Mr. Eagles, just commissioned the cover of my next book. Was torn over the question of whether the bounder should have a moustache or not. Decided against, for the time being, but it's the sort of thing that could be added later, if necessary. [The protagonist is an utter bounder].
Tasches are making a comeback.
I hope not! Like a lot of Scots my facial hair grows in ginger which looks a bit daft with my brown hair! Not a good look.
Mr. Eagles, just commissioned the cover of my next book. Was torn over the question of whether the bounder should have a moustache or not. Decided against, for the time being, but it's the sort of thing that could be added later, if necessary. [The protagonist is an utter bounder].
Tasches are making a comeback.
I hope not! Like a lot of Scots my facial hair grows in ginger which looks a bit daft with my brown hair! Not a good look.
Gingers are awesome.
I'll give you Billy Bremner (albeit a poor man's Dave MacKay!) and Isla Fisher.
I give you Karen Gillan and Christina Hendricks
Alex McLeish? And I dare you to google Davie Dodds!
Mr. Eagles, just commissioned the cover of my next book. Was torn over the question of whether the bounder should have a moustache or not. Decided against, for the time being, but it's the sort of thing that could be added later, if necessary. [The protagonist is an utter bounder].
Tasches are making a comeback.
I hope not! Like a lot of Scots my facial hair grows in ginger which looks a bit daft with my brown hair! Not a good look.
Gingers are awesome.
I'll give you Billy Bremner (albeit a poor man's Dave MacKay!) and Isla Fisher.
I give you Karen Gillan and Christina Hendricks
and the best ginger of them all,stuart McCall ;-) (if you look to the left of my post,you will see a nice photo of him)
He was a great player - doing a great job at Motherwell now. Shocking, shocking hair cut.
Max,stuart was a great player ,everton let him go to early when he joined rangers,my photo profile is of stuart after he got smacked my one of his own team mates ;-) what a player ;-)
Hard to believe that in those days Rangers could have their pick of the top talent in England!
Mr. Eagles, just commissioned the cover of my next book. Was torn over the question of whether the bounder should have a moustache or not. Decided against, for the time being, but it's the sort of thing that could be added later, if necessary. [The protagonist is an utter bounder].
Tasches are making a comeback.
I hope not! Like a lot of Scots my facial hair grows in ginger which looks a bit daft with my brown hair! Not a good look.
Gingers are awesome.
I'll give you Billy Bremner (albeit a poor man's Dave MacKay!) and Isla Fisher.
I give you Karen Gillan and Christina Hendricks
Alex McLeish? And I dare you to google Davie Dodds!
I googled Seymour Cocks earlier, I'm feeling brave.
I remember the first time I went to Scotland and being disappointed no one looked like C.U. Jimmy
To all those Tories who've been getting excited about the recovery, this article from the oh so economically liberal Economist rather pulls the rug from under Osborne's feet.
Haven't the govt just sold the nations blood supply to Mitt Romney's Bain Capital?
No, they haven't.
They sold a US plasma aggregator and a UK manufacturing of albumin, which just happened to be owned by the Department of Health, to a private equity firm of which Mitt Romney was formerly a partner.
To all those Tories who've been getting excited about the recovery, this article from the oh so economically liberal Economist rather pulls the rug from under Osborne's feet.
Admittedly it's a few weeks out of date, but I think it helps us understand why the economy is growing again and why it's not all good news.
The Economist explains aptly the cause of the mess we are in and who caused it.:
"With so much lost ground to make up, Britain needs a sustained period of strong growth. That requires balance, something sorely lacking in the go-go years before the financial crisis. The public sector grew too quickly, funding purchases with government debt; private investment was more sluggish. Exports were meagre and trade deficits gaping. Shoppers’ behaviour was driven less by wage packets than by the availability of cheap credit."
The Observer once again fails to demonstrate any link between Crosby and the government decision on tobacco packaging - but uses a photo of Crosby in any case....
The Observer once again fails to demonstrate any link between Crosby and the government decision on tobacco packaging - but uses a picture in any case....
The question is why did Cameron change his mind? I'm not saying it was down to Crosby, but obviously he likes this kind of social policy stuff (witness porn) so why did he change his mind?
The Observer once again fails to demonstrate any link between Crosby and the government decision on tobacco packaging - but uses a picture in any case....
The question is why did Cameron change his mind? I'm not saying it was down to Crosby, but obviously he likes this kind of social policy stuff (witness porn) so why did he change his mind?
Dunno - do you?
In any case Cameron hasn't 'changed his mind' as in 'not do it' - its a question of timing....
I think we've established that Crosby has had much less influence (zero) on tobacco promotion in this government than Labour-donor Ecclestone did in the last.....
The Observer once again fails to demonstrate any link between Crosby and the government decision on tobacco packaging - but uses a photo of Crosby in any case....
With the upcoming clampdown on internet filth it's shocking to see the Observor indulging in an activity that encompasses necrophilia, sadomasochism and bestiality. Namely, flogging a dead horse.
Crosby works with top figures of the government for one day a week.For the other 4,he works for big companies who would very much like to influence government agenda...THERE`S A GREAT BIG CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE
The Observer once again fails to demonstrate any link between Crosby and the government decision on tobacco packaging - but uses a picture in any case....
The question is why did Cameron change his mind? I'm not saying it was down to Crosby, but obviously he likes this kind of social policy stuff (witness porn) so why did he change his mind?
Dunno - do you?
In any case Cameron hasn't 'changed his mind' as in 'not do it' - its a question of timing....
I think we've established that Crosby has had much less influence (zero) on tobacco promotion in this government than Labour-donor Ecclestone did in the last.....
The Observer once again fails to demonstrate any link between Crosby and the government decision on tobacco packaging - but uses a picture in any case....
The question is why did Cameron change his mind? I'm not saying it was down to Crosby, but obviously he likes this kind of social policy stuff (witness porn) so why did he change his mind?
Dunno - do you?
In any case Cameron hasn't 'changed his mind' as in 'not do it' - its a question of timing....
I think we've established that Crosby has had much less influence (zero) on tobacco promotion in this government than Labour-donor Ecclestone did in the last.....
Are you suggesting Cameron still wants to introduce plain packaging, just not at this moment? Has Cameron explained why he isn't doing it? Why doesn't he help himself and give us an explanation? Otherwise people will come to their own conclusions.
'Britain under the Tories wants to be a small white island !'
When a moron plays the race card you know they have.lost the argument.
So, the six countries were chosen randomly , were they ? It still does not solve the Romanian and Bulgarian "problem" as you see it.
So many hundreds of thousands Poles came here and really helped the economy. I am sure the Romanians and Bulgarians would do the same as they would be as hard working as the Poles.
Just to let the PBTories salivate a bit; my cleaner is a Bulgarian. She works bloody hard !!
The problem, surby, is that you are looking at things in the aggregate.
On balance, immigration helps an economy (providing you plan for infrastructure, etc, effectively). But it really hurts certain specific segments of society.
Labour's policy was to allow unfettered immigration, to fail to plan for adequate infrastructure and to allow those individuals who suffered to rot on welfare for life.
The Tories are steadily looking to address all of these: allow managed immigration at a rate the country can absorb, invest in infrastructure (now there is a little more flex in the budget) and to restructure the welfare system so that people have hope of a way out of dependency.
I think we always get a bit of a high profile media PR campaign from Vince Cable as Parliament goes into summer recess. I put it down to him trying to butter up the Libdem members before the Libdem Conference.
To all those Tories who've been getting excited about the recovery, this article from the oh so economically liberal Economist rather pulls the rug from under Osborne's feet.
The article is deliberately 'bearish' to counter-balance over optimistic reaction to recent evidence of the UK's economic recovery.
But it tells us nothing we didn't already know and, in its details, is somewhat disingenuous.
Take this paragraph as an example:
Ships still carry containers full of air away from Britain. Sterling has dropped by 25% in trade-weighted terms since 2007, making exports cheaper for foreigners to buy. Yet total exports are 1.5% lower and the trade deficit has hardly budged as a share of GDP. The combination of humdrum sales overseas and a slack home market helps explain why manufacturing output is down 11% in five years.
It is true that Sterling fell by 20% in the 2007-2009 period, but since 2010, on the same basis of measurement, it has appreciated by 3%. The Coalition government and BoE, in so far as they are able to control movements in relative currency value, have not sought to use competitive devaluation as a means of stimulating export growth.
So for exports to be only 1.5% lower than peak, remembering that GDP is still 3.9% below peak, shows that exports are growing faster than the economy as a whole and that rebalancing is taking place.
This particularly applies given that extraction of crude oil and gas has fallen by 7.5% per annum over the first three years of the government, depressing both trade and export performance. Despite this both the balance of trade figures and exports have improved at a faster rate than GDP.
The real picture is that the economy is improving, faster than its main competitors, at a time of real fiscal consolidation and structural rebalance.
Progress is sure but slow and there remain many problems yet to resolve. No we shouldn't yet be dancing in the streets, but I would bet any amount that the writer of the Economist's article would agree that the UK is in a comparatively better economic position than any major country in Europe except possibly Germany.
And the strength of Germany owes more to its strong fiscal position earned in the past than its current outlook as 'guarantor' of the fragile Eurozone.
Looks like a non story aimed at getting Cleggs wife's earnings into the paper, typical of the Mail. You'd be sooooo angry if Sam Cam had been the subject.
Now tim, with your track record of spotting non-stories should Clegg be worried?!
Unite influence Labour agenda on behalf of their millions of members.Unite`s donations are declared and the electoral role of the unions is quite explicit and open.
1)Can you tell me who are the clients that Crosby works for?
2)Can you tell me why Crosby can say he never spoke with the PM about plain-packaging but the PM can`t offer the same assurance despite being asked repeatedly by both Gary Gibbon and Andrew Marr.
Haven't the govt just sold the nations blood supply to Mitt Romney's Bain Capital?
No, they haven't.
They sold a US plasma aggregator and a UK manufacturing of albumin, which just happened to be owned by the Department of Health, to a private equity firm of which Mitt Romney was formerly a partner.
Fail on all facts
I doubt it "just happened to be owned by the Department of Health" but that sounds more informed than your vaccine "theories"
It was established in the 50s by the MRC. Expanded into the US in 98, bought LRI in the US in 2002 and was carved out of the NBA in 2005.
@SMukesh - Conservative donors do not participate in the election of the leader nor in the selection of MPs....but Labour are going to waste half the time in the run up to the GE fixing their problem in this area - really smart huh? And all over a non-story too!
Looks like a non story aimed at getting Cleggs wife's earnings into the paper, typical of the Mail. You'd be sooooo angry if Sam Cam had been the subject.
Now tim, with your track record of spotting non-stories should Clegg be worried?!
The Observer once again fails to demonstrate any link between Crosby and the government decision on tobacco packaging - but uses a picture in any case....
The question is why did Cameron change his mind? I'm not saying it was down to Crosby, but obviously he likes this kind of social policy stuff (witness porn) so why did he change his mind?
Relatively easy way of appealing to Kippers without losing many available votes. Doubt any Lab/LD switchers will confirm one way or the other based on this.
Tobacco is on the way out, anyway, medium term. Look at the latest MHRA report on nicotine therapy. *
Labour being run by the unions and the Tories by the rich made for the worst PMQs I've seen in a long time. All we get is "Unite`s donations are declared and the electoral role of the unions is quite explicit and open." and "I've never been lobbied by Crosby", "All donations/meetings are transparent", etc. etc. They appear to be bound to both present themselves as squeeky clean, to portray the other side as muddy, when the ultimate truth is that even in my lifetime it is difficult to imagine either party being free of their respective associations. It just seems sometimes that democracy requires both parties to run round in circles, not to achieve anything, but just to go through the motions.
Lord Ashcroft is far more subtle and politically astute than Mr McCluskey. I am also sure its a complete co-incidence that Vince Cable garners a positive headline while Clegg gets a negative one in the Sundays tomorrow.
My view on tobacco packaging is probably Cameron thought, since you pitch your policies as a whole, he didn't want to have to fight nanny-state allegations on the one hand and not going far enough on others. So on a policy which was not entirely clear on outcomes, and to which the Conservatives were not firmly committed, consistency weighed heavily in dropping it.
It's minimum alcohol pricing (something I was somewhat in favour of, but not greatly enthusiastic about) where the change seems more unexpected.
Crosby works with top figures of the government for one day a week.For the other 4,he works for big companies who would very much like to influence government agenda...THERE`S A GREAT BIG CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE
SMukesh.
A conflict of interest does not arise because Crosby works for, part owns or controls, a company with multiple clients who wanting to lobby governments on multiple issues.
A conflict would arise if one of the company's clients wanted to instruct Crosby to lobby the UK government on tobacco industry issues.
The company is called Crosby Textor,so Crosby is not some minor employee of this company.
We don`t know his client list as he has not agreed to publish it.So we don`t know how his private work is influencing his work at the top of the Tory party where he is expected to meet the PM and chancellor on a weekly basis.
Lord Ashcroft is far more subtle and politically astute than Mr McCluskey. I am also sure its a complete co-incidence that Vince Cable garners a positive headline while Clegg gets a negative one in the Sundays tomorrow.
Private polling for the Conservative party suggests that a tendency among voters to back their sitting MP, particularly if the MP has served only one term, could wipe out Labour’s five to six point lead in national opinion polls
The company is called Crosby Textor,so Crosby is not some minor employee of this company.
We don`t know his client list as he has not agreed to publish it.So we don`t know how his private work is influencing his work at the top of the Tory party where he is expected to meet the PM and chancellor on a weekly basis.
It doesn't matter what interest Lynton Crosby has in Crosby Textor, nor do we, the public, have any right to know CT's client list.
The core issue is whether Lynton Crosby's role as advisor to the Conservative Party is conflicted by his other clients instructing him to compromise his contractual obligations by representing their interests over those of the Tories.
It is quite clear that this has not happened and that there is therefore no prima facie conflict of interests.
It's minimum alcohol pricing (something I was somewhat in favour of, but not greatly enthusiastic about) where the change seems more unexpected.
I think Cameron has, wisely, let Eck blaze the trail on that one....
"Eleven European wine and spirits producing countries have lodged a bid to block Scotland’s plans for minimum unit pricing on alcohol by branding them illegal, unfair and ineffective.
Nations including Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and Bulgaria oppose the scheme and warned of the “grave consequences” it would have on their domestic economies."
The term 'conflict of interest' only makes logical sense if applied to Cameron himself. Crosby doesn't make decisions, he's not expected to be impartial.
If you read something like "These include an assurance from Crosby that he would not use his position as an adviser to the Tories to further his private business interests and he would not use his access to ministers to lobby for changes to government policy on behalf of clients." it seems to be aimed not at a conflict of interest in the strict meaning of the term, but rather indue influence as a lobbyist generally.
But now that growth has started to pick up, so have the government’s polling numbers. Compared with 12 months ago, just before last year’s summer break:
■ The number saying the economy is doing OK or well has jumped from 17% to 40%
■ The proportion wanting the government to stick to its deficit reduction strategy is up from 28% to 40%
■ The Cameron/Osborne team has extended its lead on economic competence over Miliband/Balls from a slender three points (34-31%) to a comfortable 13 points (39-26%) — its widest yet.
This does not mean the public share George Osborne’s view that the economy is “on the mend”. Only 38% believe this, while 49% think it continues to bump along the bottom. Yet Labour has failed to pin the blame on the Conservatives.
@ALP I wouldn`t accept that it`s clear a conflict of interest hasn`t happened.In fact,there`s a clear conflict of interest. The clients don`t have to explicitly instruct him to compromise his role. Philip Morris could have hired any number of lobbyists but they have hired someone at the heart of a government which was deciding on a policy which could impact on their profits massively. Now Crosby could be very honest but the situation is creating a conflict of interest.And it`s worsened by his refusal to declare his client list.
The poll of 1,001 adult Scots puts support for independence at 37%, up one point since May, while backing for the Union has risen two points to 46%, and 17% are still undecided (-3).
Sunday Times piece on the independence poll is headlined apathy may kill the union
This is based on the views of voters who say they are very likely to take part in the referendum, which accounts for 94% of Yes supporters against 87% of No voters
In the constituency vote, the SNP is on 48% (+3) and Labour is on 30% (no change), with the Conservatives on 13% (no change), Lib Dems on 4% (-1) and others on 5% (-1). In the regional vote, the SNP is on 48% (+3), Labour 25% (-2), the Conservatives on 13% (unchanged), Greens on 6% (unchanged), Lib Dems on 4% (-2) and others at 4% (no change).
Panelbase surveyed 1,001 Scottish voters on July 17-24
'Only 32% think the economy would have done better had Labour stayed in power; 43% think it would have got worse.'
I guess that's why Labour's focus is now on plain cigarette packaging,porn filters & chocolate oranges.Nothing to say.
It is remarkable that Labour have nothing to say on the economy. Nothing at all. Should play well come the election. No wonder their chancellor elect bravely flees the country when growth figures are announced!
Obsessed with Crosby and snouts. An entirely unserious party.
'Only 32% think the economy would have done better had Labour stayed in power; 43% think it would have got worse.'
I guess that's why Labour's focus is now on plain cigarette packaging,porn filters & chocolate oranges.Nothing to say.
It is remarkable that Labour have nothing to say on the economy. Nothing at all. Should play well come the election. No wonder their chancellor elect bravely flees the country when growth figures are announced!
Obsessed with Crosby and snouts. An entirely unserious party.
It's extremely disappointing. Hardly a day goes by without centrist/left of centre commentators in the media giving their 2p's worth on what should be done and yet Ed keeps his blank sheet of paper. I can only imagine that with all the things that need to be said on the banks, housing, manufacturing etc Ed realises that if he says anything he'll get Labour's record in government thrown back into his face. But he can't just stand around doing nothing.
He's a good article on housing from the redoubtable Keynesian Will Hutton
@ALP I wouldn`t accept that it`s clear a conflict of interest hasn`t happened.In fact,there`s a clear conflict of interest. The clients don`t have to explicitly instruct him to compromise his role. Philip Morris could have hired any number of lobbyists but they have hired someone at the heart of a government which was deciding on a policy which could impact on their profits massively. Now Crosby could be very honest but the situation is creating a conflict of interest.And it`s worsened by his refusal to declare his client list.
Crosby has no right to declare CT's client list. That is a matter for Crosby Textor, a separate legal person.
I have no doubt though that should Cameron have requested such information, Lynton Crosby would have supplied it, subject of course to him obtaining prior and proper authority from the company. That does not however mean that there should be any public disclosure of the list.
It is up to Cameron to comply with the Ministerial Code on such matters and for the Cabinet Secretary to validate his compliance on reasonable request.
Sir Jeremy Heywood has responded to Ed Miliband's questions on a potential breach of the ministerial code and/or conflict of interest. Heywood makes it clear that, while Crosby is retained by the Conservative Party and not the government, all rules applying to contact with Cameron in his role as PM have been complied with,
Heywood even attached a document containing the "principles of engagement" between the Conservative Party and Lynton Crosby in his reply to Miliband,
There really are no reasonable or legitimate grounds to allege a conflict of interest exists for the Government as a result of the Conservative Party entering into a contract with Lynton Crosby.
Your allegation that Philip Morris hired Crosby, because of his role as advisor to the Conservative Party and with the intent of influencing a government decision on tobacco packaging in order to increase profits, is frankly libellous.
The striking thing about the polls is really how stable they are. Apart from the outliers the picture is much the same month after month - Lab 38/39, Con 32/33.
Dave and his idiot pledge. So well thought through that one.
TBF this one looks more like a case of Dave and his idiot MPs.
The MPs add the Office for National Statistics are mainly based on “random interviews” with a handful of people at airports and ports as they enter and leave Britain...
Tory MP Mr Jenkin said: “Most people would be utterly astonished to learn that there is no attempt to count people as they enter or leave the UK.
'Shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant said the report cast doubt on the government's claims to have cut net migration.
"People want a bit of honesty on immigration, so the home secretary should look at how to measure immigration more accurately as a matter of urgency," he said.'
The striking thing about the polls is really how stable they are. Apart from the outliers the picture is much the same month after month - Lab 38/39, Con 32/33.
It is the shift in the subsidiaries on the economy which should be worrying you, Nick.
The pressure on the stable dam is increasing to bursting point.
You are quite happy to believe that Labour;s lead in VI is 11% on the basis of Opinium's c.1,000 sample.
A 5,000 sample survey may well be more reliable for indicating net immigration levels.
Still, the general argument advocated in the article, that a better methodology for collecting data is valid and reasonable.
Until a new system can be implemented, it doesn't seem unreasonable to rely on a 5,000 sample survey to estimate current levels of net immigration.
They seem to want to count everybody in and out, which sounds like a hugely wasteful endeavor. In terms of actual governance (as opposed to twattish election pledges) it's probably not that useful to have raw numbers of people without a breakdown of what kind of people they are and what they're coming and going for.
What they might want to be doing - don't know if they are or not - is doing some sample counts here and there of people going through customs and seeing how those correlate with their other numbers. But a sample should do the job fine, you don't need a sample of 60 million people to do an opinion poll.
Who could forget Brown's former spin doctor Charlie Whelan being spotted near No10 wearing a coat, flat cap and glasses before the last GE while he was working as political director of Labour donor UNITE. Interesting to note that Lynton Crosby who is employed by the Conservative Party doesn't hold a No10 security pass. Guardian - Cabinet secretary's letter to Ed Miliband about Lynton Crosby
Guido Fawkes - Whelan Promises to Play Nicely "Just last week the Labour Party website was proudly displaying dozens of class based attacks on their “People’s Poster” section. Charlie Whelan has been doing the media rounds this morning, not only is he the sponsor but clearly becoming the mouth-piece too. On what authority exactly is the union official, who was cc’d in on the Smeargate emails, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party? He claims that Labour’s election battle “would not be dirty” and that David Cameron’s background won’t be part of Labour’s campaign… Something tells Guido that won’t quite be what happens." Guido Fawkes - Labour Sponsored Whelan’s Pass "It was speculated that he was there on as a union officer, but in light of this revelation, his claims that he is not officially connected to the Labour campaign look particularly shaky. What was the justification for this high level access granted to, essentially, a lobbyist for vested interests?" Charlie Whelan in the thick of the Spin room at the Leaders debates while working for UNITE. Guido Fawkes Media - Inside Spin City (up 2nd in this round up)
'It is remarkable that Labour have nothing to say on the economy. Nothing at all.'
Given up and with structural deficit denier Balls who could blame them.. Hence the focus on porn filters and chocolate oranges.
You're being unkind. You have to add Woodbines to the great issues of the day that Labour are fighting for.
They probably know that the Tories have broadly got it right on the economy. Hence the silence from the Fop from Morley (as literally, everyone, calls him).
They seem to want to count everybody in and out, which sounds like a hugely wasteful endeavor. In terms of actual governance (as opposed to twattish election pledges) it's probably not that useful to have raw numbers of people without a breakdown of what kind of people they are and what they're coming and going for.
What they might want to be doing - don't know if they are or not - is doing some sample counts here and there of people going through customs and seeing how those correlate with their other numbers. But a sample should do the job fine, you don't need a sample of 60 million people to do an opinion poll.
Our points in response to tim were nearly identical.
And you are right to point out that proper sampling at regular intervals is all that is needed to get reasonably accurate outturn and target figures.
But the devil is in the benefits to the UK Border Agency of having richer data on the movements of individuals and systems to collect and process such data. And that of course raises all kinds of nasty issues for the libertarian minded amongst us.
Still I lived with such data collection on regular entry and exit from the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. What on earth they did with all the data they collected is open to question as is any assessment of the benefits derived from such control.
They seem to want to count everybody in and out, which sounds like a hugely wasteful endeavor. In terms of actual governance (as opposed to twattish election pledges) it's probably not that useful to have raw numbers of people without a breakdown of what kind of people they are and what they're coming and going for.
What they might want to be doing - don't know if they are or not - is doing some sample counts here and there of people going through customs and seeing how those correlate with their other numbers. But a sample should do the job fine, you don't need a sample of 60 million people to do an opinion poll.
Our points in response to tim were nearly identical.
And you are right to point out that proper sampling at regular intervals is all that is needed to get reasonably accurate outturn and target figures.
But the devil is in the benefits to the UK Border Agency of having richer data on the movements of individuals and systems to collect and process such data. And that of course raises all kinds of nasty issues for the libertarian minded amongst us.
Still I lived with such data collection on regular entry and exit from the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. What on earth they did with all the data they collected is open to question as is any assessment of the benefits derived from such control.
There may be a case for the UK Border Agency knowing which individuals they haven't seen leaving, but that's a completely different question to the government having accurate statistics.
I guess the key difference about exit controls would be whether you can overstay then leave without anyone knowing that you overstayed. There are pluses and minuses for that if you're trying to reduce overstaying, because making it easy for overstayers to self-deport helps the government get rid of them, but there's more incentive to do it in the first place if you can get out without prejudicing your future ability to get in.
There may be a case for the UK Border Agency knowing which individuals they haven't seen leaving, but that's a completely different question to the government having accurate statistics.
I guess the key difference about exit controls would be whether you can overstay then leave without anyone knowing that you overstayed. There are pluses and minuses for that if you're trying to reduce overstaying, because making it easy for overstayers to self-deport helps the government get rid of them, but there's more incentive to do it in the first place if you can get out without prejudicing your future ability to get in.
Given they scan everyone's passports couldn't they just link it up automatically?
There may be a case for the UK Border Agency knowing which individuals they haven't seen leaving, but that's a completely different question to the government having accurate statistics.
I guess the key difference about exit controls would be whether you can overstay then leave without anyone knowing that you overstayed. There are pluses and minuses for that if you're trying to reduce overstaying, because making it easy for overstayers to self-deport helps the government get rid of them, but there's more incentive to do it in the first place if you can get out without prejudicing your future ability to get in.
Given they scan everyone's passports couldn't they just link it up automatically?
Are they scanning everyone's passports when you leave the country now? I guess the airlines do it as part of airline security, but did they start doing that at ports / EuroStar?
My Mum has just been on holiday to the French Alps with my sister and her family. She fulfilled her dream of catching a stage of the Tour de France as she is a huge fan, as well as day trips to Italy etc. Many thanks to my sister's in-laws and their French friends for making sure they got the best spectator spot for this Alps stage. We have also just had a very sudden and sad family bereavement which meant that my Mum had to cut her holiday short and fly back to the UK via Geneva where we met her at the airport for the funeral. Anyhoos, having travelled all that way from the Highlands in Scotland through to France, Italy and Switzerland via car/ferry. The first time my mother was actually asked to produce and show her passport after leaving her house was at Geneva airport when she was about to board a flight back to Scotland. She was so struck by this that she actually remarked upon it on her return.
There may be a case for the UK Border Agency knowing which individuals they haven't seen leaving, but that's a completely different question to the government having accurate statistics.
I guess the key difference about exit controls would be whether you can overstay then leave without anyone knowing that you overstayed. There are pluses and minuses for that if you're trying to reduce overstaying, because making it easy for overstayers to self-deport helps the government get rid of them, but there's more incentive to do it in the first place if you can get out without prejudicing your future ability to get in.
Given they scan everyone's passports couldn't they just link it up automatically?
Are they scanning everyone's passports when you leave the country now? I guess the airlines do it as part of airline security, but did they start doing that at ports / EuroStar?
I was struck by the first paragraph in this report in light of the sometimes fevered debates we see on here. "Migration statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Home Office are blunt instruments for measuring, managing, and understanding migration to and from the UK. They are not accurate enough to measure the effect of migration on population, particularly in local areas, and they are not detailed enough to measure the social and economic impacts of migration, or the effects of immigration policy. Current sources of migration statistics were established at a time when levels of migration were much lower than they are today. These sources are not adequate for understanding the scale and complexity of modern migration flows, despite attempts to improve their accuracy and usefulness in recent years."
I was struck by the first paragraph in this report in light of the sometimes fevered debates we see on here. "Migration statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Home Office are blunt instruments for measuring, managing, and understanding migration to and from the UK. They are not accurate enough to measure the effect of migration on population, particularly in local areas, and they are not detailed enough to measure the social and economic impacts of migration, or the effects of immigration policy. Current sources of migration statistics were established at a time when levels of migration were much lower than they are today. These sources are not adequate for understanding the scale and complexity of modern migration flows, despite attempts to improve their accuracy and usefulness in recent years."
Sorry for coming back to a partisan angle on this but the problem here is that Cameron decided to make a big deal about this net migration number from the passenger survey, which:
1) Doesn't measure what most people who don't like immigration are actually bothered about. (Migration Watch Demands That More British Pensioners Retire To Spain!)
Comments
'twas awesome
I remember the first time I went to Scotland and being disappointed no one looked like C.U. Jimmy
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21580478-britain-growing-againbut-perplexing-and-unsustainable-ways-wing-and-credit-card
Admittedly it's a few weeks out of date, but I think it helps us understand why the economy is growing again and why it's not all good news.
Burnley: Julie Cooper
http://twitter.com/wajid4europe/status/361178804980424704
Cambs SE: Huw Jones
http://twitter.com/WestVaughan/status/361193469567442944
Chelmsford: Chris Vince
http://twitter.com/dixon_pete/status/361224912733614081
http://bit.ly/13Pfl92
They sold a US plasma aggregator and a UK manufacturing of albumin, which just happened to be owned by the Department of Health, to a private equity firm of which Mitt Romney was formerly a partner.
Fail on all facts
Benedict Brogan @benedictbrogan 8 Dec
Telling: Alex Salmond 'begged' Mandela and Tutu for public words of support after he released Lockerbie bomber http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9730915/Alex-Salmond-begged-leading-world-figures-to-support-Lockerbie-decision.html …
"With so much lost ground to make up, Britain needs a sustained period of strong growth. That requires balance, something sorely lacking in the go-go years before the financial crisis. The public sector grew too quickly, funding purchases with government debt; private investment was more sluggish. Exports were meagre and trade deficits gaping. Shoppers’ behaviour was driven less by wage packets than by the availability of cheap credit."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/28/philip-morris-plain-packaging
In any case Cameron hasn't 'changed his mind' as in 'not do it' - its a question of timing....
I think we've established that Crosby has had much less influence (zero) on tobacco promotion in this government than Labour-donor Ecclestone did in the last.....
http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jul/27/vince-cable-employers-minimum-wage?CMP=twt_fd
Of course, Labour are complaining that the coalition hasn't done something they failed to do themselves....
On balance, immigration helps an economy (providing you plan for infrastructure, etc, effectively). But it really hurts certain specific segments of society.
Labour's policy was to allow unfettered immigration, to fail to plan for adequate infrastructure and to allow those individuals who suffered to rot on welfare for life.
The Tories are steadily looking to address all of these: allow managed immigration at a rate the country can absorb, invest in infrastructure (now there is a little more flex in the budget) and to restructure the welfare system so that people have hope of a way out of dependency.
'It is members who say they may vote Tory - so don't shoot the messenger, writes the Tory peer for the Sunday People'
Brilliant cartoon to accompany the article.
But it tells us nothing we didn't already know and, in its details, is somewhat disingenuous.
Take this paragraph as an example:
Ships still carry containers full of air away from Britain. Sterling has dropped by 25% in trade-weighted terms since 2007, making exports cheaper for foreigners to buy. Yet total exports are 1.5% lower and the trade deficit has hardly budged as a share of GDP. The combination of humdrum sales overseas and a slack home market helps explain why manufacturing output is down 11% in five years.
It is true that Sterling fell by 20% in the 2007-2009 period, but since 2010, on the same basis of measurement, it has appreciated by 3%. The Coalition government and BoE, in so far as they are able to control movements in relative currency value, have not sought to use competitive devaluation as a means of stimulating export growth.
So for exports to be only 1.5% lower than peak, remembering that GDP is still 3.9% below peak, shows that exports are growing faster than the economy as a whole and that rebalancing is taking place.
This particularly applies given that extraction of crude oil and gas has fallen by 7.5% per annum over the first three years of the government, depressing both trade and export performance. Despite this both the balance of trade figures and exports have improved at a faster rate than GDP.
The real picture is that the economy is improving, faster than its main competitors, at a time of real fiscal consolidation and structural rebalance.
Progress is sure but slow and there remain many problems yet to resolve. No we shouldn't yet be dancing in the streets, but I would bet any amount that the writer of the Economist's article would agree that the UK is in a comparatively better economic position than any major country in Europe except possibly Germany.
And the strength of Germany owes more to its strong fiscal position earned in the past than its current outlook as 'guarantor' of the fragile Eurozone.
Unite influence Labour agenda on behalf of their millions of members.Unite`s donations are declared and the electoral role of the unions is quite explicit and open.
1)Can you tell me who are the clients that Crosby works for?
2)Can you tell me why Crosby can say he never spoke with the PM about plain-packaging but the PM can`t offer the same assurance despite being asked repeatedly by both Gary Gibbon and Andrew Marr.
Tobacco is on the way out, anyway, medium term. Look at the latest MHRA report on nicotine therapy. *
* My family has a financial interest
It is possibly a non-story but there are serious issues there for any politican to clarify let alone a PM.
http://news.opinium.co.uk/sites/news.opinium.co.uk/files/VI_23_07_2013.pdf
Among VI Net approval:
Cameron: +86
Miliband: +34
Then we might have something to discuss.
I am also sure its a complete co-incidence that Vince Cable garners a positive headline while Clegg gets a negative one in the Sundays tomorrow.
It's minimum alcohol pricing (something I was somewhat in favour of, but not greatly enthusiastic about) where the change seems more unexpected.
A conflict of interest does not arise because Crosby works for, part owns or controls, a company with multiple clients who wanting to lobby governments on multiple issues.
A conflict would arise if one of the company's clients wanted to instruct Crosby to lobby the UK government on tobacco industry issues.
This hasn't happened.
There is therefore no conflict of interest.
What allegations?I haven`t made any accusations.I am just pointing out there`s a huge conflict of interest.
http://news.sky.com/story/1121217/swarm-of-bees-attacks-couple-and-kills-horses
SNP approval rating among SNP VI - 102%
Least unfav to BNP - Lib Dems: -58 (Lab: -71, Con: -69)
The company is called Crosby Textor,so Crosby is not some minor employee of this company.
We don`t know his client list as he has not agreed to publish it.So we don`t know how his private work is influencing his work at the top of the Tory party where he is expected to meet the PM and chancellor on a weekly basis.
Private polling for the Conservative party suggests that a tendency among voters to back their sitting MP, particularly if the MP has served only one term, could wipe out Labour’s five to six point lead in national opinion polls
The core issue is whether Lynton Crosby's role as advisor to the Conservative Party is conflicted by his other clients instructing him to compromise his contractual obligations by representing their interests over those of the Tories.
It is quite clear that this has not happened and that there is therefore no prima facie conflict of interests.
"Eleven European wine and spirits producing countries have lodged a bid to block Scotland’s plans for minimum unit pricing on alcohol by branding them illegal, unfair and ineffective.
Nations including Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and Bulgaria oppose the scheme and warned of the “grave consequences” it would have on their domestic economies."
http://offlicencenews.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/13509/Scottish_minimum_pricing_plans_opposed_by_11_countries.html
Just as well Scotland hasn't got any tricky EU negotiations coming up.....
If you read something like "These include an assurance from Crosby that he would not use his position as an adviser to the Tories to further his private business interests and he would not use his access to ministers to lobby for changes to government policy on behalf of clients." it seems to be aimed not at a conflict of interest in the strict meaning of the term, but rather indue influence as a lobbyist generally.
Dave and George 39%
Two Eds 26%
■ The number saying the economy is doing OK or well has jumped from 17% to 40%
■ The proportion wanting the government to stick to its deficit reduction strategy is up from 28% to 40%
■ The Cameron/Osborne team has extended its lead on economic competence over Miliband/Balls from a slender three points (34-31%) to a comfortable 13 points (39-26%) — its widest yet.
D&G: 34
E2: 30
I wouldn`t accept that it`s clear a conflict of interest hasn`t happened.In fact,there`s a clear conflict of interest.
The clients don`t have to explicitly instruct him to compromise his role.
Philip Morris could have hired any number of lobbyists but they have hired someone at the heart of a government which was deciding on a policy which could impact on their profits massively.
Now Crosby could be very honest but the situation is creating a conflict of interest.And it`s worsened by his refusal to declare his client list.
I guess that's why Labour's focus is now on plain cigarette packaging,porn filters & chocolate oranges.Nothing to say.
The poll of 1,001 adult Scots puts support for independence at 37%, up one point since May, while backing for the Union has risen two points to 46%, and 17% are still undecided (-3).
This is based on the views of voters who say they are very likely to take part in the referendum, which accounts for 94% of Yes supporters against 87% of No voters
Panelbase surveyed 1,001 Scottish voters on July 17-24
Obsessed with Crosby and snouts. An entirely unserious party.
So weak.
He's a good article on housing from the redoubtable Keynesian Will Hutton
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/28/government-bold-act-housing-crisis-hutton
I have no doubt though that should Cameron have requested such information, Lynton Crosby would have supplied it, subject of course to him obtaining prior and proper authority from the company. That does not however mean that there should be any public disclosure of the list.
It is up to Cameron to comply with the Ministerial Code on such matters and for the Cabinet Secretary to validate his compliance on reasonable request.
Sir Jeremy Heywood has responded to Ed Miliband's questions on a potential breach of the ministerial code and/or conflict of interest. Heywood makes it clear that, while Crosby is retained by the Conservative Party and not the government, all rules applying to contact with Cameron in his role as PM have been complied with,
Heywood even attached a document containing the "principles of engagement" between the Conservative Party and Lynton Crosby in his reply to Miliband,
There really are no reasonable or legitimate grounds to allege a conflict of interest exists for the Government as a result of the Conservative Party entering into a contract with Lynton Crosby.
Your allegation that Philip Morris hired Crosby, because of his role as advisor to the Conservative Party and with the intent of influencing a government decision on tobacco packaging in order to increase profits, is frankly libellous.
You are quite happy to believe that Labour;s lead in VI is 11% on the basis of Opinium's c.1,000 sample.
A 5,000 sample survey may well be more reliable for indicating net immigration levels.
Still, the general argument advocated in the article, that a better methodology for collecting data is valid and reasonable.
Until a new system can be implemented, it doesn't seem unreasonable to rely on a 5,000 sample survey to estimate current levels of net immigration.
"People want a bit of honesty on immigration, so the home secretary should look at how to measure immigration more accurately as a matter of urgency," he said.'
Labour & honesty,pure comedy.
'It is remarkable that Labour have nothing to say on the economy. Nothing at all.'
Given up and with structural deficit denier Balls who could blame them..
Hence the focus on porn filters and chocolate oranges.
Oh yes, the same one!
Average Lab lead = 5.2%
The pressure on the stable dam is increasing to bursting point.
What they might want to be doing - don't know if they are or not - is doing some sample counts here and there of people going through customs and seeing how those correlate with their other numbers. But a sample should do the job fine, you don't need a sample of 60 million people to do an opinion poll.
'What system did Labour use?
Oh yes, the same one!'
So it was working well for 13 years but when the numbers start declining it's no longer valid..
Pure comedy
Cabinet secretary's letter to Ed Miliband about Lynton Crosby
Guido Fawkes - Whelan Promises to Play Nicely
"Just last week the Labour Party website was proudly displaying dozens of class based attacks on their “People’s Poster” section. Charlie Whelan has been doing the media rounds this morning, not only is he the sponsor but clearly becoming the mouth-piece too. On what authority exactly is the union official, who was cc’d in on the Smeargate emails, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party? He claims that Labour’s election battle “would not be dirty” and that David Cameron’s background won’t be part of Labour’s campaign…
Something tells Guido that won’t quite be what happens."
Guido Fawkes - Labour Sponsored Whelan’s Pass
"It was speculated that he was there on as a union officer, but in light of this revelation, his claims that he is not officially connected to the Labour campaign look particularly shaky. What was the justification for this high level access granted to, essentially, a lobbyist for vested interests?"
Charlie Whelan in the thick of the Spin room at the Leaders debates while working for UNITE.
Guido Fawkes Media - Inside Spin City (up 2nd in this round up)
They probably know that the Tories have broadly got it right on the economy. Hence the silence from the Fop from Morley (as literally, everyone, calls him).
And you are right to point out that proper sampling at regular intervals is all that is needed to get reasonably accurate outturn and target figures.
But the devil is in the benefits to the UK Border Agency of having richer data on the movements of individuals and systems to collect and process such data. And that of course raises all kinds of nasty issues for the libertarian minded amongst us.
Still I lived with such data collection on regular entry and exit from the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. What on earth they did with all the data they collected is open to question as is any assessment of the benefits derived from such control.
'You're being unkind. You have to add Woodbines to the great issues of the day that Labour are fighting for'.
Apologies,I also forgot to mention old Etonians,millionaires, bullindon and date nights.
It's called gravitas.
I'd settle for a smear rather than an allegation if you prefer?
I guess the key difference about exit controls would be whether you can overstay then leave without anyone knowing that you overstayed. There are pluses and minuses for that if you're trying to reduce overstaying, because making it easy for overstayers to self-deport helps the government get rid of them, but there's more incentive to do it in the first place if you can get out without prejudicing your future ability to get in.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubadm/523/52303.htm
"Migration statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Home Office are blunt instruments for measuring, managing, and understanding migration to and from the UK. They are not accurate enough to measure the effect of migration on population, particularly in local areas, and they are not detailed enough to measure the social and economic impacts of migration, or the effects of immigration policy. Current sources of migration statistics were established at a time when levels of migration were much lower than they are today. These sources are not adequate for understanding the scale and complexity of modern migration flows, despite attempts to improve their accuracy and usefulness in recent years."
1) Doesn't measure what most people who don't like immigration are actually bothered about. (Migration Watch Demands That More British Pensioners Retire To Spain!)
2) Turns out not to be very accurate.