With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Maybe having enough cake doesn't matter to you, but some of these people are on the breadline.
I'm not saying how things will pan out - I'm suggesting why the Cornish might have voted the way that they did, and suggesting that there are other things bar EU grants affecting the way the Cornish feel about Brussels. I might not have voted the way they did, but the way they voted was not 'stupid' - it just encapsulates a different set of priorities.
I wonder bother wasting much time with that article.
It's somehow lumped a current UK scheme into post 2019 Brexit funding.
It's the usual euroloon bilge from i/the 'independent'.
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Maybe having enough cake doesn't matter to you, but some of these people are on the breadline.
I'm not saying how things will pan out - I'm suggesting why the Cornish might have voted the way that they did, and suggesting that there are other things bar EU grants affecting the way the Cornish feel about Brussels. I might not have voted the way they did, but the way they voted was not 'stupid' - it just encapsulates a different set of priorities.
Either they didn't realise they would be poorer, or they did realise it but thought the prize of a greater 'feeling of sovereignty' (see White Paper) was worth the price.
I genuinely can't decide which is the more foolish.
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously
Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.
The County Council are responsible for non trunk road highways and the District Council are responsible for housing development and planning.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously
Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.
It may be a bit socialist but Michael Portillo now seems to support the idea of the public sector following Harold Macmillan's housing policy, i.e. basically
'Bugger the borrowing requirement: build, build, build'.
Portillo suggested they could be sold to sitting tenants if and when the market suited. I'd have thought this would make a tidy central or local government profit as long as the land is compulsorily purchased as farmland, developed as housing and let at RSL-type rents. Resale of houses after 10-15 years if the tenants want to buy at say 90% of market value would probably enable the whole cycle to begin again and make another good profit for taxpayers.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Is that sort of thing not the duty of the Council and not Westminster MPs?
If a Westminster MP started trying to unilaterally buy up buildings and kick residents out of their homes so that they could be bulldozed and have new homes constructed for sale then I suspect that would cause quite a stink!
He could work in conjunction w the council and offer to buy the land? It would be up to the residents to sell or not.
Sorry if this sounds like a punter just making suggestions, & isn't correct subject to planning rules etc, but that's what it is!
Something radical needs to be done and I don't think 'digital democracy' is it
Several other similar plotlands have just been deserted and demolished. This is a little nasty to say, but Jaywick really isn't in an ideal location. It might be sensible just to move the residents and demolish it.
It may (will) not be a popular move amongst the residents. There are other areas (e.g. some old mining villages) where the same move might be best, but equally politically unacceptable.
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.
So Carswell was arrogant enough to believe his defection would alone "detoxify" a party's brand??
He didn't quite succeed in that, granted, but throwing his support as the sole UKIP MP behind Vote Leave could have been crucial in the close designation battle. It's reasonable to argue that his defection was decisive in the referendum.
Hmmm. That's arguable. Given UKIP nearly derailed the result with Farage and THAT poster, I think the influence was mixed at best.
The only defection that was truly crucial was that of Boris from on to off the Camerons' Christmas card list....
Perhaps I'm the only person here who's interested in Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, but his average poll score has gone up from 1.8% to 2.7% from Jan to Feb, and if Le Pen does get damaged judicially...
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
One of the problems with such private estates is the fact that half-hearted resurfacing jobs are done. The real costs are underground. You need to dig deep and build proper drains (rainwater and sewerage), water and electricity supplies. Trunking for cable can also be added. You then need to build a proper subbase, insert kerbing and other furniture (e.g. streetlights).
Only then do you do the blacktop. All the real work is below that and invisible.
And all this has to be done whilst the residents have continued access to their homes, water and sewerage. It is really, really expensive to do right. But if it is done right it'll last a very long time.
Too often the solution for both councils and locals is to chuck a new layer of tarmac on, or even just spray tar and graded material. Which then disintegrates the next winter.
A lot of the time ime. The developer will put down a road surface only suitable for cars etc. Forgetting the fact that dust bin lorries and removal trucks weigh significantly more and wear out the surface a lot sooner.
The type of road surface will be part of the planning conditions set by the council.
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Maybe having enough cake doesn't matter to you, but some of these people are on the breadline.
I'm not saying how things will pan out - I'm suggesting why the Cornish might have voted the way that they did, and suggesting that there are other things bar EU grants affecting the way the Cornish feel about Brussels. I might not have voted the way they did, but the way they voted was not 'stupid' - it just encapsulates a different set of priorities.
Either they didn't realise they would be poorer, or they did realise it but thought the prize of a greater 'feeling of sovereignty' (see White Paper) was worth the price.
I genuinely can't decide which is the more foolish.
Given that EU funds amount to about £110 per head, they probably decided it didn't amount to a hill of beans. How many people decide their vote on £110?
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.
So Carswell was arrogant enough to believe his defection would alone "detoxify" a party's brand??
He didn't quite succeed in that, granted, but throwing his support as the sole UKIP MP behind Vote Leave could have been crucial in the close designation battle. It's reasonable to argue that his defection was decisive in the referendum.
Hmmm. That's arguable. Given UKIP nearly derailed the result with Farage and THAT poster, I think the influence was mixed at best.
The only defection that was truly crucial was that of Boris from on to off the Camerons' Christmas card list....
If there'd been no significant UKIP representation in Vote Leave, GO might have won the designation. Farage would have been front and centre and Boris would have got less airtime.
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously
Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.
It may be a bit socialist but Michael Portillo now seems to support the idea of the public sector following Harold Macmillan's housing policy, i.e. basically
'Bugger the borrowing requirement: build, build, build'.
Portillo suggested they could be sold to sitting tenants if and when the market suited. I'd have thought this would make a tidy central or local government profit as long as the land is compulsorily purchased as farmland, developed as housing and let at RSL-type rents. Resale of houses after 10-15 years if the tenants want to buy at say 90% of market value would probably enable the whole cycle to begin again and make another good profit for taxpayers.
Maybe they thought thee was more to the future than EU money? Maybe they thought that as we are a net contributor, EU funding would be replaced by UK funding? Maybe they thought that regaining control over fisheries was more valuable? Are they right? Who knows? But - as with a GE - there's surely a bit more to the decision than a simple question of 'who will give me the most cake?'
Maybe they were wrong to trust the Tories to disregard politics and allocate funding based on need. Maybe the EU has to be more even-handed between regions.
As for regaining control of fisheries, you do know that's another Leaver fantasy, don't you?
Maybe having enough cake doesn't matter to you, but some of these people are on the breadline.
I'm not saying how things will pan out - I'm suggesting why the Cornish might have voted the way that they did, and suggesting that there are other things bar EU grants affecting the way the Cornish feel about Brussels. I might not have voted the way they did, but the way they voted was not 'stupid' - it just encapsulates a different set of priorities.
Either they didn't realise they would be poorer, or they did realise it but thought the prize of a greater 'feeling of sovereignty' (see White Paper) was worth the price.
I genuinely can't decide which is the more foolish.
Given that EU funds amount to about £110 per head, they probably decided it didn't amount to a hill of beans. How many people decide their vote on £110?
We're talking investments, not handouts. Give a man a fish/give a man a fishing rod etc.
Edit to say: if the money to/from the EU isn't significant, why are Leavers so exercised about it?
The EU parliament will decide today on whether to remove her immunity from French prosecution in respect of her tweets of three disgusting ISIS execution photos in 2015 and two cases of alleged defamation.
I haven't found any good reports on this. The best I've found is from Bloomberg. As I understand it, MEPs have the same immunity in their home countries as they would if they were MPs, which varies from country to country.
Can she sell the narrative that the EU is persecuting her for trying to stand up for France against Islam? I think she probably can, and that this will strengthen her.
According to Bloomberg, the timetable is as follows:
today, 28 Feb: an EU parliamentary committee considers a request from a French court to remove her immunity regarding the tweets and the instances of alleged defamation;
next week: the committee makes recommendations to the EU parliament;
later in March: the whole EU parliament votes on the issue.
This seems ideal for Le Pen, especially given that Wilders is likely to be in the news a lot in the second half of March. It will help her push the message that getting a plurality isn't good enough, faced with the EU powers that be, which are "soft on Islam" and assisted by the French compradore "establishment". With "enemies" like this in the EU parliament, does she need "friends"?
Polls are currently saying that from R1 to R2 she'll increase her percentage from 26% to 39% against Macron and 42% against Fillon, so by 50-62%. That wouldn't give her the Elysée, but it would break new ground for an FN candidate.
Would you like a bet on Mme Le Pen's second round vote? How about you pay £10 for every point below 42%, and I pay you £10 for every point above. Settled to one decimal place.
Perhaps I'm the only person here who's interested in Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, but his average poll score has gone up from 1.8% to 2.7% from Jan to Feb, and if Le Pen does get damaged judicially...
He's available at 640.
Have you had a name change? There was a chap on here very keen on Mr Dupont-Aignan.
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.
The OBR forecasts back in November have already been shown to be excessively pessimistic.
The public sector finances are actually on target to hit Osborne's Remain scenario numbers from last March.
What's more, the public's appetite for spending is unlikely to be curbed by the above inflation increases in the minimum wage, tax free allowance and increase in the scope of the 20% rate at the expense of the 40% one from April. Meanwhile, Osborne's benefit cuts gather pace, further squeezing public spending.
The deficit is likely to be a defunct issue by the time we reach 2019.
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.
Of course he would be wanting to exaggerate!
He had a very rare opportunity to reset "day zero" figures for what he was predicting. In that instance it makes sense to project the very worst case scenario.
That way if the very worst does not come to pass, then he can claim the credit for having done a good job. If Brexit hits the public finances by £29 billion then instead of "Hammond's £29 billion black hole" then because he forecast £59 billion on day zero he can claim "public finances £30 billion better than predicted".
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.
£59 billion over five years? Government expenditure is currently about £700bn a year or £3.5 trillion over five years. Your "hit" won't even register as a rounding error, if it ever happens.
Ugh. These people are really testing my personal desire to not yell and call them names, they are so silly. Look, yes, Richmond was a big Tory loss, even considering Zac technically stood as an independent. And it was a very large majority to lose at a by-election, even though I imagine such majorities have been overturned before. But there is still a fundamental difference between a government 18months or 6.5 years into its tenure losing a seat (not even to the main opposition party) and the main opposition party losing a seat which, while not a massive majority, they have held for 80 years.
They just turn it into more fodder for their persecution complexes to avoid taking a hard look at their own problems, cherry picking details with even more shameless abandon than is usual.
Russia and China have vetoed sanctions on Syria over chemical weapons usage.
I'll never understand politicians who want our capacity to take military action to be subject to approval from Russia, China, France and the US (particularly the first two, of course).
Perhaps I'm the only person here who's interested in Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, but his average poll score has gone up from 1.8% to 2.7% from Jan to Feb, and if Le Pen does get damaged judicially...
He's available at 640.
He is up half a point to a magnificent 3% in this afternoon's ifop rolling poll.
Le Pen down half a point to 25.5 Macron down half a point to 24 Fillon up half a point to 20.5
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.
I don't think affects the part of the predicted additional borrowing requirement that the OBR assigned to Brexit (the £59 billion figure). Incidentally the OBR think the "windfall" on the current borrowing requirement (the amount less than expected) is £12 billion or £10 billion on like for like basis.
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.
£59 billion over five years? Government expenditure is currently about £700bn a year or £3.5 trillion over five years. Your "hit" won't even register as a rounding error, if it ever happens.
I agree with you. Nevertheless the £59 billion over five years is more than our annual £8.5 billion net payment to the EU, which was the main reason VoteLeave gave in their manifesto for leaving the EU!
Re Jaywick, maybe it is above Carswells pay grade, and a bit socialist, but I'd buy the land off the residents, demolish it & build new housing m, maybe affordable/maybe even Luxury. It's quite a nice spot really!
Surely if there were profit in doing that, someone would have done it by now? Frinton provides all the luxury housing needed in the area, for one.
Sorry I mean the council should buy the land and build new housing in it. Not luxury obviously
Is it enough? Probably not, but it's better than anything that's happened for the last few decades. Is it Carswell's achievement? I don't really know enough to comment, but I'd very strongly suspect not.
The County Council are responsible for non trunk road highways and the District Council are responsible for housing development and planning.
Oh, I'm well aware of that (my job requires me to be), and that the chances of Carswell having anything to do with this are miniscule. That said, MPs can sometimes be useful at knocking heads together.
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
Eh?
I've got a newbuild home that is due to have the road adopted by the Council and I've not been advised on any bill for it happening. Whether the road would be adopted or not was a major issue during the survey prior to construction, we wanted it adopted as we had been advised that if it was not adopted we'd be liable for repairs while if it is adopted the Council would be and we pay the same Council Tax either way.
The bill Mr. Thompson is sent to residents on an existing non-adopted road which the council, for one reason or another decides to adopt. It is usually hefty and in my experience is in the four figures bracket.
Whether your local council actually maintain your road is, in my view, a matter of doubt. My council certainly does not maintain the roads in my village to any sort of standard. We have wheel-breaking potholes all over the place and it has been getting progressively worse for ten years or more.
We were never advised of a possible bill upon adoption ...
I don't think affects the part of the predicted additional borrowing requirement that the OBR assigned to Brexit (the £59 billion figure). Incidentally the OBR think the "windfall" on the current borrowing requirement (the amount less than expected) is £12 billion or £10 billion on like for like basis.
If you re-read the article that you refer to, it clearly says that only half of the £59bn was assumed to be Brexit related, and that assumption was based on an underestimate of this year's growth and an over-estimate of the PSNB(ex).
The only worthwhile conclusion that we can draw presently is that the June vote has had no detrimental effect on the public sector finances in the period to date when compared to Osborne's Remain forecast last March.
For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
I see the latest poll for Northern Ireland today has DUP 26%, Sinn Fein 25%, UUP 13%, SDLP 12%, Alliance 9%, which should result in almost no change. This is one of the most pointless elections ever.
With respect to money spent in the UK, there is no such thing as EU money, there is only British taxpayers' money. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for other contributor countries.
Indeed the UK is a net payer to the EU. However public revenues aren't a fixed amount. Brexit will almost certainly squeeze UK revenues by more than our net payments to the EU, There will be less money to spend on Cornwall (or the NHS - pace the £350 million claim)
Why? In five years time when you have the evidence you can make that claim. Right now you have no idea what effect Brexit will have on public revenues. You are simply making unfounded assumptions.
It's widely reported that Brexit will hit public finances. Indeed our very own Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates there will be a £59 billion hit directly due to Brexit over five years. He won't be wanting to exaggerate.
I don't think affects the part of the predicted additional borrowing requirement that the OBR assigned to Brexit (the £59 billion figure). Incidentally the OBR think the "windfall" on the current borrowing requirement (the amount less than expected) is £12 billion or £10 billion on like for like basis.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement. The £59bn is the predicted increase in borrowing due to Brexit. There is now a separate prediction that borrowing will be £29bn lower than expected. Doesn't that mean the net is £30bn of extra borrowing? Of course, these are all predictions (as Nabavi points out!)
The residents own the roads! That's the problem I think.
And if the council adopted the roads they would wack each resident with a hefty (four figure bill), do a half-hearted resurfacing job and then ignore said road for the next twenty years, no matter how much it breaks up in the interim.
The residents of a new estate up the road from me have made a positive decision to keep the roads on the estate out of the council's hands because between them they think they can do a better job of maintenance for lower cost. Looking at the state of the roads around here, they are probably correct.
Eh?
I've got a newbuild home that is due to have the road adopted by the Council and I've not been advised on any bill for it happening. Whether the road would be adopted or not was a major issue during the survey prior to construction, we wanted it adopted as we had been advised that if it was not adopted we'd be liable for repairs while if it is adopted the Council would be and we pay the same Council Tax either way.
The bill Mr. Thompson is sent to residents on an existing non-adopted road which the council, for one reason or another decides to adopt. It is usually hefty and in my experience is in the four figures bracket.
Whether your local council actually maintain your road is, in my view, a matter of doubt. My council certainly does not maintain the roads in my village to any sort of standard. We have wheel-breaking potholes all over the place and it has been getting progressively worse for ten years or more.
We were never advised of a possible bill upon adoption ...
If it's a new road built to the council's standards then there's unlikely to be a bill. It's where it's an old or substandard road that gets adopted, the council will, upon adoption, bring it up to their 'standards' and send a bill for that work to the residents.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
This only makes them "thick" if they were of the opinion that money is the most important priority in life for Cornish people, that this trumped any other social and political concerns they had because MONEY MONEY MONEY CORNWALL MUST HAVE THE LOVELY MONEY and any issues of sovereignty or identity or whether Britain is a long-term fit for the long-term evolution of the EU go out of the window because CASH IS THE CORNISH KING OH MY GOD GIVE US ALL THE MONEY GIVE US ALL YOUR F***KING EU MONEY and whether it's been democratic for the British public to have been pushed so far along a route of European integration that has never had strong popular support really doesn't matter because GIMME GIMME GIMME oh look it's eu referendum date let's vote leave that sounds fun.
Otherwise, they're not "thick". They're just people with different opinions and priorities to you.
Proof.
One of my bugbears with The Left (and I write this despite having voted Communist in the last Euro elections!) is their trope that "anyone who votes in a way that lies contrary to what my opinion of their own interests is, must be suffering from false consciousness".
To be fair, you hear it from right-wingers occasionally too ("why do all these folk in poor constituencies keep voting Labour for 50 years, if at the end of it the place is as bad a dump as it was at the start?") but left-wingers do seem to enjoy the idea that the only reason someone didn't vote the way they "should" have done is some kind of mental delusion. It's an ugly viewpoint.
These days people voted the wrong way, contrary to the way their real interests and feelings lie (as perceived by me, who benefits from a clearer view of it than they themselves), because they were a bunch of thickheads is starting to get on my mostly metaphorical tits too.
When whinging about potholes, remember that councils in England are spending 25% less than in 2010, having had their central government grants cut by 40%.
As somebody who drives a low-slung car I'm not happy about it either!
It's slightly scary how deluded Corbyn supporters like Cat Smith and Richard Burgon are. Everything that happens is somehow interpreted as an endorsement of the current Labour leadership.
Burgon and Smith are two prime examples of everything that is wrong with the modern Labour Party.
That rather depends on whether they are just being super loyal because the fear worse alternatives will occur, or if, scarily, they believe what they are saying.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
This only makes them "thick" if they were of the opinion that money is the most important priority in life for Cornish people, that this trumped any other social and political concerns they had because MONEY MONEY MONEY CORNWALL MUST HAVE THE LOVELY MONEY and any issues of sovereignty or identity or whether Britain is a long-term fit for the long-term evolution of the EU go out of the window because CASH IS THE CORNISH KING OH MY GOD GIVE US ALL THE MONEY GIVE US ALL YOUR F***KING EU MONEY and whether it's been democratic for the British public to have been pushed so far along a route of European integration that has never had strong popular support really doesn't matter because GIMME GIMME GIMME oh look it's eu referendum date let's vote leave that sounds fun.
Otherwise, they're not "thick". They're just people with different opinions and priorities to you.
Proof.
One of my bugbears with The Left (and I write this despite having voted Communist in the last Euro elections!) is their trope that "anyone who votes in a way that lies contrary to what my opinion of their own interests is, must be suffering from false consciousness".
To be fair, you hear it from right-wingers occasionally too ("why do all these folk in poor constituencies keep voting Labour for 50 years, if at the end of it the place is as bad a dump as it was at the start?") but left-wingers do seem to enjoy the idea that the only reason someone didn't vote the way they "should" have done is some kind of mental delusion. It's an ugly viewpoint.
These days people voted the wrong way, contrary to the way their real interests and feelings lie (as perceived by me, who benefits from a clearer view of it than they themselves), because they were a bunch of thickheads is starting to get on my mostly metaphorical tits too.
Well said
Thomas Frank has written a couple of books on why, in USA anyway, people vote against what might be seen as their own economic interests.
It's slightly scary how deluded Corbyn supporters like Cat Smith and Richard Burgon are. Everything that happens is somehow interpreted as an endorsement of the current Labour leadership.
Burgon and Smith are two prime examples of everything that is wrong with the modern Labour Party.
That rather depends on whether they are just being super loyal because the fear worse alternatives will occur, or if, scarily, they believe what they are saying.
With that particular dynamic duo, I think they actually believe it.
For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
(*) Ahem
Your son is what, two maybe getting on for three? A precocious lad indeed to be to be entertained by spreadsheets charting the costs of a projected colony on Mars.
Anyway, I suspect your figures maybe subject to financial quantum as defined by the late Terry Pratchett in his fine book "Pyramids" - add another nought.
It's slightly scary how deluded Corbyn supporters like Cat Smith and Richard Burgon are. Everything that happens is somehow interpreted as an endorsement of the current Labour leadership.
Burgon and Smith are two prime examples of everything that is wrong with the modern Labour Party.
That rather depends on whether they are just being super loyal because the fear worse alternatives will occur, or if, scarily, they believe what they are saying.
It’s a bit of both, Richard Burgon really is thick enough to believe what he wrote, whereas Cat Smith’s party loyalty makes Hazel Blear look like an amateur.
For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
(*) Ahem
Your son is what, two maybe getting on for three? A precocious lad indeed to be to be entertained by spreadsheets charting the costs of a projected colony on Mars.
Anyway, I suspect your figures maybe subject to financial quantum as defined by the late Terry Pratchett in his fine book "Pyramids" - add another nought.
Nah, just Fermi estimation.
I'm doing it not to get a particularly accurate figure, but to use it as a springboard to think through the issues with any such proposed colony. Lots of lovely 'research' is required, and I learn more than if I was just doing unfocussed research.
For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
(*) Ahem
Your son is what, two maybe getting on for three? A precocious lad indeed to be to be entertained by spreadsheets charting the costs of a projected colony on Mars.
Anyway, I suspect your figures maybe subject to financial quantum as defined by the late Terry Pratchett in his fine book "Pyramids" - add another nought.
For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
(*) Ahem
You're a couple of orders of magnitude out I fear. ISS is around $100bn so far, over about 25 years.
The Mars Curiosity mission was $2.5bn for a single rocket and payload, and it took eight months to complete the journey. Say we got the cost down to $1bn, for one tonne of payload delivered to the Martian surface, four times a year - you'd also need serious contingencies to allow for rocket failures on an eight month lead time, so maybe plan one trip a month for the first six months? It would be really shitty to see a launch failure, knowing that it meant you'd run out of food in four or five months' time, and that there was nothing that could be done about it...
Glad to see you having fun with the young lad though.
For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
(*) Ahem
You're a couple of orders of magnitude out I fear. ISS is around $100bn so far, over about 25 years.
The Mars Curiosity mission was $2.5bn for a single rocket and payload, and it took eight months to complete the journey. Say we got the cost down to $1bn, for one tonne of payload delivered to the Martian surface, four times a year - you'd also need serious contingencies to allow for rocket failures on an eight month lead time, so maybe plan one trip a month for the first six months? It would be really shitty to see a launch failure, knowing that it meant you'd run out of food in four or five months' time, and that there was nothing that could be done about it...
Glad to see you having fun with the young lad though.
The ISS figures include the fantastically eye-watering cost of construction, the Earth-based facilities (training, design, maintenance, planning, comms etc), and all the other overheads.
My figures are just for what it would cost to send enough supplies over to keep an existing colony of six people going, assuming similar amounts of supplies as the ISS, the amount of mass we can get onto Mars without pancaking it, and the simple launch costs of such missions.
I don't include all the ancillaries, such as ongoing design, training or the communication networks. But even with those caveats, I'm learning a lot.
As an example, the Red Dragon mission to deliver one tonne of payload onto Mars is estimated to cost between $300 and $400 million.
For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
(*) Ahem
Your son is what, two maybe getting on for three? A precocious lad indeed to be to be entertained by spreadsheets charting the costs of a projected colony on Mars.
Anyway, I suspect your figures maybe subject to financial quantum as defined by the late Terry Pratchett in his fine book "Pyramids" - add another nought.
Ooohhhh... I've not read Pyramids
Crikey! That sort of admission is worthy of a Bateman cartoon, "The man who confessed to not having read "Pyramids".
Mr. Jessop, perhaps you should start him a bit slower. The importance of a space cannon could be a good place to start.
Are trebuchets less effective in space?
In space they would be more effective as long as you were on the surface of an airless body: no air resistance. In orbit, they wouldn't work as they rely on a falling weight to supply energy.
So President Trump is addressing a joint session of Congress tonight. Normally, a most deferential occasion (standing ovations every two minutes) but I wonder whether the Democrats will make it more like PMQs. Speaker Ryan might need his gavel.
Exactly. Plenty of thick people who voted either way.
But the thickness of the people of Cornwall, who voted Leave en masse and thus denied themselves squillions in EU funding, is greater than most.
This only makes them "thick" if they were of the opinion that money is the most important priority in life for Cornish people, that this trumped any other social and political concerns they had because MONEY MONEY MONEY CORNWALL MUST HAVE THE LOVELY MONEY and any issues of sovereignty or identity or whether Britain is a long-term fit for the long-term evolution of the EU go out of the window because CASH IS THE CORNISH KING OH MY GOD GIVE US ALL THE MONEY GIVE US ALL YOUR F***KING EU MONEY and whether it's been democratic for the British public to have been pushed so far along a route of European integration that has never had strong popular support really doesn't matter because GIMME GIMME GIMME oh look it's eu referendum date let's vote leave that sounds fun.
Otherwise, they're not "thick". They're just people with different opinions and priorities to you.
Proof.
One of my bugbears with The Left (and I write this despite having voted Communist in the last Euro elections!) is their trope that "anyone who votes in a way that lies contrary to what my opinion of their own interests is, must be suffering from false consciousness".
To be fair, you hear it from right-wingers occasionally too ("why do all these folk in poor constituencies keep voting Labour for 50 years, if at the end of it the place is as bad a dump as it was at the start?") but left-wingers do seem to enjoy the idea that the only reason someone didn't vote the way they "should" have done is some kind of mental delusion. It's an ugly viewpoint.
These days people voted the wrong way, contrary to the way their real interests and feelings lie (as perceived by me, who benefits from a clearer view of it than they themselves), because they were a bunch of thickheads is starting to get on my mostly metaphorical tits too.
Well said
My friend said I was thick for voting Brexit, (and I don't care how it will affect UK by the way) so when we won, I texted him...'Thickies win it for Brexit." I did the same for the US election. Loved it.
For fun, I've just been 'entertaining' (*) my son by trying to research and calculate how much it would cost to sustain a colony of six people on Mars using current-ish tech. That is not to set it up, but to send the equipment to sustain it once it has been set up.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
(*) Ahem
Your son is what, two maybe getting on for three? A precocious lad indeed to be to be entertained by spreadsheets charting the costs of a projected colony on Mars.
Anyway, I suspect your figures maybe subject to financial quantum as defined by the late Terry Pratchett in his fine book "Pyramids" - add another nought.
Ooohhhh... I've not read Pyramids
Crikey! That sort of admission is worthy of a Bateman cartoon, "The man who confessed to not having read "Pyramids".
The truth is that Ukip needed Carswell in 2014 and Carswell needed Ukip. The obvious 'musical differences' were set aside in order to win freedom from the EU. Now that has been achieved its best they go their separate ways.
At my candidate interview for UKIP I cautiously said 'I know he's our new poster boy and all that, but what has Carswell actually done for Clacton in the last 9 years?'... the interviewer said 'precisely'
A marriage of convenience that has run its course
Interestingly, Tim Shipman in "All Out War" (excellent book, although only just started) says that the original defection was a deliberate move by Hannan and Carswell to try and detoxify the UKIP brand as there was an inverse correlation between UKIP support and Brexit support.
So Carswell was arrogant enough to believe his defection would alone "detoxify" a party's brand??
No, but it would give a high profile UKIP representative speaking with a different voice and message to Farage. And presumably it helped to some degree - it also contributed to Vote Leave getting the nod as the official campaign as they had representatives of the major parties (UKIP, Con, Lab, UUP, DUP etc). Don't know if they had any LibDem members...!
Comments
It's somehow lumped a current UK scheme into post 2019 Brexit funding.
It's the usual euroloon bilge from i/the 'independent'.
I genuinely can't decide which is the more foolish.
'Bugger the borrowing requirement: build, build, build'.
Portillo suggested they could be sold to sitting tenants if and when the market suited. I'd have thought this would make a tidy central or local government profit as long as the land is compulsorily purchased as farmland, developed as housing and let at RSL-type rents. Resale of houses after 10-15 years if the tenants want to buy at say 90% of market value would probably enable the whole cycle to begin again and make another good profit for taxpayers.
It may (will) not be a popular move amongst the residents. There are other areas (e.g. some old mining villages) where the same move might be best, but equally politically unacceptable.
It's been done in the past, through:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wear/content/articles/2005/06/29/coast05walks_stage2_walk.shtml
The only defection that was truly crucial was that of Boris from on to off the Camerons' Christmas card list....
He's available at 640.
The type of road surface will be part of the planning conditions set by the council.
Wouldn't Macron, Fillon or even Hamon benefit from Le Pen facing problems?
Edit to say: if the money to/from the EU isn't significant, why are Leavers so exercised about it?
The public sector finances are actually on target to hit Osborne's Remain scenario numbers from last March.
What's more, the public's appetite for spending is unlikely to be curbed by the above inflation increases in the minimum wage, tax free allowance and increase in the scope of the 20% rate at the expense of the 40% one from April. Meanwhile, Osborne's benefit cuts gather pace, further squeezing public spending.
The deficit is likely to be a defunct issue by the time we reach 2019.
He had a very rare opportunity to reset "day zero" figures for what he was predicting. In that instance it makes sense to project the very worst case scenario.
That way if the very worst does not come to pass, then he can claim the credit for having done a good job. If Brexit hits the public finances by £29 billion then instead of "Hammond's £29 billion black hole" then because he forecast £59 billion on day zero he can claim "public finances £30 billion better than predicted".
They just turn it into more fodder for their persecution complexes to avoid taking a hard look at their own problems, cherry picking details with even more shameless abandon than is usual.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/836328719165763584
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39116854
Russia and China have vetoed sanctions on Syria over chemical weapons usage.
I'll never understand politicians who want our capacity to take military action to be subject to approval from Russia, China, France and the US (particularly the first two, of course).
It's been secured until at least 2025.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39120886
Le Pen down half a point to 25.5
Macron down half a point to 24
Fillon up half a point to 20.5
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_28-02-2017.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/27/us/politics/most-important-problem-gallup-polling-question.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=g-artboard g-artboard-v3 &module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
The only worthwhile conclusion that we can draw presently is that the June vote has had no detrimental effect on the public sector finances in the period to date when compared to Osborne's Remain forecast last March.
So far I've got $7-8 billion just for resupplies alone, assuming no In-Situ Resource Utilisation. I'm probably way off, as that's not too far off what the ISS costs in total ...
(*) Ahem
As somebody who drives a low-slung car I'm not happy about it either!
In the UK
I think ICMMORI do a similar poll, running back to the '70s, that Mike sometimes picks up on.Anyway, I suspect your figures maybe subject to financial quantum as defined by the late Terry Pratchett in his fine book "Pyramids" - add another nought.
I'm doing it not to get a particularly accurate figure, but to use it as a springboard to think through the issues with any such proposed colony. Lots of lovely 'research' is required, and I learn more than if I was just doing unfocussed research.
The perfect wine to accompany pheasant.
The Mars Curiosity mission was $2.5bn for a single rocket and payload, and it took eight months to complete the journey. Say we got the cost down to $1bn, for one tonne of payload delivered to the Martian surface, four times a year - you'd also need serious contingencies to allow for rocket failures on an eight month lead time, so maybe plan one trip a month for the first six months? It would be really shitty to see a launch failure, knowing that it meant you'd run out of food in four or five months' time, and that there was nothing that could be done about it...
Glad to see you having fun with the young lad though.
Mr. D, we do not comment on media reports of the lunar trebuchet programme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/27/japanese-giants-itching-pull-plug-french-debt/
My figures are just for what it would cost to send enough supplies over to keep an existing colony of six people going, assuming similar amounts of supplies as the ISS, the amount of mass we can get onto Mars without pancaking it, and the simple launch costs of such missions.
I don't include all the ancillaries, such as ongoing design, training or the communication networks. But even with those caveats, I'm learning a lot.
As an example, the Red Dragon mission to deliver one tonne of payload onto Mars is estimated to cost between $300 and $400 million.
For my money it was one of Pratchett's best.
What you need is a ballista... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull