Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
Apropos Mike Pence's views of "curing" homosexuality. This from Gallup last year.
In your view is being gay or lesbian something they are born with ... 24% due to factors such as upbringing and environment ... 33% both ... 12% neither ... 2% DK ... 8%
America is definitely a different place.
The US now has gay marriage, exactly the same as the UK does. By contrast Italy, Australia, Eastern Europe and even Germany do not yet have gay marriage
Without the SCOTUS ruling though, I expect that gay marriage would be confined to the North East, West Coast, and Illinois.
For now maybe though I would add Florida and Virginia to that and Colorado and Nevada and Arizona and of course Obama was re elected in 2012 having backed gay marriage
That' rather misleading. He was first elected whilst opposing gay marriage and he changed his stance 6 months before his bid for re-election.
So, Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. Obama was still re elected in 2012 on a platform of backing gay marriage
Cameron? Really? Can you back that up?
It would been a novel outlook that voted to retain Section 28 while backing gay marriage.
Why? Two completely separate things.
Paging @HYUFD I've looked online for Cameron opposing gay marriage but I can't find anything. In fact, exactly the opposite.
So please back up your assertion as to his early position or withdraw it.
Cameron opposed gay adoption and backed Section 28 as a Conservative candidate in 1997 and 2001 so he clearly was not fully committed to gay rights at that time, he did vote for civil partnerships in the 2001-2005 Parliament but that is not the same thing as backing gay marriage and indeed even many Republicans backed domestic unions even if they opposed gay marriage at that time
"Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. "
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Jacob A Wohl Trump's tweets are the modern day version of FDR's Fireside Chats // Around the press, and straight to the people! https://t.co/l9T2Hyl36Q
Apropos Mike Pence's views of "curing" homosexuality. This from Gallup last year.
In your view is being gay or lesbian something they are born with ... 24% due to factors such as upbringing and environment ... 33% both ... 12% neither ... 2% DK ... 8%
America is definitely a different place.
The US now has gay marriage, exactly the same as the UK does. By contrast Italy, Australia, Eastern Europe and even Germany do not yet have gay marriage
Without the SCOTUS ruling though, I expect that gay marriage would be confined to the North East, West Coast, and Illinois.
For now maybe though I would add Florida and Virginia to that and Colorado and Nevada and Arizona and of course Obama was re elected in 2012 having backed gay marriage
That' rather misleading. He was first elected whilst opposing gay marriage and he changed his stance 6 months before his bid for re-election.
So, Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. Obama was still re elected in 2012 on a platform of backing gay marriage
Cameron? Really? Can you back that up?
It would been a novel outlook that voted to retain Section 28 while backing gay marriage.
Why? Two completely separate things.
Paging @HYUFD I've looked online for Cameron opposing gay marriage but I can't find anything. In fact, exactly the opposite.
So please back up your assertion as to his early position or withdraw it.
Yeah, supporting legislation that enshrines in law that local authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" is entirely compatible with supporting gay marriage.
I'll file that under the kind of 'logic' that asserts gun control causes more gun related deaths.
@HYUFD I said in a previous post that Labour moderates weren't in the Shadow Cabinet. I don't disagree Labour has shifted Left - but Labour has done so because of the party's base, not because there aren't many moderates in the party. Also, isn't economically socially liberal, fiscally conservative still a moderate position? Being fiscally conservative doesn't make someone not moderate.
@SouthamObserver Yes, one day Labour will at some point get it together. Although it still feels like even after getting rid of Corbyn, the party still has a mountain to climb.
@PlatoSaid I loved Larry Wilmore and Malcom Nance's responses to e.
The number of Blairites have shrunk dramatically since the Blair years. I'm aware of what fiscal conservatism means. Also being fiscally conservatism and economically liberal is associated with being moderate. It's essentially what New Labour marketed themselves as until 2007.
Cameroons/Blairites/Orange Bookers... what is the difference? Party politics doesn't matter they are all the same, for good or bad
Cameroons are probably a lot more eurosceptic and have more conservative attitudes towards immigration than Blairites. Blairites are full on europhile about the EU and have VERY liberal attitudes to immigration. Orange Brookers - I guess the biggest difference between them and Blairites would be on foreign policy. Blairites seem far more hawkish than Orange Brookers, and Blair himself was a convert to neo-conservatism.
Do you think there is a big difference between Cameroons and Blairites on immigration? The two men themselves had to say different things as they were speaking to different audiences, but in terms of action they were pretty similar
May was in control of immigration for the Cameron years.
You don't think the PM has ultimate responsibility?
In 2015 Non EU migration to the UK was 287 000, of whom 112 000 were students. The net non EU migration was 189 000.
May either wasn't very good at implementing Cameron's pledge, or it was undeliverable. To be generous to May, I think it mostly the latter, and I expect the numbers to stay much the same for the forseable future, even post Brexit.
Jacob A Wohl Trump's tweets are the modern day version of FDR's Fireside Chats // Around the press, and straight to the people! https://t.co/l9T2Hyl36Q
It's about breaking down traditional barriers and making communication more direct and accessible.
The same point could be made about exploiting other advances in technology.
"Through one of the marvels of modern Science, I am enabled, this Christmas Day, to speak to all my peoples throughout the Empire. I take it as a good omen that Wireless should have reached its present perfection at a time when the Empire has been linked in closer union. For it offers us immense possibilities to make that union closer still. King George V - Christmas Speech - 1932
Apropos Mike Pence's views of "curing" homosexuality. This from Gallup last year.
In your view is being gay or lesbian something they are born with ... 24% due to factors such as upbringing and environment ... 33% both ... 12% neither ... 2% DK ... 8%
America is definitely a different place.
The US now has gay marriage, exactly the same as the UK does. By contrast Italy, Australia, Eastern Europe and even Germany do not yet have gay marriage
Without the SCOTUS ruling though, I expect that gay marriage would be confined to the North East, West Coast, and Illinois.
For now maybe though I would add Florida and Virginia to that and Colorado and Nevada and Arizona and of course Obama was re elected in 2012 having backed gay marriage
That' rather misleading. He was first elected whilst opposing gay marriage and he changed his stance 6 months before his bid for re-election.
So, Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. Obama was still re elected in 2012 on a platform of backing gay marriage
Cameron? Really? Can you back that up?
It would been a novel outlook that voted to retain Section 28 while backing gay marriage.
Why? Two completely separate things.
Paging @HYUFD I've looked online for Cameron opposing gay marriage but I can't find anything. In fact, exactly the opposite.
So please back up your assertion as to his early position or withdraw it.
Cameron opposed gay adoption and backed Section 28 as a Conservative candidate in 1997 and 2001 so he clearly was not fully committed to gay rights at that time, he did vote for civil partnerships in the 2001-2005 Parliament but that is not the same thing as backing gay marriage and indeed even many Republicans backed domestic unions even if they opposed gay marriage at that time
"Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. "
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Apropos Mike Pence's views of "curing" homosexuality. This from Gallup last year.
In your view is being gay or lesbian something they are born with ... 24% due to factors such as upbringing and environment ... 33% both ... 12% neither ... 2% DK ... 8%
America is definitely a different place.
The US now has gay marriage, exactly the same as the UK does. By contrast Italy, Australia, Eastern Europe and even Germany do not yet have gay marriage
Without the SCOTUS ruling though, I expect that gay marriage would be confined to the North East, West Coast, and Illinois.
For now maybe though I would add Florida and Virginia to that and Colorado and Nevada and Arizona and of course Obama was re elected in 2012 having backed gay marriage
That' rather misleading. He was first elected whilst opposing gay marriage and he changed his stance 6 months before his bid for re-election.
So, Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. Obama was still re elected in 2012 on a platform of backing gay marriage
Cameron? Really? Can you back that up?
It would been a novel outlook that voted to retain Section 28 while backing gay marriage.
Why? Two completely separate things.
Paging @HYUFD I've looked online for Cameron opposing gay marriage but I can't find anything. In fact, exactly the opposite.
So please back up your assertion as to his early position or withdraw it.
It shows how discounted "project fear" was that no remainers have switched to leave after its abject failure to materialise - even they knew it was a load of cobblers in the first place.
Apropos Mike Pence's views of "curing" homosexuality. This from Gallup last year.
In your view is being gay or lesbian something they are born with ... 24% due to factors such as upbringing and environment ... 33% both ... 12% neither ... 2% DK ... 8%
America is definitely a different place.
The US now has gay marriage, exactly the same as the UK does. By contrast Italy, Australia, Eastern Europe and even Germany do not yet have gay marriage
Without the SCOTUS ruling though, I expect that gay marriage would be confined to the North East, West Coast, and Illinois.
For now maybe though I would add Florida and Virginia to that and Colorado and Nevada and Arizona and of course Obama was re elected in 2012 having backed gay marriage
That' rather misleading. He was first elected whilst opposing gay marriage and he changed his stance 6 months before his bid for re-election.
So, Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. Obama was still re elected in 2012 on a platform of backing gay marriage
Cameron? Really? Can you back that up?
It would been a novel outlook that voted to retain Section 28 while backing gay marriage.
Why? Two completely separate things.
Paging @HYUFD I've looked online for Cameron opposing gay marriage but I can't find anything. In fact, exactly the opposite.
So please back up your assertion as to his early position or withdraw it.
Cameron opposed gay adoption and backed Section 28 as a Conservative candidate in 1997 and 2001 so he clearly was not fully committed to gay rights at that time, he did vote for civil partnerships in the 2001-2005 Parliament but that is not the same thing as backing gay marriage and indeed even many Republicans backed domestic unions even if they opposed gay marriage at that time
"Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. "
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Apropos Mike Pence's views of "curing" homosexuality. This from Gallup last year.
In your view is being gay or lesbian something they are born with ... 24% due to factors such as upbringing and environment ... 33% both ... 12% neither ... 2% DK ... 8%
America is definitely a different place.
The US now has gay marriage, exactly the same as the UK does. By contrast Italy, Australia, Eastern Europe and even Germany do not yet have gay marriage
Without the SCOTUS ruling though, I expect that gay marriage would be confined to the North East, West Coast, and Illinois.
For now maybe though I would add Florida and Virginia to that and Colorado and Nevada and Arizona and of course Obama was re elected in 2012 having backed gay marriage
That' rather misleading. He was first elected whilst opposing gay marriage and he changed his stance 6 months before his bid for re-election.
So, Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. Obama was still re elected in 2012 on a platform of backing gay marriage
Cameron? Really? Can you back that up?
It would been a novel outlook that voted to retain Section 28 while backing gay marriage.
Why? Two completely separate things.
Paging @HYUFD I've looked online for Cameron opposing gay marriage but I can't find anything. In fact,
"Cameron used to be opposed to gay marriage too. "
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Quite right. You don't know what is.
Marriage is by definition a family relationship so opposition to the acceptance of homosexual family relationships in schools was by definition opposition to gay marriage at that time. Cameron did ultimately come to support gay marriage and gay rights yes but to say he was lining the barricades with Sir Ian Mckellen and Peter Tatchell in the 80s and 90s is absurd!
"UPDATE: Over 25,000 supporters are expected to attend Saturday’s rally in Melbourne, Florida by President Donald Trump, according to Brevard County Republican Chairman Rick Lacey. Lacey spoke to WESH-TV Friday. WESH reported a large open field adjacent the tarmac and hanger is being prepped with jumbotrons to accommodate the massive crowd.
Democrats need someone who can win the ECV and that means turning around white, rural voters and rusting towns by Ohio river. That 'aint Warren in my opinion. Biden too old?
I've had Senator Tester in mind since he became Senator Tester. Would be a pick for me in 2020.
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
Not sure how his we are all connected/globalized citizens routine will play in the rust belt.
I'm not really the best person to ask as I'm very conservative. I am also not a financial adviser, so this is based on my personal approach.
1. Have at least 3 months cash expenses (ideally 6) in cash. I use premium bonds, because my bank doesn't pay interest and it's too much hassle moving trying to have multiple bank accounts to get a couple of percent on a couple of thousand (pre-tax)
2. Max your ISA, your JISAs, your SIPP and your junior SIPP
3. Pay down your mortgage (boring, but it's tax free and you don't want to be in a position where your house is at risk if your income is variable). Your main house is somewhere to live, not an investment
4. Invest in equities. Depending on how much you have you can take a very low cost approach of investing in EFTs and trackers, or you can give to a professional to try and achieve outperformance. If you are going to a professional I'd tend to get them to focus on absolute returns (say RPI + 5%) rather than index returns. That's personal preference, of course.
5. Diversification is key in equities. It's difficult because asset prices as a whole are inflated. With my daughter's fund I went for a stable of boring global shares (she can't buy investment funds or trackers because they are PFICs) - HSBC, Shell, Glaxo, Vodafone, Unilever: theory was they were firms with a good dividend yield (I locked in 4.5%) across the portfolio, with good international earnings, and which I'd be happy to forget about for a decade.
6. Until you've got a decent pot in equities (I use > my mortgage as a rule of thumb) it's not really worth getting clever. VCTs and EIS have a place, but should only be money you are prepared to lose (no more than 10% of your investable assets). Never make an investment just because of the tax advantages,
7. Property can be a useful form of diversification - I bought abroad to give me a natural US dollar hedge. You need to decide up front whether it is for personal use or whether you want to rent it out as an investment. It rarely makes sense to mix the two - and I suspect that you get to travel enough as it is.
8. Once you've paid for your main house, got your safety net, and funded your kids education give a bunch away. There's so much personal reward from that, and it's not doing you much good as more numbers on a spreadsheet.
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Quite right. You don't know what is.
You believe that it is possible for someone (Cameron in this instance) to be for Section 28 and for gay marriage simultaneously.
Sky news still running about how Dwight Yorke was banned from entering the USA due to Donald Trumps 'ban on travel from 7 mainly muslim countries' although a) the ban was rejected by the courts and is not in place and b) the actual reason (an entry visa from Iran) was implemented in 2015 by Barack Obama.
I'm not really the best person to ask as I'm very conservative. I am also not a financial adviser, so this is based on my personal approach.
1. Have at least 3 months cash expenses (ideally 6) in cash. I use premium bonds, because my bank doesn't pay interest and it's too much hassle moving trying to have multiple bank accounts to get a couple of percent on a couple of thousand (pre-tax)
2. Max your ISA, your JISAs, your SIPP and your junior SIPP
3. Pay down your mortgage (boring, but it's tax free and you don't want to be in a position where your house is at risk if your income is variable). Your main house is somewhere to live, not an investment
4. Invest in equities. Depending on how much you have you can take a very low cost approach of investing in EFTs and trackers, or you can give to a professional to try and achieve outperformance. If you are going to a professional I'd tend to get them to focus on absolute returns (say RPI + 5%) rather than index returns. That's personal preference, of course.
5. Diversification is key in equities. It's difficult because asset prices as a whole are inflated. With my daughter's fund I went for a stable of boring global shares (she can't buy investment funds or trackers because they are PFICs) - HSBC, Shell, Glaxo, Vodafone, Unilever: theory was they were firms with a good dividend yield (I locked in 4.5%) across the portfolio, with good international earnings, and which I'd be happy to forget about for a decade.
6. Until you've got a decent pot in equities (I use > my mortgage as a rule of thumb) it's not really worth getting clever. VCTs and EIS have a place, but should only be money you are prepared to lose (no more than 10% of your investable assets). Never make an investment just because of the tax advantages,
7. Property can be a useful form of diversification - I bought abroad to give me a natural US dollar hedge. You need to decide up front whether it is for personal use or whether you want to rent it out as an investment. It rarely makes sense to mix the two - and I suspect that you get to travel enough as it is.
8. Once you've paid for your main house, got your safety net, and funded your kids education give a bunch away. There's so much personal reward from that, and it's not doing you much good as more numbers on a spreadsheet.
Hope that helps
Instead of paring down your house, how do you feel about an offset mortgage? You still have the funds available in case of emergency.
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Quite right. You don't know what is.
You believe that it is possible for someone (Cameron in this instance) to be for Section 28 and for gay marriage simultaneously.
A difficult position to hold.
I guess you could say someone could not want schoolchildren to be told smoking cigarettes was as viable as not smoking, but still be ok with Smoking being legal for adults? I doubt that was his position to be honest, just trying to see how it could work
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Quite right. You don't know what is.
You believe that it is possible for someone (Cameron in this instance) to be for Section 28 and for gay marriage simultaneously.
A difficult position to hold.
I guess you could say someone could not want schoolchildren to be told smoking cigarettes was as viable as not smoking, but still be ok with Smoking being legal for adults? I doubt that was his position to be honest, just trying to see how it could work
Possible, but the issue is the words "pretended family relationship". The Section 28 (the pedant in me wants to carp about the exact name, but a discussion for another day) is based on the premise that a homosexual relationship *cannot* be a family relationship. The concept of gay marriage is based on the premise that a homosexual relationship *can* be a family relationship. Hence the contradiction.
George Takei clearly expected his Trump vs Media poll to be a walkover for the media.
At about 67k votes - he deleted it
Ian Miles Cheong Well, that's an easy one. The media. It's the biggest reason why Trump is president, if you hate him and need someone to blame. https://t.co/fdS5kefjl3
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Quite right. You don't know what is.
You believe that it is possible for someone (Cameron in this instance) to be for Section 28 and for gay marriage simultaneously.
A difficult position to hold.
AIUI he voted for section 28, and was against gay couples adopting.
He changed his mind, at least on section 28, over time. A similar journey to that undertaken by many other people over the last twenty-five years.
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Quite right. You don't know what is.
You believe that it is possible for someone (Cameron in this instance) to be for Section 28 and for gay marriage simultaneously.
A difficult position to hold.
I guess you could say someone could not want schoolchildren to be told smoking cigarettes was as viable as not smoking, but still be ok with Smoking being legal for adults? I doubt that was his position to be honest, just trying to see how it could work
That's my position. I can accept something as an adult without want it being promoted to my child at school.
And thanks for the analogy. I could think of some but they all had weaknesses and then you start picking at the loose threads and the whole conversation derails.
Agree that it probably wasn't his position. I doubt he really cared either way until it became politically expedient.
Jacob A Wohl Trump's tweets are the modern day version of FDR's Fireside Chats // Around the press, and straight to the people! https://t.co/l9T2Hyl36Q
They are pretty well the antithesis of FDR's fireside chats.
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
As TUD has quite sensibly pointed out below Cameron previously backed Section 28 legislation stating that local authorities shall not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" so if that is not opposition to gay marriage I don't know what is?
Quite right. You don't know what is.
You believe that it is possible for someone (Cameron in this instance) to be for Section 28 and for gay marriage simultaneously.
A difficult position to hold.
I guess you could say someone could not want schoolchildren to be told smoking cigarettes was as viable as not smoking, but still be ok with Smoking being legal for adults? I doubt that was his position to be honest, just trying to see how it could work
That's my position. I can accept something as an adult without want it being promoted to my child at school.
And thanks for the analogy. I could think of some but they all had weaknesses and then you start picking at the loose threads and the whole conversation derails.
Agree that it probably wasn't his position. I doubt he really cared either way until it became politically expedient.
The obvious problem w my analogy is that smoking is objectively bad for you, whereas being gay isn't. But its the best I could do at them time!
Sky news still running about how Dwight Yorke was banned from entering the USA due to Donald Trumps 'ban on travel from 7 mainly muslim countries' although a) the ban was rejected by the courts and is not in place and b) the actual reason (an entry visa from Iran) was implemented in 2015 by Barack Obama.
Yep. That looks like Sky being idiots jumping to unproven conclusions.
Here is a Guardian piece from Jan 2016 pointing out the issue with Obama attacking people who had travelled to almost the same countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan. I don't recall any shrieking invective from the Lib-left about how Obama was a white-supremacist who hates muslims.
---- "The Obama administration has tightened travel terms regarding Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan, under rules that will also make travel to the US harder for some Europeans.
The rules, which took effect on Thursday, create new visa requirements for dual nationals and anyone who has traveled to those countries in the last five years. Many Europeans enjoy visa-free travel to the US. Should they have dual citizenship or have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Syria or Sudan, they will require new permits.
It is most likely just the US travel authorities being their usual abusive selves, and the continuing rather desperate demonisation campaign from anti-Trumpettes.
It has been a problem for years for some people with Turkish stamps in their passports.
I'm not really the best person to ask as I'm very conservative. I am also not a financial adviser, so this is based on my personal approach.
1. Have at least 3 months cash expenses (ideally 6) in cash. I use premium bonds, because my bank doesn't pay interest and it's too much hassle moving trying to have multiple bank accounts to get a couple of percent on a couple of thousand (pre-tax)
2. Max your ISA, your JISAs, your SIPP and your junior SIPP
3. Pay down your mortgage (boring, but it's tax free and you don't want to be in a position where your house is at risk if your income is variable). Your main house is somewhere to live, not an investment
4. Invest in equities. Depending on how much you have you can take a very low cost approach of investing in EFTs and trackers, or you can give to a professional to try and achieve outperformance. If you are going to a professional I'd tend to get them to focus on absolute returns (say RPI + 5%) rather than index returns. That's personal preference, of course.
5. Diversification is key in equities. It's difficult because asset prices as a whole are inflated. With my daughter's fund I went for a stable of boring global shares (she can't buy investment funds or trackers because they are PFICs) - HSBC, Shell, Glaxo, Vodafone, Unilever: theory was they were firms with a good dividend yield (I locked in 4.5%) across the portfolio, with good international earnings, and which I'd be happy to forget about for a decade.
6. Until you've got a decent pot in equities (I use > my mortgage as a rule of thumb) it's not really worth getting clever. VCTs and EIS have a place, but should only be money you are prepared to lose (no more than 10% of your investable assets). Never make an investment just because of the tax advantages,
7. Property can be a useful form of diversification - I bought abroad to give me a natural US dollar hedge. You need to decide up front whether it is for personal use or whether you want to rent it out as an investment. It rarely makes sense to mix the two - and I suspect that you get to travel enough as it is.
8. Once you've paid for your main house, got your safety net, and funded your kids education give a bunch away. There's so much personal reward from that, and it's not doing you much good as more numbers on a spreadsheet.
Hope that helps
Instead of paring down your house, how do you feel about an offset mortgage? You still have the funds available in case of emergency.
Rates tend to be higher, but they can be useful if you need to dip into the funds. It really depends on what your income profile is - I live on my salary and then use any windfalls for capital investment or paying down the mortgage. If your income is primary salary based then offsets may be more sensible.
I'm not really the best person to ask as I'm very conservative. I am also not a financial adviser, so this is based on my personal approach.
7. Property can be a useful form of diversification - I bought abroad to give me a natural US dollar hedge. You need to decide up front whether it is for personal use or whether you want to rent it out as an investment. It rarely makes sense to mix the two - and I suspect that you get to travel enough as it is.
8. Once you've paid for your main house, got your safety net, and funded your kids education give a bunch away. There's so much personal reward from that, and it's not doing you much good as more numbers on a spreadsheet.
Hope that helps
Instead of paring down your house, how do you feel about an offset mortgage? You still have the funds available in case of emergency.
I neither am a financial advisor, but missing from the original post and most of the subsequent replies is any assessment of what the investment (or spending) objective might be, and Sean himself says nothing about this nor about what pension provision he may or may not have made.
The information he does provide suggests that he is unlikely to need the cash pre-retirement. If he doesn't have significant pension provision, then feeding as much of it as possible (bearing in mind the annual limits) into a pension arrangement ought to be his first priority. He'll get full tax relief now, and benefit from 25% tax free withdrawal at any point after age 55, and in retirement many people pay tax at a lower rate on the balance than they do when working and earning.
If his pension is taken care of, then it's money for spending or giving away, not investing, as others have already observed. There are plenty of worthwhile places to give money as well as some that provide a reward, tangible or intangible (funding a 'Thomas scholarship for literature' at his old university is just one example).
Paying off any debts including the mortgage as top priority is a no-brainer.
The largest risks to wealth over the foreseeable are inflation and another financial collapse. Inflation-linked bonds and gold respectively are therefore both worth a proportion of the £.
I have a soft spot for VCTs, having bought a variety of them in years past; the tax relief is still generous, and my batch bring in return of around 8% pa (allowing for the tax relief on the initial investment); I treat them as annuities - what they are worth is irrelevant and I will hold them to death and take the few £k a year as tax-free income. The key is to spread the money around.
Instead of paring down your house, how do you feel about an offset mortgage? You still have the funds available in case of emergency.
Rates tend to be higher, but they can be useful if you need to dip into the funds. It really depends on what your income profile is - I live on my salary and then use any windfalls for capital investment or paying down the mortgage. If your income is primary salary based then offsets may be more sensible.
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
Isn't there a minimum age qualification of 40 or something? Which would mean 2024 at the earliest.
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
Isn't there a minimum age qualification of 40 or something? Which would mean 2024 at the earliest.
I thought the age requirement was 35.
[edit] - Yup, in the United States, a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S.
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
Isn't there a minimum age qualification of 40 or something? Which would mean 2024 at the earliest.
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
Isn't there a minimum age qualification of 40 or something? Which would mean 2024 at the earliest.
I thought the age requirement was 35.
[edit] - Yup, in the United States, a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S.
Yep, sorry. Teach me for being too lazy to check before posting!
Jacob A Wohl Trump's tweets are the modern day version of FDR's Fireside Chats // Around the press, and straight to the people! https://t.co/l9T2Hyl36Q
It's not a bad analogy. Trump doesn't have the grace of Reagan nor the intelligence of Nixon. But he does have the ability to reach the working class directly, which others struggle to do. Trump adopts big Gordian Knot solutions that contradict received wisdom in his party, eschews international entanglements and is trying to devalue the dollar and encourage inflation to reduce debt. FDRoosevelt adopted massive public projects, left international fora, left the gold standard and encouraged inflation to reduce debt.
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
Just read that Jeremy Paxman has split from his longstanding partner. Never realised he had three bastards! Had that been widely known some of his interviewee victims could have thrown that in his face.
Just read that Jeremy Paxman has split from his longstanding partner. Never realised he had three bastards! Had that been widely known some of his interviewee victims could have thrown that in his face.
Jacob A Wohl Trump's tweets are the modern day version of FDR's Fireside Chats // Around the press, and straight to the people! https://t.co/l9T2Hyl36Q
They are pretty well the antithesis of FDR's fireside chats.
That isn't an argument. Why is it incorrect? I've no view.
Just read that Jeremy Paxman has split from his longstanding partner. Never realised he had three bastards! Had that been widely known some of his interviewee victims could have thrown that in his face.
Is illegitimacy still an issue in the 21st century?
Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
Does anyone in Europe really want to see the Germans re-arm?
Their political and economic dominance creates problems enough; the symbolism of jackboots on the ground would tip some over the edge, I'd guess. I can imagine some actually preferring the Russians.
Just read that Jeremy Paxman has split from his longstanding partner. Never realised he had three bastards! Had that been widely known some of his interviewee victims could have thrown that in his face.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) says that that happened last year.
Just read that Jeremy Paxman has split from his longstanding partner. Never realised he had three bastards! Had that been widely known some of his interviewee victims could have thrown that in his face.
The face of the Labour party, ladies and gents.
Am not a Labour Party member - only voted for them at one of last five elections. Mary Whitehouse & Ann Widdecombe would agree with me!
Sky news still running about how Dwight Yorke was banned from entering the USA due to Donald Trumps 'ban on travel from 7 mainly muslim countries' although a) the ban was rejected by the courts and is not in place and b) the actual reason (an entry visa from Iran) was implemented in 2015 by Barack Obama.
Yep. That looks like Sky being idiots jumping to unproven conclusions.
Here is a Guardian piece from Jan 2016 pointing out the issue with Obama attacking people who had travelled to almost the same countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan. I don't recall any shrieking invective from the Lib-left about how Obama was a white-supremacist who hates muslims.
---- "The Obama administration has tightened travel terms regarding Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan, under rules that will also make travel to the US harder for some Europeans.
The rules, which took effect on Thursday, create new visa requirements for dual nationals and anyone who has traveled to those countries in the last five years. Many Europeans enjoy visa-free travel to the US. Should they have dual citizenship or have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Syria or Sudan, they will require new permits.
It is most likely just the US travel authorities being their usual abusive selves, and the continuing rather desperate demonisation campaign from anti-Trumpettes.
It has been a problem for years for some people with Turkish stamps in their passports.
Except that Donald Trump really did want a muslim ban. He asked Rudy Giuliani how this could be done legally. It turns out, once the courts had intervened, that the answer looked like what Obama had done already.
"UPDATE: Over 25,000 supporters are expected to attend Saturday’s rally in Melbourne, Florida by President Donald Trump, according to Brevard County Republican Chairman Rick Lacey. Lacey spoke to WESH-TV Friday. WESH reported a large open field adjacent the tarmac and hanger is being prepped with jumbotrons to accommodate the massive crowd.
Democrats need someone who can win the ECV and that means turning around white, rural voters and rusting towns by Ohio river. That 'aint Warren in my opinion. Biden too old?
"Fraser agrees with Frank that the Democratic Party can no longer reasonably claim to be the party of the working class or the “little man.” Instead, he argues, the Republican and Democratic parties now represent two different elite constituencies, each with its own culture and interests and modes of thought. Fraser describes today’s Republicans as the party of “family capitalism,” encompassing everyone from the mom-and-pop business owner on up to “entrepreneurial maestros” such as the Koch brothers, Linda McMahon and Donald Trump. The Democrats, by contrast, represent the managerial world spawned by modernity, including the big universities and government bureaucracies as well as “techno frontiersmen” like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. These are two different ways of relating to the world — one cosmopolitan and interconnected, the other patriarchal and hierarchical. Neither one, however, offers much to working-class voters."
Class based politics is the way back for the Democrats, as it is for Labour here.
Just read that Jeremy Paxman has split from his longstanding partner. Never realised he had three bastards! Had that been widely known some of his interviewee victims could have thrown that in his face.
Is illegitimacy still an issue in the 21st century?
It still reflects on parents in terms of their moral standards. I recall in the late stages of the 1987 election campaign an exchange between Denis Healey and Ann Diamond on Breakfast television. She was needling him over his wife Edna's use of private healthcare and he responded with ' When is the baby due Ann?' - knowing full well that she was unmarried.
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
Exclusive: John Bercow embroiled in new impartiality row as it emerges he granted more urgent questions to Labour MP whose allies gave donations than any other backbencher
Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
Does anyone in Europe really want to see the Germans re-arm?
Their political and economic dominance creates problems enough; the symbolism of jackboots on the ground would tip some over the edge, I'd guess. I can imagine some actually preferring the Russians.
You seem unaware that until the 1990s Germany maintained a large conscript army, and they were pretty damn good at their job too. The Bundeswehr regularly gave the Septics and our own chaps a run for their money during NATO exercises. The Germans also had a well-found and efficient air force and a Kriegsmarine of variable quality (same as WW2, the U boats were bloody good, the surface fleet not so much).
Nobody in the 60's, 70's and 80's was worried about a re-armed Germany.
Sky news still running about how Dwight Yorke was banned from entering the USA due to Donald Trumps 'ban on travel from 7 mainly muslim countries' although a) the ban was rejected by the courts and is not in place and b) the actual reason (an entry visa from Iran) was implemented in 2015 by Barack Obama.
Yep. That looks like Sky being idiots jumping to unproven conclusions.
Here is a Guardian piece from Jan 2016 pointing out the issue with Obama attacking people who had travelled to almost the same countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan. I don't recall any shrieking invective from the Lib-left about how Obama was a white-supremacist who hates muslims.
---- "The Obama administration has tightened travel terms regarding Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan, under rules that will also make travel to the US harder for some Europeans.
The rules, which took effect on Thursday, create new visa requirements for dual nationals and anyone who has traveled to those countries in the last five years. Many Europeans enjoy visa-free travel to the US. Should they have dual citizenship or have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Syria or Sudan, they will require new permits.
It is most likely just the US travel authorities being their usual abusive selves, and the continuing rather desperate demonisation campaign from anti-Trumpettes.
It has been a problem for years for some people with Turkish stamps in their passports.
Except that Donald Trump really did want a muslim ban. He asked Rudy Giuliani how this could be done legally. It turns out, once the courts had intervened, that the answer looked like what Obama had done already.
He never proposed a "Muslim ban" once in office.
They seem to confuse rhetoric with what he actually did. Just like the Mexican wall, really.
And that doesn't alter the fact that Sky are misreporting, which is the point of the comment.
Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
Does anyone in Europe really want to see the Germans re-arm?
Their political and economic dominance creates problems enough; the symbolism of jackboots on the ground would tip some over the edge, I'd guess. I can imagine some actually preferring the Russians.
You seem unaware that until the 1990s Germany maintained a large conscript army, and they were pretty damn good at their job too. The Bundeswehr regularly gave the Septics and our own chaps a run for their money during NATO exercises. The Germans also had a well-found and efficient air force and a Kriegsmarine of variable quality (same as WW2, the U boats were bloody good, the surface fleet not so much).
Nobody in the 60's, 70's and 80's was worried about a re-armed Germany.
No problem whatsoever with the Germans "re-arming". The Bundeswehr provided the backbone of the NATO land forces for decades, and managed to do it without creating a new Evil Empire or reinvading Poland :-).
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
What is it about Donald Trump's identical conduct in the GOP primary campaign that makes you think this is now a deliberate strategy against the allegedly liberal MSM? Trump is doing what he has always done.
Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
Does anyone in Europe really want to see the Germans re-arm?
Their political and economic dominance creates problems enough; the symbolism of jackboots on the ground would tip some over the edge, I'd guess. I can imagine some actually preferring the Russians.
You seem unaware that until the 1990s Germany maintained a large conscript army, and they were pretty damn good at their job too. The Bundeswehr regularly gave the Septics and our own chaps a run for their money during NATO exercises. The Germans also had a well-found and efficient air force and a Kriegsmarine of variable quality (same as WW2, the U boats were bloody good, the surface fleet not so much).
Nobody in the 60's, 70's and 80's was worried about a re-armed Germany.
Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
Does anyone in Europe really want to see the Germans re-arm?
Their political and economic dominance creates problems enough; the symbolism of jackboots on the ground would tip some over the edge, I'd guess. I can imagine some actually preferring the Russians.
People aren't logical. If they dislike a thing then they will criticise it for any characteristic it possesses, even if the exact opposite would be terrible. Specific examples include:
* Criticising Germany for weakening[1] the Euro * Criticising Trump for failing to implement his border controls * Criticising Putin for being weak
Generally speaking, when somebody criticises an enemy for being weak, they're not thinking straight.
Lincoln for the win on Betfair. Back at 10, cashed out at 6...
Oh crumbs!
Aguero anytime goalscorer w Ladbrokes 8/11 looks v nice to me
Manager’s an Essex man. Took Braintree to the edge of the League last year. As BBC says, looks like he’s got a management future. Bet he (and his assistant, his brother) won’t go back to teaching anytime soon.
I'm not really the best person to ask as I'm very conservative. I am also not a financial adviser, so this is based on my personal approach.
Hope that helps
Instead of paring down your house, how do you feel about an offset mortgage? You still have the funds available in case of emergency.
I neither am a financial advisor, but missing from the original post and most of the subsequent replies is any assessment of what the investment (or spending) objective might be, and Sean himself says nothing about this nor about what pension provision he may or may not have made.
The information he does provide suggests that he is unlikely to need the cash pre-retirement. If he doesn't have significant pension provision, then feeding as much of it as possible (bearing in mind the annual limits) into a pension arrangement ought to be his first priority. He'll get full tax relief now, and benefit from 25% tax free withdrawal at any point after age 55, and in retirement many people pay tax at a lower rate on the balance than they do when working and earning.
If his pension is taken care of, then it's money for spending or giving away, not investing, as others have already observed. There are plenty of worthwhile places to give money as well as some that provide a reward, tangible or intangible (funding a 'Thomas scholarship for literature' at his old university is just one example).
Paying off any debts including the mortgage as top priority is a no-brainer.
The largest risks to wealth over the foreseeable are inflation and another financial collapse. Inflation-linked bonds and gold respectively are therefore both worth a proportion of the £.
I have a soft spot for VCTs, having bought a variety of them in years past; the tax relief is still generous, and my batch bring in return of around 8% pa (allowing for the tax relief on the initial investment); I treat them as annuities - what they are worth is irrelevant and I will hold them to death and take the few £k a year as tax-free income. The key is to spread the money around.
The pension point is a good one.
If there is no history of pension provision, then use of previous years + current years max contributions, and ISA allowances, would let ST put 200k into tax shelters in the next 8 weeks alone.
And even £1m is not such a huge pension pot when it may need to last 30-40 years. It is the sum that some GP's hit by their early 50s and complain about being 'forced' to retire early.
Lincoln for the win on Betfair. Back at 10, cashed out at 6...
Oh crumbs!
Aguero anytime goalscorer w Ladbrokes 8/11 looks v nice to me
Manager’s an Essex man. Took Braintree to the edge of the League last year. As BBC says, looks like he’s got a management future. Bet he (and his assistant, his brother) won’t go back to teaching anytime soon.
Yes, my Dad used to coach them as Essex schoolboys. They have been offered league jobs in the past I believe
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
What is it about Donald Trump's identical conduct in the GOP primary campaign that makes you think this is now a deliberate strategy against the allegedly liberal MSM? Trump is doing what he has always done.
Trump has that unfortunate combination of rudeness combined with a thin skin that makes for bizarre press conferences like the other day.
The media needles him, but his attacks convert no one, just boost coverage of his inanities
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
Liberal bias? We've even seen networks such as FOX news call him out on his antics (Shepard Smith). FOX news are by no means the 'liberal media'. In one of your posts today you mentioned Joe Scarbrough - Scarbrough is a Republican (who is friends with Mike Pence FGS), hardly a 'liberal' news media agent. On Morning Joe, he argued that the issues with falsehoods which we see coming out of the Trump WH now, originate with the Clinton administration and spoke extensively about that.
CNN, MSNBC etc. are simply calling out Trump's antics.
I'm not really the best person to ask as I'm very conservative. I am also not a financial adviser, so this is based on my personal approach.
Hope that helps
Instead of paring down your house, how do you feel about an offset mortgage? You still have the funds available in case of emergency.
I neither am a financial advisor, but missing from the original post and most of the subsequent replies is any assessment of what the investment (or spending) objective might be, and Sean himself says nothing about this nor about what pension provision he may or may not have made.
The information he does provide suggests that he is unlikely to need the cash pre-retirement. If he doesn't have significant pension provision, then feeding as much of it as possible (bearing in mind the annual limits) into a pension arrangement ought to be his first priority. He'll get full tax relief now, and benefit from 25% tax free withdrawal at any point after age 55, and in retirement many people pay tax at a lower rate on the balance than they do when working and earning.
If his pension is taken care of, then it's money for spending or giving away, not investing, as others have already observed. There are plenty of worthwhile places to give money as well as some that provide a reward, tangible or intangible (funding a 'Thomas scholarship for literature' at his old university is just one example).
Paying off any debts including the mortgage as top priority is a no-brainer.
The largest risks to wealth over the foreseeable are inflation and another financial collapse. Inflation-linked bonds and gold respectively are therefore both worth a proportion of the £.
I have a soft spot for VCTs, having bought a variety of them in years past; the tax relief is still generous, and my batch bring in return of around 8% pa (allowing for the tax relief on the initial investment); I treat them as annuities - what they are worth is irrelevant and I will hold them to death and take the few £k a year as tax-free income. The key is to spread the money around.
The pension point is a good one.
If there is no history of pension provision, then use of previous years + current years max contributions, and ISA allowances, would let ST put 200k into tax shelters in the next 8 weeks alone.
And even £1m is not such a huge pension pot when it may need to last 30-40 years. It is the sum that some GP's hit by their early 50s and complain about being 'forced' to retire early.
The usual approach is 24 hour retirement. Retire, collect pension, then go back to work as a locum.
It is pretty much my plan, when I max out my pot in a few years.
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
What is it about Donald Trump's identical conduct in the GOP primary campaign that makes you think this is now a deliberate strategy against the allegedly liberal MSM? Trump is doing what he has always done.
Trump has that unfortunate combination of rudeness combined with a thin skin that makes for bizarre press conferences like the other day.
The media needles him, but his attacks convert no one, just boost coverage of his inanities
I think you miss Trump's charmingly self-mocking humour, quite the opposite of the previous President.
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
Liberal bias? We've even seen networks such as FOX news call him out on his antics (Shepard Smith). FOX news are by no means the 'liberal media'. In one of your posts today you mentioned Joe Scarbrough - Scarbrough is a Republican (who is friends with Mike Pence FGS), hardly a 'liberal' news media agent. On Morning Joe, he argued that the issues with falsehoods which we see coming out of the Trump WH now, originate with the Clinton administration and spoke extensively about that.
CNN, MSNBC etc. are simply calling out Trump's antics.
To Plato, anyone not wearing a white hood is a Liberal!
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
I can't see Zuckerberg getting the Democratic nomination in 2020, they are more likely to go for a class warrior like Warren following Hillary's defeat in 2016 than a centrist billionaire. If the Democrats fail to take the House in 2018 a centrist may have more chance but if the Democrats win the House in the midterms they will want a true believer to take forward their agenda with the political wind coming back more their way
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
Liberal bias? We've even seen networks such as FOX news call him out on his antics (Shepard Smith). FOX news are by no means the 'liberal media'. In one of your posts today you mentioned Joe Scarbrough - Scarbrough is a Republican (who is friends with Mike Pence FGS), hardly a 'liberal' news media agent. On Morning Joe, he argued that the issues with falsehoods which we see coming out of the Trump WH now, originate with the Clinton administration and spoke extensively about that.
CNN, MSNBC etc. are simply calling out Trump's antics.
To Plato, anyone not wearing a white hood is a Liberal!
She is most definitely a Trump cheer leader =, but Dr Fox that is a tad harsh.
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
I can't see Zuckerberg getting the Democratic nomination in 2020, they are more likely to go for a class warrior like Warren following Hillary's defeat in 2016 than a centrist billionaire. If the Democrats fail to take the House in 2018 a centrist may have more chance but if the Democrats win the House in the midterms they will want a true believer to take forward their agenda with the political wind coming back more their way
After Trump no one will want another amateur. Look for a State Governor, from somewhere other than the Pacific coast or N Atlantic coast.
Both Louisiana and West Virginia recently elected Democratic Governors. The party should look at how they did it. John Bel Edwards in Louisiana is young enough as is Bullock in Montana.
Just back from visiting Mr Stodge Senior and a pleasant early lunch. Nearly drove off the road when Lincoln scored much to Mrs Stodge's annoyance.
I've heard it argued the leak about the Homeland report and the plan to use the National Guard to deport 11 million illegal immigrants was a deliberate testing the water exercise. Governments do this all the time as a way of judging the popularity of proposals. Trump's Ali-esque "I am the Greatest" approach has a limited lifespan - it seems that when confronted with the incontrovertible he retreats into blustering and name calling.
Pence is an interesting sort - he describes himself as a "Christian, Conservative and a Republican in that order". I would imagine a number of other political figures would emphasise their faith and I am sure there are plenty of Christians and people of other faiths (and indeed no faith) in all parties.
Yet there are many politicians - May for one - who don't talk about their faith in the same way.
Exclusive: John Bercow embroiled in new impartiality row as it emerges he granted more urgent questions to Labour MP whose allies gave donations than any other backbencher
Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
Does anyone in Europe really want to see the Germans re-arm?
Their political and economic dominance creates problems enough; the symbolism of jackboots on the ground would tip some over the edge, I'd guess. I can imagine some actually preferring the Russians.
You seem unaware that until the 1990s Germany maintained a large conscript army, and they were pretty damn good at their job too. The Bundeswehr regularly gave the Septics and our own chaps a run for their money during NATO exercises. The Germans also had a well-found and efficient air force and a Kriegsmarine of variable quality (same as WW2, the U boats were bloody good, the surface fleet not so much).
Nobody in the 60's, 70's and 80's was worried about a re-armed Germany.
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
I can't see Zuckerberg getting the Democratic nomination in 2020, they are more likely to go for a class warrior like Warren following Hillary's defeat in 2016 than a centrist billionaire. If the Democrats fail to take the House in 2018 a centrist may have more chance but if the Democrats win the House in the midterms they will want a true believer to take forward their agenda with the political wind coming back more their way
After Trump no one will want another amateur. Look for a State Governor, from somewhere other than the Pacific coast or N Atlantic coast.
Both Louisiana and West Virginia recently elected Democratic Governors. The party should look at how they did it. John Bel Edwards in Louisiana is young enough as is Bullock in Montana.
Yes but given Hillary only scraped past Sanders because she was 'electable' and still managed to lose the general election to Trump I can't see the Democratic base picking another 'electable' centrist in the 2020 Democratic primaries. They will want someone who fires them up, like Warren and that will be even more the case if the Democrats take the House in 2018 and the momentum seems to be with them anyway
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
Liberal bias? We've even seen networks such as FOX news call him out on his antics (Shepard Smith). FOX news are by no means the 'liberal media'. In one of your posts today you mentioned Joe Scarbrough - Scarbrough is a Republican (who is friends with Mike Pence FGS), hardly a 'liberal' news media agent. On Morning Joe, he argued that the issues with falsehoods which we see coming out of the Trump WH now, originate with the Clinton administration and spoke extensively about that.
CNN, MSNBC etc. are simply calling out Trump's antics.
To Plato, anyone not wearing a white hood is a Liberal!
And here I thought that certain white-hood organisations had Democrat Sentators to represent them.
Germany should be spending 2% of their GDP. remember they are a far stronger economy than ours and with a surplus - they can afford to do so.
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
Does anyone in Europe really want to see the Germans re-arm?
Their political and economic dominance creates problems enough; the symbolism of jackboots on the ground would tip some over the edge, I'd guess. I can imagine some actually preferring the Russians.
No one in their right minds would prefer the Russians as things stand.
All of NATO needs to rearm, that includes us most definitely
Note to MOD - next time you build up a tank force make sure you pay attention to reliability and get decent engines.
EDIT - that is one thing Trump is right on, us and the rest of NATO need to pay our way and get on with some heavy lifting - it will not happen though Europe is going down the pan.
Just back from visiting Mr Stodge Senior and a pleasant early lunch. Nearly drove off the road when Lincoln scored much to Mrs Stodge's annoyance.
I've heard it argued the leak about the Homeland report and the plan to use the National Guard to deport 11 million illegal immigrants was a deliberate testing the water exercise. Governments do this all the time as a way of judging the popularity of proposals. Trump's Ali-esque "I am the Greatest" approach has a limited lifespan - it seems that when confronted with the incontrovertible he retreats into blustering and name calling.
Pence is an interesting sort - he describes himself as a "Christian, Conservative and a Republican in that order". I would imagine a number of other political figures would emphasise their faith and I am sure there are plenty of Christians and people of other faiths (and indeed no faith) in all parties.
Yet there are many politicians - May for one - who don't talk about their faith in the same way.
Mr. Floater, I sometimes have quotes ahead of novels. Kingdom Asunder's is Machiavelli: Men must be either pampered, or annihilated [another translation is well-treated, or crushed].
It comes from a part of The Prince where he writes you should either wound someone so grievously they're incapable of retaliation, or not bother. If you injure them but leave them capable of injuring you, then all you've done is create danger for yourself whilst failing to destroy your enemy.
I think it's highly unlikely the vote would go against Bercow and I think it's entirely possible he'd win easily.
Then what? He's antagonised and, being a cretin, will be even more political.
That's not only bad now, it's a long-term problem as subsequent Speakers might act likewise.
Of course, if he's toppled, I shall stand corrected.
Mr. Floater, I sometimes have quotes ahead of novels. Kingdom Asunder's is Machiavelli: Men must be either pampered, or annihilated [another translation is well-treated, or crushed].
It comes from a part of The Prince where he writes you should either wound someone so grievously they're incapable of retaliation, or not bother. If you injure them but leave them capable of injuring you, then all you've done is create danger for yourself whilst failing to destroy your enemy.
I think it's highly unlikely the vote would go against Bercow and I think it's entirely possible he'd win easily.
Then what? He's antagonised and, being a cretin, will be even more political.
That's not only bad now, it's a long-term problem as subsequent Speakers might act likewise.
Of course, if he's toppled, I shall stand corrected.
You are of course correct.
But the man is odious beyond belief and he needs to have his wings clipped.
OK, they had Tornados. The Ringo of aircraft. Good enough if you couldn't get anything better.
Their tanks were wicked cool, tho.
A bit unfair on the Thornado there, Mr. Code. First conceived in the mid-sixties, work started for real in 1968, flew first in the mid-seventies and entered service in 1979. For a three nation partnership that is stunningly fast. It is of course still flying with the RAF, they keep trying to retire it, but keep finding that the EuroFighter (aka Lightning -II) cannot match its capabilities.
Good enough if you can't get anything better? Well for nearly forty years it would seem the RAF have not been able to get anything better. No doubt the Crabs will manage to bin it in the end, once they have spent another few billion developing the lightning to do something it was not designed to do and buggered up the F35 programme. Still that is Crab Air for you.
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
Liberal bias? We've even seen networks such as FOX news call him out on his antics (Shepard Smith). FOX news are by no means the 'liberal media'. In one of your posts today you mentioned Joe Scarbrough - Scarbrough is a Republican (who is friends with Mike Pence FGS), hardly a 'liberal' news media agent. On Morning Joe, he argued that the issues with falsehoods which we see coming out of the Trump WH now, originate with the Clinton administration and spoke extensively about that.
CNN, MSNBC etc. are simply calling out Trump's antics.
To Plato, anyone not wearing a white hood is a Liberal!
And here I thought that certain white-hood organisations had Democrat Sentators to represent them.
George Wallace was a Democrat and the Klan was the paramilitary branch of his party.
"If Trump's job approval ratings drop one additional point, he will join Clinton as the second president to fall below 40% approval during his first year in office. While Clinton's approval ratings did improve fairly quickly, he also saw his party suffer historic losses in the 1994 midterm elections, giving Republicans control of Congress. Unless Trump's approval ratings improve significantly over the next year and a half, Republicans may endure a similar outcome in the 2018 midterms." http://www.gallup.com/poll/204050/trump-job-approval-points-below-average-one-month-mark.aspx
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
Liberal bias? We've even seen networks such as FOX news call him out on his antics (Shepard Smith). FOX news are by no means the 'liberal media'. In one of your posts today you mentioned Joe Scarbrough - Scarbrough is a Republican (who is friends with Mike Pence FGS), hardly a 'liberal' news media agent. On Morning Joe, he argued that the issues with falsehoods which we see coming out of the Trump WH now, originate with the Clinton administration and spoke extensively about that.
CNN, MSNBC etc. are simply calling out Trump's antics.
To Plato, anyone not wearing a white hood is a Liberal!
And here I thought that certain white-hood organisations had Democrat Sentators to represent them.
Keep up.
'KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president'
'Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters'
'David Duke robocall: Former Ku Klux Klan leader urges Donald Trump voters to 'save America''
Well Trump's tweets are aimed at his supporters. The trouble is, is that many ordinary, working class people did not vote for Donald Trump, and he is not really making much of an effort to reach out to those people.
He's currently boiling the pot of liberal MSM to lance the boil - and they're all falling into his pit of sharp sticks in outrage. The issue of liberal bias needs addressing - so Trump threw an ego grenade at them.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
Liberal bias? We've even seen networks such as FOX news call him out on his antics (Shepard Smith). FOX news are by no means the 'liberal media'. In one of your posts today you mentioned Joe Scarbrough - Scarbrough is a Republican (who is friends with Mike Pence FGS), hardly a 'liberal' news media agent. On Morning Joe, he argued that the issues with falsehoods which we see coming out of the Trump WH now, originate with the Clinton administration and spoke extensively about that.
CNN, MSNBC etc. are simply calling out Trump's antics.
To Plato, anyone not wearing a white hood is a Liberal!
And here I thought that certain white-hood organisations had Democrat Sentators to represent them.
George Wallace was a Democrat and the Klan was the paramilitary branch of his party.
the parties have switched since Nixon. Trump is simply an extension of that era.
Comments
Other European states such as Spain, its reasonable to aim for a longer term goal of 2%.
Germany only refuses to spend it because of ideological dogma. It's embarrassing the extent to which Europe freeloads on NATO. This is one of the only times I will actually agree with the Trump administration!
The United States has three states with larger economies than Russia: California, Texas and New York. https://t.co/cI6L29WaE3
So you have no evidence at all to offer that he ever opposed gay marriage.
Thanks. Stick a fork in this one; it's done.
Jacob A Wohl
Trump's tweets are the modern day version of FDR's Fireside Chats // Around the press, and straight to the people! https://t.co/l9T2Hyl36Q
I'll file that under the kind of 'logic' that asserts gun control causes more gun related deaths.
May either wasn't very good at implementing Cameron's pledge, or it was undeliverable. To be generous to May, I think it mostly the latter, and I expect the numbers to stay much the same for the forseable future, even post Brexit.
The same point could be made about exploiting other advances in technology.
"Through one of the marvels of modern Science, I am enabled, this Christmas Day, to speak to all my peoples throughout the Empire. I take it as a good omen that Wireless should have reached its present perfection at a time when the Empire has been linked in closer union. For it offers us immense possibilities to make that union closer still.
King George V - Christmas Speech - 1932
As for "filing" I don't care where you stick it. Although I'll happily offer a suggestion.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/16/mark-zuckerberg-new-facebook-manifesto-letter
He definitely seems to be on manoeuvres. 2024 seemed to have been the original idea, but an unpopular Trump may give credence to the idea that you need another maverick outsider (Zuckerberg is as much an outside as Trump of course, which is to say - not at all), pushing him to go for 2020.
He's actually a pretty decent public speaker, and he would be able to neutralise Trump on so many of his 'personal qualities' - the whole self made man stuff (as I understand it, Zuckerberg didn't need to borrow millions from his dad).
I bet he would get right under Trump's skin, being worth $50+ billion rather than Trump's paltry $4 billion. Plus he actually created something useful out of nothing, unlike Trump. He would be quite effective against him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY41eD4lS28
I'm not really the best person to ask as I'm very conservative. I am also not a financial adviser, so this is based on my personal approach.
1. Have at least 3 months cash expenses (ideally 6) in cash. I use premium bonds, because my bank doesn't pay interest and it's too much hassle moving trying to have multiple bank accounts to get a couple of percent on a couple of thousand (pre-tax)
2. Max your ISA, your JISAs, your SIPP and your junior SIPP
3. Pay down your mortgage (boring, but it's tax free and you don't want to be in a position where your house is at risk if your income is variable). Your main house is somewhere to live, not an investment
4. Invest in equities. Depending on how much you have you can take a very low cost approach of investing in EFTs and trackers, or you can give to a professional to try and achieve outperformance. If you are going to a professional I'd tend to get them to focus on absolute returns (say RPI + 5%) rather than index returns. That's personal preference, of course.
5. Diversification is key in equities. It's difficult because asset prices as a whole are inflated. With my daughter's fund I went for a stable of boring global shares (she can't buy investment funds or trackers because they are PFICs) - HSBC, Shell, Glaxo, Vodafone, Unilever: theory was they were firms with a good dividend yield (I locked in 4.5%) across the portfolio, with good international earnings, and which I'd be happy to forget about for a decade.
6. Until you've got a decent pot in equities (I use > my mortgage as a rule of thumb) it's not really worth getting clever. VCTs and EIS have a place, but should only be money you are prepared to lose (no more than 10% of your investable assets). Never make an investment just because of the tax advantages,
7. Property can be a useful form of diversification - I bought abroad to give me a natural US dollar hedge. You need to decide up front whether it is for personal use or whether you want to rent it out as an investment. It rarely makes sense to mix the two - and I suspect that you get to travel enough as it is.
8. Once you've paid for your main house, got your safety net, and funded your kids education give a bunch away. There's so much personal reward from that, and it's not doing you much good as more numbers on a spreadsheet.
Hope that helps
A difficult position to hold.
http://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-travel-ban-stops-dwight-yorke-from-entering-us-10772357
George Takei clearly expected his Trump vs Media poll to be a walkover for the media.
At about 67k votes - he deleted it
Ian Miles Cheong
Well, that's an easy one. The media. It's the biggest reason why Trump is president, if you hate him and need someone to blame. https://t.co/fdS5kefjl3
He changed his mind, at least on section 28, over time. A similar journey to that undertaken by many other people over the last twenty-five years.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2009/07/02/cameron-s-u-turn-apology-for-section-28
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-sorry-for-section-28-1728003.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_David_Cameron#LGBT_rights_and_same-sex_marriage
And thanks for the analogy. I could think of some but they all had weaknesses and then you start picking at the loose threads and the whole conversation derails.
Agree that it probably wasn't his position. I doubt he really cared either way until it became politically expedient.
The obvious problem w my analogy is that smoking is objectively bad for you, whereas being gay isn't. But its the best I could do at them time!
Here is a Guardian piece from Jan 2016 pointing out the issue with Obama attacking people who had travelled to almost the same countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan. I don't recall any shrieking invective from the Lib-left about how Obama was a white-supremacist who hates muslims.
----
"The Obama administration has tightened travel terms regarding Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan, under rules that will also make travel to the US harder for some Europeans.
The rules, which took effect on Thursday, create new visa requirements for dual nationals and anyone who has traveled to those countries in the last five years. Many Europeans enjoy visa-free travel to the US. Should they have dual citizenship or have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Syria or Sudan, they will require new permits.
The new rules, phased in under an anti-terrorism law passed in December, are designed to prevent people radicalized abroad from entering the US."
-----
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/21/new-us-visa-rules-could-also-cause-problems-for-americans-visiting-europe
It is most likely just the US travel authorities being their usual abusive selves, and the continuing rather desperate demonisation campaign from anti-Trumpettes.
It has been a problem for years for some people with Turkish stamps in their passports.
The information he does provide suggests that he is unlikely to need the cash pre-retirement. If he doesn't have significant pension provision, then feeding as much of it as possible (bearing in mind the annual limits) into a pension arrangement ought to be his first priority. He'll get full tax relief now, and benefit from 25% tax free withdrawal at any point after age 55, and in retirement many people pay tax at a lower rate on the balance than they do when working and earning.
If his pension is taken care of, then it's money for spending or giving away, not investing, as others have already observed. There are plenty of worthwhile places to give money as well as some that provide a reward, tangible or intangible (funding a 'Thomas scholarship for literature' at his old university is just one example).
Paying off any debts including the mortgage as top priority is a no-brainer.
The largest risks to wealth over the foreseeable are inflation and another financial collapse. Inflation-linked bonds and gold respectively are therefore both worth a proportion of the £.
I have a soft spot for VCTs, having bought a variety of them in years past; the tax relief is still generous, and my batch bring in return of around 8% pa (allowing for the tax relief on the initial investment); I treat them as annuities - what they are worth is irrelevant and I will hold them to death and take the few £k a year as tax-free income. The key is to spread the money around.
[edit] - Yup, in the United States, a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S.
http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html
Zuckerberg's currently 32, so he could just scrape in for 2020.
1933
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt9f-MZX-58
Their political and economic dominance creates problems enough; the symbolism of jackboots on the ground would tip some over the edge, I'd guess. I can imagine some actually preferring the Russians.
What bet did you have?
I recall in the late stages of the 1987 election campaign an exchange between Denis Healey and Ann Diamond on Breakfast television. She was needling him over his wife Edna's use of private healthcare and he responded with ' When is the baby due Ann?' - knowing full well that she was unmarried.
I watched Twitter for hours overnight as the liberal/centre/rightists fought with each other over bias/fake news/lies of omission/free passes for Democrats. Very healthy stuff - only he could force this sort of self reflection/implosion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/18/exclusive-john-bercow-embroiled-new-impartiality-row-emerges/
The knives are really out for the Berk.
Nobody in the 60's, 70's and 80's was worried about a re-armed Germany.
Aguero anytime goalscorer w Ladbrokes 8/11 looks v nice to me
They seem to confuse rhetoric with what he actually did. Just like the Mexican wall, really.
And that doesn't alter the fact that Sky are misreporting, which is the point of the comment.
* Criticising Germany for weakening[1] the Euro
* Criticising Trump for failing to implement his border controls
* Criticising Putin for being weak
Generally speaking, when somebody criticises an enemy for being weak, they're not thinking straight.
[1] Yes, I know...
Bet he (and his assistant, his brother) won’t go back to teaching anytime soon.
If there is no history of pension provision, then use of previous years + current years max contributions, and ISA allowances, would let ST put 200k into tax shelters in the next 8 weeks alone.
And even £1m is not such a huge pension pot when it may need to last 30-40 years. It is the sum that some GP's hit by their early 50s and complain about being 'forced' to retire early.
The media needles him, but his attacks convert no one, just boost coverage of his inanities
CNN, MSNBC etc. are simply calling out Trump's antics.
It is pretty much my plan, when I max out my pot in a few years.
OK, they had Tornados. The Ringo of aircraft. Good enough if you couldn't get anything better.
Their tanks were wicked cool, tho.
Both Louisiana and West Virginia recently elected Democratic Governors. The party should look at how they did it. John Bel Edwards in Louisiana is young enough as is Bullock in Montana.
Just back from visiting Mr Stodge Senior and a pleasant early lunch. Nearly drove off the road when Lincoln scored much to Mrs Stodge's annoyance.
I've heard it argued the leak about the Homeland report and the plan to use the National Guard to deport 11 million illegal immigrants was a deliberate testing the water exercise. Governments do this all the time as a way of judging the popularity of proposals. Trump's Ali-esque "I am the Greatest" approach has a limited lifespan - it seems that when confronted with the incontrovertible he retreats into blustering and name calling.
Pence is an interesting sort - he describes himself as a "Christian, Conservative and a Republican in that order". I would imagine a number of other political figures would emphasise their faith and I am sure there are plenty of Christians and people of other faiths (and indeed no faith) in all parties.
Yet there are many politicians - May for one - who don't talk about their faith in the same way.
All of NATO needs to rearm, that includes us most definitely
Note to MOD - next time you build up a tank force make sure you pay attention to reliability and get decent engines.
EDIT - that is one thing Trump is right on, us and the rest of NATO need to pay our way and get on with some heavy lifting - it will not happen though Europe is going down the pan.
Apparently that's 21 points behind where presidents are on average in mid February.
https://politicalwire.com/2017/02/17/trump-approval-slides-another-new-low/
Mr. Floater, I sometimes have quotes ahead of novels. Kingdom Asunder's is Machiavelli:
Men must be either pampered, or annihilated [another translation is well-treated, or crushed].
It comes from a part of The Prince where he writes you should either wound someone so grievously they're incapable of retaliation, or not bother. If you injure them but leave them capable of injuring you, then all you've done is create danger for yourself whilst failing to destroy your enemy.
I think it's highly unlikely the vote would go against Bercow and I think it's entirely possible he'd win easily.
Then what? He's antagonised and, being a cretin, will be even more political.
That's not only bad now, it's a long-term problem as subsequent Speakers might act likewise.
Of course, if he's toppled, I shall stand corrected.
But the man is odious beyond belief and he needs to have his wings clipped.
Don't be churlish about it.
Good enough if you can't get anything better? Well for nearly forty years it would seem the RAF have not been able to get anything better. No doubt the Crabs will manage to bin it in the end, once they have spent another few billion developing the lightning to do something it was not designed to do and buggered up the F35 programme. Still that is Crab Air for you.
There's little doubt that Germany now enjoys more power and influence within Europe and over it's neighbours than it has for seventy odd years.
Old sores sometimes re-open. When the Greeks were having their earlier bailout issues, old emnities frequently resurfaced.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/204050/trump-job-approval-points-below-average-one-month-mark.aspx
'KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president'
'Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters'
'David Duke robocall: Former Ku Klux Klan leader urges Donald Trump voters to 'save America''