaly, and is one that the post-Bernie world should address - the rest of the bonus contributions to top teams are bad, but Ferrari's reported bonus is just ridiculous.
And if they follow through on their threat to pull out their bluff should be called. Ferrari need F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari, especially under such outrageous terms.
@steve_hawkes: Tories: “Corbyn’s chaotic relaunch hasn’t made it past breakfast time." One Labour MP "If Jeremy had two brains he'd be twice as stupid."
Mr. Eagles, it's stupid whatever the threshold, but £50k is especially low.
The Lib Dems must be loving Corbyn.
The £50K is just made up rubbish , Corbyn was not suggesting that even if he is a dud.
Of course it's rubbish, but what then is it? 100k? 200k? 500K? 1m?
He hasn't said what it is, so allows people to project their own number on it.
Well I bet Rooney's £250,000 per week and lots of the luvvie's will look forward to 100% tax. In one stroke finishes off the Premier League and drives all the luvvie's to the US
How long will it be before Corbyn achieves the sub 25% vote he earnestly craves?
Looking at the Guardian last night I think he might already have passed that.
Eh? The front page of Guardian is, like other papers, all about Hunt's utter clusterf*** NHS A&E situation.
What does Jezza do? Take to the airways this morning to move the media onto an income cap.
There was some talk of Jezza's team trying to do a Trump, and allow his authenticity to shine through. I suppose you could argue that today's efforts fit with the basic Trump playbook - which is never do anything that resembles normal media handling or campaigning.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
I have said several times now , we will have hard Brexit and pay loads more to get some of the bits we previously had. It will be the worst of both worlds, sitting on the outside nose pressed against the glass and paying through the nose for it. The numpties we have leading negotiations will make a pigs ear of it for certain.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
Mr. Jessop, yeah, and a very similar thing happens with circuits. Spa, Monza, Interlagos struggle to stay on the calendar, but undeservedly lauded Monaco pays no fee at all.
Mr. Eagles, in German, schuldig means both 'debt' and 'guilt'.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
Mr. Eagles, it's stupid whatever the threshold, but £50k is especially low.
The Lib Dems must be loving Corbyn.
The £50K is just made up rubbish , Corbyn was not suggesting that even if he is a dud.
Of course it's rubbish, but what then is it? 100k? 200k? 500K? 1m?
He hasn't said what it is, so allows people to project their own number on it.
Well I bet Rooney's £250,000 per week and lots of the luvvie's will look forward to 100% tax. In one stroke finishes off the Premier League and drives all the luvvie's to the US
I know, plus it's not my fault I was raised by parents who view debt as the eighth deadliest sin.
Of course, debt and savings are opposite sides of the same coin. Debt is those consuming now, who wish to repay later. Saving is those deferring consumption. Savings and debt are merely mechanisms for the time transfer of work.
You cannot have savings without debt, and you cannot have debt without savings.
Lol The maximum wage wouldn't be £50k under Corbyn (How would anyone in London ever live in a house with this cap for instance ), perhaps a couple of million a year or so..
Obviously whatever the figure is its a nonsense as you'd drive away largest firms overseas, and that would affect the tax base to the detriment of us all.
Effective taxation is the superior end methinks, and for that in today's multinational world you need multinational cooperation. As Meeks pointed out a few posts ago Brexit puts us in a vastly weaker position for that particular truism...
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
CERN is not administered by the EU.
It's listed as an EU programme that it pays into by Norway. So presumably the money goes from Norway to the EU to CERN.
It's a real-time train wreck. Can't. Stop. Watching...
@shelleylphelps: "It's absolutely f*****g bonkers" "he came up with it off the top of his head" one Labour Party source tells me of Corbyn wage cap idea.
@MrHarryCole: Corbyn refuses to say he will stand for election on policies to reduce numbers of eu migrants. He's meant to be giving speech saying so at 3
Mr. Eagles, it's stupid whatever the threshold, but £50k is especially low.
The Lib Dems must be loving Corbyn.
The £50K is just made up rubbish , Corbyn was not suggesting that even if he is a dud.
Of course it's rubbish, but what then is it? 100k? 200k? 500K? 1m?
He hasn't said what it is, so allows people to project their own number on it.
Well I bet Rooney's £250,000 per week and lots of the luvvie's will look forward to 100% tax. In one stroke finishes off the Premier League and drives all the luvvie's to the US
@steve_hawkes Tories: “Corbyn’s chaotic relaunch hasn’t made it past breakfast time." One Labour MP "If Jeremy had two brains he'd be twice as stupid."
Well I bet Rooney's £250,000 per week and lots of the luvvie's will look forward to 100% tax. In one stroke finishes off the Premier League and drives all the luvvie's to the US
They won't be going to the US with The Donald in charge.
Lol The maximum wage wouldn't be £50k under Corbyn (How would anyone in London ever live in a house with this cap for instance ), perhaps a couple of million a year or so..
Obviously whatever the figure is its a nonsense as you'd drive away largest firms overseas, and that would affect the tax base to the detriment of us all.
Effective taxation is the superior left wing end methinks, and for that in today's multinational world you need multinational cooperation. As Meeks pointed out a few posts ago Brexit puts us in a vastly weaker position for that particular truism...
As Richard Tyndall pointed, the role of the EU in assisting effective taxation of multinationals is a sick joke. Junker, Luxembourg, etc.
The most interesting part of Cummings blog for me was that he too thought Cameron calling the referendum was a mistake: his preferred approach was to wait for a new Tory leader and PM post-Cameron (almost certainly Gove), invite a fundamental reform of the EU to suit the fact some of its members wished a far looser relationship, based largely on trade alone, and, if that failed (which it probably would) arrange to leave during the period 2018-2025, following a referendum with the PM on the Leave side which would win a mandate of 60-70%.
He got involved because he felt he couldn't give up a chance to leave the EU, however non-ideal the circumstance or timing, nor how slim the chances of success.
Corbyn on Sky is just a rambling incoherrent mess. He rows back on restricting free movement and then just 'havers' ( a great Scots word for talking foolishly) about capping max wages and Southern strike.
..and another: just how useless, yet egotistical, most MPs* seem to be. More interested in getting their faces on the TV than doing anything else, and stropping off if their views are unheeded.
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
Lol The maximum wage wouldn't be £50k under Corbyn (How would anyone in London ever live in a house with this cap for instance ), perhaps a couple of million a year or so..
Obviously whatever the figure is its a nonsense as you'd drive away largest firms overseas, and that would affect the tax base to the detriment of us all.
Effective taxation is the superior left wing end methinks, and for that in today's multinational world you need multinational cooperation. As Meeks pointed out a few posts ago Brexit puts us in a vastly weaker position for that particular truism...
As Richard Tyndall pointed, the role of the EU in assisting effective taxation of multinationals is a sick joke. Junker, Luxembourg, etc.
Well I bet Rooney's £250,000 per week and lots of the luvvie's will look forward to 100% tax. In one stroke finishes off the Premier League and drives all the luvvie's to the US
They won't be going to the US with The Donald in charge.
..and another: just how useless, yet egotistical, most MPs* seem to be. More interested in getting their faces on the TV than doing anything else, and stropping off if their views are unheeded.
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
From what I have read (nearly half) he says that without the 350m/NHS/Turkey, the referendum would have been lost.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn says pay cap wd restrain "ridiculous" salaries paid to some footballers and top executives
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
Either Corbyn or Wenger would be wrong about that. A wage cap for the Premier League would see all top talent go overseas and we'd soon have no clubs able to compete in the Champions League. I don't think Wenger is that thick.
Mr. Topping, you could also argue that with a deal worth the name, or a campaign beyond "Little Englanders" and "£4,300 worse off because Mystic Meg says so" Remain would've won. They had every advantage it, and buggered it up.
..and another: just how useless, yet egotistical, most MPs* seem to be. More interested in getting their faces on the TV than doing anything else, and stropping off if their views are unheeded.
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
From what I have read (nearly half) he says that without the 350m/NHS/Turkey, the referendum would have been lost.
This will come as a massive shock to poor, old Dan Hannan (among others).
Lol The maximum wage wouldn't be £50k under Corbyn (How would anyone in London ever live in a house with this cap for instance ), perhaps a couple of million a year or so..
Obviously whatever the figure is its a nonsense as you'd drive away largest firms overseas, and that would affect the tax base to the detriment of us all.
Effective taxation is the superior left wing end methinks, and for that in today's multinational world you need multinational cooperation. As Meeks pointed out a few posts ago Brexit puts us in a vastly weaker position for that particular truism...
As Richard Tyndall pointed, the role of the EU in assisting effective taxation of multinationals is a sick joke. Junker, Luxembourg, etc.
Only game in town I'm afraid.
If the game is rigged it is sometimes better not to play.
Lol The maximum wage wouldn't be £50k under Corbyn (How would anyone in London ever live in a house with this cap for instance ), perhaps a couple of million a year or so..
Obviously whatever the figure is its a nonsense as you'd drive away largest firms overseas, and that would affect the tax base to the detriment of us all.
Effective taxation is the superior end methinks, and for that in today's multinational world you need multinational cooperation. As Meeks pointed out a few posts ago Brexit puts us in a vastly weaker position for that particular truism...
Swings and roundabouts. Multinational cooperation and internationalism also makes it much easier for multinationals to lobby and influence large organisations to set the rules in their interests. Which is why so many were pro EU.
Regulatory diversity is just as valuable: testing what works and doesn't work, giving others the chance to flourish, and learning from it.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn says pay cap wd restrain "ridiculous" salaries paid to some footballers and top executives
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
Either Corbyn or Wenger would be wrong about that. A wage cap for the Premier League would see all top talent go overseas and we'd soon have no clubs able to compete in the Champions League. I don't think Wenger is that thick.
Mr. Eagles, it's stupid whatever the threshold, but £50k is especially low.
The Lib Dems must be loving Corbyn.
The £50K is just made up rubbish , Corbyn was not suggesting that even if he is a dud.
Of course it's rubbish, but what then is it? 100k? 200k? 500K? 1m?
He hasn't said what it is, so allows people to project their own number on it.
Well I bet Rooney's £250,000 per week and lots of the luvvie's will look forward to 100% tax. In one stroke finishes off the Premier League and drives all the luvvie's to the US
We can but pray and keep our fingers crossed
And the loss of tax to the UK
They will be paying a pittance , they avoid tax like the plague. Worst case the losss would be worth it to get rid of the whinging parasites.
..and another: just how useless, yet egotistical, most MPs* seem to be. More interested in getting their faces on the TV than doing anything else, and stropping off if their views are unheeded.
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
From what I have read (nearly half) he says that without the 350m/NHS/Turkey, the referendum would have been lost.
This will come as a massive shock to poor, old Dan Hannan (among others).
Why would it? He was involved in Vote Leave's campaign.
Might come as a shock to people like Farage that didn't and just wanted to campaign on immigration, immigration, immigration non-stop.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
The ECJ rules on the EU treaties.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
So Jezza's flip flopping on migration, wants to join a picket line (sooo 1978), and introduce a policy to destroy the Premier League. All before breakfast is over.
Corbyn on Sky is just a rambling incoherrent mess. He rows back on restricting free movement and then just 'havers' ( a great Scots word for talking foolishly) about capping max wages and Southern strike.
He is simply unelectable
How has he survived as an MP for so long, competition in London must be zero if he can last over 30 years.
Generally the better educated are more prone to irrational political opinions and political hysteria than the worse educated far from power. Why? In the field of political opinion they are more driven by fashion, a gang mentality, and the desire to pose about moral and political questions all of which exacerbate cognitive biases, encourage groupthink, and reduce accuracy. Those on average incomes are less likely to express political views to send signals; political views are much less important for signalling to one’s immediate in-group when you are on 20k a year. The former tend to see such questions in more general and abstract terms, and are more insulated from immediate worries about money. The latter tend to see such questions in more concrete and specific terms and ask ‘how does this affect me?’
Anyone know the background to his jibe at Matt Goodwin?
Or: "The people that agree with me are just *better*. They make better, more common-sense decisions and do not spend all their time virtue signalling. I have no evidence whatsoever to back this assertion up, but I just know it to be true."
Don't know how many focus groups you've sat in with 'ordinary punters' but I've sat in plenty and the phenomenon he describes is real.
In one classic case a middle class mum - to nodding approval from some in the group described how she really cared for the planet, was worried about her children's future so of course only used an 'environmentally friendly' (sic) washing powder - then went on to describe the many extra steps she had to take to make sure her kids clothes were actually clean.
The next, working class, mum simply said 'I just bung it in with Ariel and that does the job'.....
I am sure it is a phenomonem. I am questioning whether it is a general one or not. There is absolutely no evidence that it is. What we do know, of course, is that those who do not work at all and who own their own homes outright voted most heavily to leave the EU; while those in work voted most heavily to stay in the EU.
Lol The maximum wage wouldn't be £50k under Corbyn (How would anyone in London ever live in a house with this cap for instance ), perhaps a couple of million a year or so..
Obviously whatever the figure is its a nonsense as you'd drive away largest firms overseas, and that would affect the tax base to the detriment of us all.
Effective taxation is the superior left wing end methinks, and for that in today's multinational world you need multinational cooperation. As Meeks pointed out a few posts ago Brexit puts us in a vastly weaker position for that particular truism...
As Richard Tyndall pointed, the role of the EU in assisting effective taxation of multinationals is a sick joke. Junker, Luxembourg, etc.
Only game in town I'm afraid.
Back to the brilliant essay of Cummings. If the Eu had shown any ability to error-correct, I might have voted the other way.
‘Error correction is the basic issue, and I can’t foresee the EU improving much in this respect… [P]reserving the institutions of error correction is more important than any policy… Whether errors can be corrected without violence is not a “concern” but a condition for successfully addressing concerns.’ (Deutsch, quoted in Cummings)
I have a lot of dealing with the EU, and in my judgement there is almost zero chance of meaningful reform. There is no real mechanism for error correction. Sad, but true.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn says pay cap wd restrain "ridiculous" salaries paid to some footballers and top executives
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
Either Corbyn or Wenger would be wrong about that. A wage cap for the Premier League would see all top talent go overseas and we'd soon have no clubs able to compete in the Champions League. I don't think Wenger is that thick.
LOL, they get humped in the Champions League with all the foreign dross as it is. One thing Corbyn is right on they are a bunch of overpaid no-users.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
The ECJ rules on the EU treaties.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
The Swiss are notoriously picky about their sovereignty and don't seem bothered by paying to be a part of the Erasmus programme. (And it's not clear to me how severe the ECJ's rulings could be on a student exchange programme.)
Lol The maximum wage wouldn't be £50k under Corbyn (How would anyone in London ever live in a house with this cap for instance ), perhaps a couple of million a year or so..
Obviously whatever the figure is its a nonsense as you'd drive away largest firms overseas, and that would affect the tax base to the detriment of us all.
Effective taxation is the superior end methinks, and for that in today's multinational world you need multinational cooperation. As Meeks pointed out a few posts ago Brexit puts us in a vastly weaker position for that particular truism...
Swings and roundabouts. Multinational cooperation and internationalism also makes it much easier for multinationals to lobby and influence large organisations to set the rules in their interests. Which is why so many were pro EU.
Regulatory diversity is just as valuable: testing what works and doesn't work, giving others the chance to flourish, and learning from it.
Multinational frameworks favour multinational companies. That is one of the lesser discussed flaws of the single market - the extent to which it advantages big business.
..and another: just how useless, yet egotistical, most MPs* seem to be. More interested in getting their faces on the TV than doing anything else, and stropping off if their views are unheeded.
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
From what I have read (nearly half) he says that without the 350m/NHS/Turkey, the referendum would have been lost.
This will come as a massive shock to poor, old Dan Hannan (among others).
I suspect Hannan was one of the proponents of the 'Go Global' campaign Cummings ridicules....
..and another: just how useless, yet egotistical, most MPs* seem to be. More interested in getting their faces on the TV than doing anything else, and stropping off if their views are unheeded.
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
From what I have read (nearly half) he says that without the 350m/NHS/Turkey, the referendum would have been lost.
This will come as a massive shock to poor, old Dan Hannan (among others).
Why would it? He was involved in Vote Leave's campaign.
Might come as a shock to people like Farage that didn't and just wanted to campaign on immigration, immigration, immigration non-stop.
As I recall Dan the Man has washed his doubtless well manicured hands of the £350m NHS stuff, just as he has with anything that sullies his take back sovereignty, Anglospheric vision.
I'm intrigued by the idea that the Turkey lie didn't involve immigration.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
I would have thought that we'll pay to be members of various EU administered bodies (Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, the European Medicines Agency, the Air Traffic Control thing that I've forgotten the name of). The great fudge is that we'll pay rather more than one might normally pay to be a member of one of these.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
The ECJ rules on the EU treaties.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
With ECJ oversight of our glorious patriotic companies it won't only be Remainers screeching surely? Weren't we supposed to be taking back control?
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn says pay cap wd restrain "ridiculous" salaries paid to some footballers and top executives
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
Either Corbyn or Wenger would be wrong about that. A wage cap for the Premier League would see all top talent go overseas and we'd soon have no clubs able to compete in the Champions League. I don't think Wenger is that thick.
LOL, they get humped in the Champions League with all the foreign dross as it is. One thing Corbyn is right on they are a bunch of overpaid no-users.
There's a reason English football currently gets 4 clubs able to join the Champions League each year and it's not that they get humped. Winning the Champions League in Istanbul is my favourite club memory. The last and only time a Scottish club won the European Cup was 15 years before I was even born.
Just imagine their reaction if they had managed to draw a proper big team.
Plymouth will surely not mess it up a second time and should finally take care of business in the replay....
Some of those match stats were amazing.
During the first half we had 84% possession and something like 250 odd passes versus 24 for Plymouth. Kevin Stewart had made more passes than the entire Plymouth team.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything! .
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
The ECJ rules on the EU treaties.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
With ECJ oversight of our glorious patriotic companies it won't only be Remainers screeching surely? Weren't we supposed to be talking back control?
Leavers will cite trade deals, immigration control, and a suite of repatriated powers.
Remainers will trumpet we're still paying money (possibly more in certain areas) and no longer have a say in the rules, whilst the EU still influences us.
The EU will say it's shitter than being a member, and here's why.
..and another: just how useless, yet egotistical, most MPs* seem to be. More interested in getting their faces on the TV than doing anything else, and stropping off if their views are unheeded.
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
From what I have read (nearly half) he says that without the 350m/NHS/Turkey, the referendum would have been lost.
This will come as a massive shock to poor, old Dan Hannan (among others).
Why would it? He was involved in Vote Leave's campaign.
Might come as a shock to people like Farage that didn't and just wanted to campaign on immigration, immigration, immigration non-stop.
As I recall Dan the Man has washed his doubtless well manicured hands of the £350m NHS stuff, just as he has with anything that sullies his take back sovereignty vision.
I'm intrigued by the idea that the Turkey lie didn't involve immigration.
It didn't involve non stop immigration. Immigration was one plank of Vote Leave's campaign but the main argument was the £350mn which worked to neuter the "it's the economy, stupid" arguments of the Remain campaign.
Had Farage and Leave.EU got the responsibility then I have little doubt that they would have lost as without neutering the economy arguments migration was not sufficient to win a majority by itself.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
The ECJ rules on the EU treaties.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
The Swiss are notoriously picky about their sovereignty and don't seem bothered by paying to be a part of the Erasmus programme. (And it's not clear to me how severe the ECJ's rulings could be on a student exchange programme.)
Just imagine their reaction if they had managed to draw a proper big team.
Plymouth will surely not mess it up a second time and should finally take care of business in the replay....
Some of those match stats were amazing.
During the first half we had 84% possession and something like 250 odd passes versus 24 for Plymouth. Kevin Stewart had made more passes than the entire Plymouth team.
If they got paid for their performances there would be a massive reduction in wage bills.
Cristiano Ronaldo & Aaron Rogers (The two highest paid players in their respective sports) are worth their salaries. The Ashley Youngs of this world however...
..and another: just how useless, yet egotistical, most MPs* seem to be. More interested in getting their faces on the TV than doing anything else, and stropping off if their views are unheeded.
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
From what I have read (nearly half) he says that without the 350m/NHS/Turkey, the referendum would have been lost.
This will come as a massive shock to poor, old Dan Hannan (among others).
Hannan was on the Board and campaign committee but, reading between the lines, it sounds like Cummings largely paid lip service to those and all the real decisions were made by Gove, Boris and Gisela.
"I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum."
Further to my suggestion of terms for the bet between Seant and williamglenn, I've tried to refine it further. Would the following be acceptable:
Brexit is the process of the UK withdrawing from its membership of the EU. It shall be complete when the following criteria are all met: 1. The UK government has served notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU under Article 50(2) of the TEU. 2. No revocation of the notification detailed in (1) shall have been given by the UK and accepted by the EU. 3. The exit date, as defined in Article 50(3) of the TEU, shall have passed i.e. at least one of the following sub-criteria shall have been met: a. Two years shall have elapsed from the notification in (1) without a withdrawal agreement as defined in Article 50(3) being agreed, or b. A withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK shall have been agreed and the date on which that agreement takes effect shall have passed. 4. No agreement shall have been reached by which the UK retains continuous membership of the EU at the conclusion of the withdrawal process, due to the UK agreeing a new membership with the EU to begin at the moment the old membership expires.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn says pay cap wd restrain "ridiculous" salaries paid to some footballers and top executives
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
Either Corbyn or Wenger would be wrong about that. A wage cap for the Premier League would see all top talent go overseas and we'd soon have no clubs able to compete in the Champions League. I don't think Wenger is that thick.
LOL, they get humped in the Champions League with all the foreign dross as it is. One thing Corbyn is right on they are a bunch of overpaid no-users.
There's a reason English football currently gets 4 clubs able to join the Champions League each year and it's not that they get humped. Winning the Champions League in Istanbul is my favourite club memory. The last and only time a Scottish club won the European Cup was 15 years before I was even born.
When did anyone from Premiership even get close to winning it , they get pumped as soon as they meet real teams. They flatter during the protected group section and humped as soon as they meet any decent team. Your pathetic mention of Scottish teams shows what a cretin you are. Do you even realise who was first British Team to win the European cup since you seem to have an inferiority complex. I will give you a clue it was from a a very small country. Your premiership has lots of money , a bunch of overpaid fannies and xewnophobic cretins like you thinking they are "BIG" teams despite them getting humped year in and year out by the real big teams. Your teams are only there for their SKY money otherwise you would be in the diddy cups where you belong.
Comments
Which tend not to be green, scientific or rational.
Note how many posh middle class types install storage heaters, instead of underfloor heating linked to one or more combi boilers.
https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/818732862287605760
The sport's not in a critical state yet, but it's not hard to see how it could be soon. Coverage is shifting to pay TV, audiences are down, classic, popular circuits are at risk whilst new, rubbish circuits proliferate, the financial situation is indefensible and unsustainable, and some people are worried the new regulations will both increase Mercedes' advantage *and* make overtaking harder.
But apart from that, everything's going well.
It's a canard of the contemporary constitutional debate that Scottish Nationalism is "civic" rather than "ethnic" in nature, having long ago jettisoned its less attractive elements.
This is generally accepted by most observers of the political scene and backed by the "modernist" school of political science. It's a nice idea, and of course a convenient one for the modern SNP, but it doesn't quite tell the full story.
In terms of positioning, the shift is strongly associated with Alex Salmond. "The SNP is engaged in the process of reinforcing our identity as a civic national party"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13155444.Curious_case_of_SNP_s_shift_from_ethnic_nationalism/
I think it would be a bit of a stretch to describe some Natc as 'civil'.....
The man is quite simply riduculous and it does make you wonder how long this utter nonsense can continue. As a conservative I get no pleasure in the state of labour, we all need a functioning opposition but after this morning that seems further away than ever
https://twitter.com/judeinlondon/status/818741518899019776
As some of us were predicting a few days ago, Diane Abbott looks like the character the momentum crowd will latch on to next.
Having said that, judging from my Facebook feed, a lot of my metropolitan leftie friends have already moved over to the Lib Dems or the Greens because of their unequivocal stance on Europe anyway.
Alistair Campbell must have broken his radio this morning.
He hasn't said what it is, so allows people to project their own number on it.
Obviously detail is important in time, but we are getting ahead of ourselves in what is going to be a two way negotiating process, in which May has if anything "de-clarified" her own position just to make things more confusing.
A sensible next step for Labour would be to put forward the line that the Conservatives are only half-hearted about a long term commitment to the provisions of the EU Social Charter and that that will do far more to undermine the chances of mutually beneficial trade deals on Brexit than does the desire (which Labour now shares) for controlled EU migration.
This will enable the government to say "We're not paying money to be a member of the EU, but we have chosen to contribute to certain number of bodies that benefit Britain".
And because we'll overpay somewhat for each of these, because it will make a Brexit deal an easier sale on the continent.
Ferrari's 'extra' contribution has long been an anomaly, and is one that the post-Bernie world should address - the rest of the bonus contributions to top teams are bad, but Ferrari's reported bonus is just ridiculous.
And if they follow through on their threat to pull out their bluff should be called. Ferrari need F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari, especially under such outrageous terms.
What does Jezza do? Take to the airways this morning to move the media onto an income cap.
There was some talk of Jezza's team trying to do a Trump, and allow his authenticity to shine through. I suppose you could argue that today's efforts fit with the basic Trump playbook - which is never do anything that resembles normal media handling or campaigning.
Will it work for Jezza?
The numpties we have leading negotiations will make a pigs ear of it for certain.
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members
(2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
Mr. Eagles, in German, schuldig means both 'debt' and 'guilt'.
You cannot have savings without debt, and you cannot have debt without savings.
Obviously whatever the figure is its a nonsense as you'd drive away largest firms overseas, and that would affect the tax base to the detriment of us all.
Effective taxation is the superior end methinks, and for that in today's multinational world you need multinational cooperation. As Meeks pointed out a few posts ago Brexit puts us in a vastly weaker position for that particular truism...
@shelleylphelps: "It's absolutely f*****g bonkers" "he came up with it off the top of his head" one Labour Party source tells me of Corbyn wage cap idea.
@MrHarryCole: Corbyn refuses to say he will stand for election on policies to reduce numbers of eu migrants. He's meant to be giving speech saying so at 3
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
He got involved because he felt he couldn't give up a chance to leave the EU, however non-ideal the circumstance or timing, nor how slim the chances of success.
He is simply unelectable
There are a few honourable exceptions. But they are a few.
*although that should be caveated by saying that Cummings himself is very much an acquired taste
A great way to knock off a massive part of your tax revenue for zero benefit !
Regulatory diversity is just as valuable: testing what works and doesn't work, giving others the chance to flourish, and learning from it.
Might come as a shock to people like Farage that didn't and just wanted to campaign on immigration, immigration, immigration non-stop.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
This is a unique genius we are beholding.
‘Error correction is the basic issue, and I can’t foresee the EU improving much in this respect… [P]reserving the institutions of error correction is more important than any policy… Whether errors can be corrected without violence is not a “concern” but a condition for successfully addressing concerns.’ (Deutsch, quoted in Cummings)
I have a lot of dealing with the EU, and in my judgement there is almost zero chance of meaningful reform. There is no real mechanism for error correction. Sad, but true.
https://twitter.com/SpursOfficial/status/818554393297559552
Real Madrid spend £131.6 m a year on wages according to my calc (http://sillyseason.com/salary/real-madrid-players-salaries-69080/) - which is remarkably close to the 2016 NFL cap of $155.27m.
Corbyn has been nominated by BAFTA for his performance in La La Land
https://twitter.com/SkySportsNewsHQ/status/818754296892235777
I'm intrigued by the idea that the Turkey lie didn't involve immigration.
During the first half we had 84% possession and something like 250 odd passes versus 24 for Plymouth. Kevin Stewart had made more passes than the entire Plymouth team.
I assume that this is a way of having more piss-poor Asian teams and their TV audiences included.
Remainers will trumpet we're still paying money (possibly more in certain areas) and no longer have a say in the rules, whilst the EU still influences us.
The EU will say it's shitter than being a member, and here's why.
That's where the deal lies.
Had Farage and Leave.EU got the responsibility then I have little doubt that they would have lost as without neutering the economy arguments migration was not sufficient to win a majority by itself.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/818757635126292480
How long can he last?
NEXT
"I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/
Brexit is the process of the UK withdrawing from its membership of the EU. It shall be complete when the following criteria are all met:
1. The UK government has served notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU under Article 50(2) of the TEU.
2. No revocation of the notification detailed in (1) shall have been given by the UK and accepted by the EU.
3. The exit date, as defined in Article 50(3) of the TEU, shall have passed i.e. at least one of the following sub-criteria shall have been met:
a. Two years shall have elapsed from the notification in (1) without a withdrawal agreement as defined in Article 50(3) being agreed, or
b. A withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK shall have been agreed and the date on which that agreement takes effect shall have passed.
4. No agreement shall have been reached by which the UK retains continuous membership of the EU at the conclusion of the withdrawal process, due to the UK agreeing a new membership with the EU to begin at the moment the old membership expires.
Your teams are only there for their SKY money otherwise you would be in the diddy cups where you belong.