However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state
And since 2004 when EU expansion happened, Singapore's population has grown by over 30%. I'm not sure many Leavers would be happy with that!
"Reynolds’s aggressive stance on immigration and deportation — and, later, his reluctance to criticize the rise of fascist dictators overseas and fascist sympathizers at home — sank his political career and erased any legacy he might have left behind.
But that’s because there were massive, external geopolitical forces — Hitler and Mussolini’s rise to power, the Holocaust, and World War II — that highlighted the possible dangers of his beliefs. There are no such pressures today."
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state
And since 2004 when EU expansion happened, Singapore's population has grown by over 30%. I'm not sure many Leavers would be happy with that!
Indeed, though Singapore does at least have control of its own immigration policy. In any case as a city state which broke away from Malaysia, Singapore is really closer to London than it is the UK
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state. Sweden is also richer than we are and is far more regulated than the UK is and spends significantly more, generally economic freedom leads to more wealth but that is not absolute
So there is room for improvement!!!!
Singapore is not a Libertarian utopia, but it is close to being the freest economy on the planet at the moment, and its wealth speak to that.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state. Sweden is also richer than we are and is far more regulated than the UK is and spends significantly more, generally economic freedom leads to more wealth but that is not absolute
So there is room for improvement!!!!
Singapore is not a Libertarian utopia, but it is close to being the freest economy on the planet at the moment, and its wealth speak to that.
It is a rigidly Confucian state. Quite how you can say it is a free economy beats me.
Better standards of living for the lower paid will be most speedily achieved through reducing supply of those willing to work at low wages.
Beneath a veneer of conservatism your rhetoric is that of a Trotskyite. In other circumstances you'd be mouthing off about 'scabs' undermining the proletariat by 'willing to work at low wages'.
This must be a record - called a Neo-Fascist and a Trot in the same fortnight! Both incorrect labels by loud Remainers, Surprise surprise!
Brexit has created some strange alliances. Traditionalist conservatives and socialists on one side; liberal leftists, ultra economic liberals, the SNP and Sinn Fein on the other.
Not all 'Ultra Economic Liberals' are pro EU remainders!
I don't clam or wish to speak on behalf of anybody but myself, so if you now ultra Economic Liberals who are Pro EU then that's nice for them.
But at least one, me, supported Brexit. in an ideal would we could now adopted unilateral elimination of all trade tariffs and barriers, and adopt agricularal policy of New Zealand and an economic policy slimier to Singapore.
I am not naive enough to think that is going to happen, at least not right away. But it does weaken the strength of the state, which is a wonderful thing. In a far more real way the UK government will be in competition with the EU and governments of the EU. and competition brings improves. for the customers i.e. people!
When a cartel falls its the little guy who benefits most!
There were certainly economic liberals behind Brexit, especially in Vote Leave as opposed to the more nationalist and immigration focused Leave.EU but far from weakening the power of the state Brexit has if anything strengthened it, we will now have tougher immigration laws to control free movement of labour, inevitably some customs duties imposed on EU imports once we leave the single market and May and Hammond have slowed Cameron and Osborne's austerity policies.
Yes, the economists for Brexit, led largely by Patrice Minford, where the champions of this attitude, not that may people paid much attention.
As for immigration, so long as the UK economy creates Jobs people will (try to) come here.
Osborn had gone so week on deficit reduction it was becoming pointless, We are still to see how committed Hammond is, the sins from his first budget are not good. but he is still way better than John McDonald!
but overall we will not be able to judge these things for many decades.
@Bigrich: spend some of your money to learn how to spell.
Better standards of living for the lower paid will be most speedily achieved through reducing supply of those willing to work at low wages.
Beneath a veneer of conservatism your rhetoric is that of a Trotskyite. In other circumstances you'd be mouthing off about 'scabs' undermining the proletariat by 'willing to work at low wages'.
This must be a record - called a Neo-Fascist and a Trot in the same fortnight! Both incorrect labels by loud Remainers, Surprise surprise!
Brexit has created some strange alliances. Traditionalis the other.
Not all 'Ultra Economic Liberals' are pro EU remainders!
I don't clam or wish to speak on behalf of anybody but myself, so if you now ultra Economic Liberals who are Pro EU then that's nice for them.
But at least one, me, supported Brexit. in an ideal would we could now adopted unilateral elimination of all trade tariffs and barriers, and adopt agricularal policy of New Zealand and an economic policy slimier to Singapore.
I am not naive enough to think that is going to happen, at least not right away. But it does weaken the strength of the state, which is a wonderful thing. In a far more real way the UK government will be in competition with the EU and governments of the EU. and competition brings improves. for the customers i.e. people!
When a cartel falls its the little guy who benefits most!
There were certainly economic liberals behind Brexit, especially in Vote Leave as opposed to the more nationalist and immigration focused Leave.EU but far from weakening the power of the state Brexit has if anything strengthened it, we will now have tougher immigration laws to control free movement of labour, inevitably some customs duties imposed on EU imports once we leave the single market and May and Hammond have slowed Cameron and Osborne's austerity policies.
Yes, the economists for Brexit, led largely by Patrice Minford, where the champions of this attitude, not that may people paid much attention.
As for immigration, so long as the UK economy creates Jobs people will (try to) come here.
Osborn had gone so week on deficit reduction it was becoming pointless, We are still to see how committed Hammond is, the sins from his first budget are not good. but he is still way better than John McDonald!
but overall we will not be able to judge these things for many decades.
@Bigrich: spend some of your money to learn how to spell.
I don't know; "Patrice Minford" has a delicious irony to it.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state
And since 2004 when EU expansion happened, Singapore's population has grown by over 30%. I'm not sure many Leavers would be happy with that!
||If we abolished all controls on free movement through out the Would then global GDP would double!!! because people would move from counters with bad governments and bad economic policy's to more free parts of the would. with that sort of growth in GDP almost everybody would be noticeable better off!! And if you would like to help me explain that to more people I would be grateful of the help. however not everybody placed improving GDP as there top priority, and people are, and should be free to set there won priorities, even when they are deferent from mine.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state. Sweden is also richer than we are and is far more regulated than the UK is and spends significantly more, generally economic freedom leads to more wealth but that is not absolute
So there is room for improvement!!!!
Singapore is not a Libertarian utopia, but it is close to being the freest economy on the planet at the moment, and its wealth speak to that.
So free that when to drive out to Malaysia, your petrol tank must be 3/4 full.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state
And since 2004 when EU expansion happened, Singapore's population has grown by over 30%. I'm not sure many Leavers would be happy with that!
Indeed, though Singapore does at least have control of its own immigration policy. In any case as a city state which broke away from Malaysia, Singapore is really closer to London than it is the UK
It's bloody difficult to get a residence permit for Singapore, they have both a hard limit and a skills requirement.
Most foreigners there are on a sponsored work permit/visa tied to an employer, same as in Dubai and the Middle East. These countries take immigration control seriously, will deport you if you lose your job and fine you for overstaying a visit visa.
Very, very different to how immigration works in Europe.
Better standards of living for the lower paid will be most speedily achieved through reducing supply of those willing to work at low wages.
Beneath a veneer of conservatism your rhetoric is that of a Trotskyite. In other circumstances you'd be mouthing off about 'scabs' undermining the proletariat by 'willing to work at low wages'.
This must be a record - called a Neo-Fascist and a Trot in the same fortnight! Both incorrect labels by loud Remainers, Surprise surprise!
Brexit has created some strange alliances. Traditionalist conservatives and socialists on one side; liberal leftists, ultra economic liberals, the SNP and Sinn Fein on the other.
Not all 'Ultra Economic Liberals' are pro EU remainders!
I don't clam or wish to speak on behalf of anybody but myself, so if you now ultra Economic Liberals who are Pro EU then that's nice for them.
But at least one, me, supported Brexit. in an ideal would we could now adopted unilateral elimination of all trade tariffs and barriers, and adopt agricularal policy of New Zealand and an economic policy slimier to Singapore.
I am not naive enough to think that is going to happen, at least not right away. But it does weaken the strength of the state, which is a wonderful thing. In a far more real way the UK government will be in competition with the EU and governments of the EU. and competition brings improves. for the customers i.e. people!
When a cartel falls its the little guy who benefits most!
inevitably some customs duties imposed on EU imports once we leave the single market and May and Hammond have slowed Cameron and Osborne's austerity policies.
Yes, the economists for Brexit, led largely by Patrice Minford, where the champions of this attitude, not that may people paid much attention.
As for immigration, so long as the UK economy creates Jobs people will (try to) come here.
Osborn had gone so week on deficit reduction it was becoming pointless, We are still to see how committed Hammond is, the sins from his first budget are not good. but he is still way better than John McDonald!
but overall we will not be able to judge these things for many decades.
@Bigrich: spend some of your money to learn how to spell.
I'm sorry if my spelling distracts from what I am trying to say, I am dyslectic, witch is one reason why I do not post that much, but at the moment I'm trying to keep the discussion flowing. I hope you are OK with that.
Better standards of living for the lower paid will be most speedily achieved through reducing supply of those willing to work at low wages.
Beneath a veneer of conservatism your rhetoric is that of a Trotskyite. In other circumstances you'd be mouthing off about 'scabs' undermining the proletariat by 'willing to work at low wages'.
This must be a record - called a Neo-Fascist and a Trot in the same fortnight! Both incorrect labels by loud Remainers, Surprise surprise!
Brexit has created some strange alliances. Traditionalist conservatives and socialists on one side; liberal leftists, ultra economic liberals, the SNP and Sinn Fein on the other.
Not all 'Ultra Economic Liberals' are pro EU remainders!
I don't clam or wish to speak on behalf of anybody but myself, so if you now ultra Economic Liberals who are Pro EU then that's nice for them.
But at least one, me, supported Brexit. in an ideal would we could now adopted unilateral elimination of all trade tariffs and barriers, and adopt agricularal policy of New Zealand and an economic policy slimier to Singapore.
I am not naive enough to think that is going to happen, at least not right away. But it does weaken the strength of the state, which is a wonderful thing. In a far more real way the UK government will be in competition with the EU and governments of the EU. and competition brings improves. for the customers i.e. people!
When a cartel falls its the little guy who benefits most!
inevitably some customs duties imposed on EU imports once we leave the single market and May and Hammond have slowed Cameron and Osborne's austerity policies.
Yes, the economists for Brexit, led largely by Patrice Minford, where the champions of this attitude, not that may people paid much attention.
As for immigration, so long as the UK economy creates Jobs people will (try to) come here.
Osborn had gone so week on deficit reduction it was becoming pointless, We are still to see how committed Hammond is, the sins from his first budget are not good. but he is still way better than John McDonald!
but overall we will not be able to judge these things for many decades.
@Bigrich: spend some of your money to learn how to spell.
I'm sorry if my spelling distracts from what I am trying to say, I am dyslectic, witch is one reason why I do not post that much, but at the moment I'm trying to keep the discussion flowing. I hope you are OK with that.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state. Sweden is also richer than we are and is far more regulated than the UK is and spends significantly more, generally economic freedom leads to more wealth but that is not absolute
So there is room for improvement!!!!
Singapore is not a Libertarian utopia, but it is close to being the freest economy on the planet at the moment, and its wealth speak to that.
So free that when to drive out to Malaysia, your petrol tank must be 3/4 full.
Didn't know that one! I'll guess it's because Singapore petrol is taxed up to British prices and Malasiya petrol is almost free as they make the stuff there. If they didn't restrict it everyone would just fill up on the Malaysian side of the border
"... inevitably some customs duties imposed on EU imports once we leave the single market ..."
Why? Why is it inevitable that the UK impose import duties? Once we are outside the EU, what is to stop the UK unilaterally lifting all tariffs on trade?
The dropping of any and all barriers to trade should be our default assumption once we leave the EU.
Hear hear!!!
There is about as much chance of this happening as the UK unilaterally decommissioning its nuclear weapons.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state
And since 2004 when EU expansion happened, Singapore's population has grown by over 30%. I'm not sure many Leavers would be happy with that!
Indeed, though Singapore does at least have control of its own immigration policy. In any case as a city state which broke away from Malaysia, Singapore is really closer to London than it is the UK
I disagree with you there, migration trends, show people move to less regulated places not more, the biggest example is in the US where people are moving to low regulation Texas and out of states like high regulation California.
California has had positive net migration, so that's not the best example. (And I suspect the reason for migration to Texas is more about the oil boom than about regulation.)
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state. Sweden is also richer than we are and is far more regulated than the UK is and spends significantly more, generally economic freedom leads to more wealth but that is not absolute
So there is room for improvement!!!!
Singapore is not a Libertarian utopia, but it is close to being the freest economy on the planet at the moment, and its wealth speak to that.
So free that when to drive out to Malaysia, your petrol tank must be 3/4 full.
Didn't know that one! I'll guess it's because Singapore petrol is taxed up to British prices and Malasiya petrol is almost free as they make the stuff there. If they didn't restrict it everyone would just fill up on the Malaysian side of the border
That is correct. But proves Singapore is hardly "free market".
Eric Pickles and Sir Paul Beresford on Election 92 on BBC Parliament at the moment. Both of them are still Tory MPs, although the latter has moved from Croydon Central to Mole Valley.
Better standards of living for the lower paid will be most speedily achieved through reducing supply of those willing to work at low wages.
Beneath a veneer of conservatism your rhetoric is that of a Trotskyite. In other circumstances you'd be mouthing off about 'scabs' undermining the proletariat by 'willing to work at low wages'.
This must be a record - called a Neo-Fascist and a Trot in the same fortnight! Both incorrect labels by loud Remainers, Surprise surprise!
Brexit has created some strange alliances. Traditionalist conservatives and socialists on one side; liberal leftists, ultra economic liberals, the SNP and Sinn Fein on the other.
Not all 'Ultra Economic Liberals' are pro EU remainders!
I don't clam or wish to speak on behalf of anybody but myself, so if you now ultra Economic Liberals who are Pro EU then that's nice for them.
But at least one, me, supported Brexit. in an ideal would we could now adopted unilateral elimination of all trade tariffs and barriers, and adopt agricularal policy of New Zealand and an economic policy slimier to Singapore.
I am not naive enough to think that is going to happen, at least not right away. But it does weaken the strength of the state, which is a wonderful thing. In a far more real way the UK government will be in competition with the EU and governments of the EU. and competition brings improves. for the customers i.e. people!
When a cartel falls its the little guy who benefits most!
Best argument for Brexit I have heard. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense.
If it's the first time you've heard and/or comprehended that argument than you really haven't been listening.
Interesting to read the PB discussion. Usual rehash of the same discussion on Brexit. Isn't the real political story what is going on in the US?
1. Bannon lost his seat on the national security council and appears to be being sidelined within the administration. 2. Trump decided to bomb Syria without any attempt at legal justification or use of the UN. Essentially an act of rogue, anarchic justice. Back to business as usual with the US being the worlds policeman, albeit ineffective and almost a parody of itself. 3. The prospect (welcomed here by a number of PB'ers) of some kind of rapproachment or alliance between the US and Russia appears to be dead in the water. In fact, it seems that the two countries are on the verge of a proxy war in Syria.
Interesting to read the PB discussion. Usual rehash of the same discussion on Brexit. Isn't the real political story what is going on in the US?
1. Bannon lost his seat on the national security council and appears to be being sidelined within the administration. 2. Trump decided to bomb Syria without any attempt at legal justification or use of the UN. Essentially an act of rogue, anarchic justice. Back to business as usual with the US being the worlds policeman, albeit ineffective and almost a parody of itself. 3. The prospect (welcomed here by a number of PB'ers) of some kind of rapproachment or alliance between the US and Russia appears to be dead in the water. In fact, it seems that the two countries are on the verge of a proxy war in Syria.
Wow. This really isn't likely to end well.
It would appear that Trump has been put thoroughly in his box, and Tillerson is, for the time being, running the show.
Ironically, despite everyone whining about Trump and WW3 it's the people who are trying to wrest power from him that are the real nutjobs.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state. Sweden is also richer than we are and is far more regulated than the UK is and spends significantly more, generally economic freedom leads to more wealth but that is not absolute
So there is room for improvement!!!!
Singapore is not a Libertarian utopia, but it is close to being the freest economy on the planet at the moment, and its wealth speak to that.
So free that when to drive out to Malaysia, your petrol tank must be 3/4 full.
Didn't know that one! I'll guess it's because Singapore petrol is taxed up to British prices and Malasiya petrol is almost free as they make the stuff there. If they didn't restrict it everyone would just fill up on the Malaysian side of the border
That is correct. But proves Singapore is hardly "free market".
No, it does not prove anything of the sort, Singapore is at or near the top of all the global economic freedom indexes:
Singapore, in non economic areas, is not particularly free, but nor is it the bottom of the pack, lots of counters have some funny rules, I think the petrol tank thing was to reduce congestion on the causeway between the counters.
Interesting to read the PB discussion. Usual rehash of the same discussion on Brexit. Isn't the real political story what is going on in the US?
1. Bannon lost his seat on the national security council and appears to be being sidelined within the administration. 2. Trump decided to bomb Syria without any attempt at legal justification or use of the UN. Essentially an act of rogue, anarchic justice. Back to business as usual with the US being the worlds policeman, albeit ineffective and almost a parody of itself. 3. The prospect (welcomed here by a number of PB'ers) of some kind of rapproachment or alliance between the US and Russia appears to be dead in the water. In fact, it seems that the two countries are on the verge of a proxy war in Syria.
Wow. This really isn't likely to end well.
The SJW community with be split down the middle - those who hate Trump will back Assad to the hilt, and those who hate Assad will back Trump to the hilt.
Interesting to read the PB discussion. Usual rehash of the same discussion on Brexit. Isn't the real political story what is going on in the US?
1. Bannon lost his seat on the national security council and appears to be being sidelined within the administration. 2. Trump decided to bomb Syria without any attempt at legal justification or use of the UN. Essentially an act of rogue, anarchic justice. Back to business as usual with the US being the worlds policeman, albeit ineffective and almost a parody of itself. 3. The prospect (welcomed here by a number of PB'ers) of some kind of rapproachment or alliance between the US and Russia appears to be dead in the water. In fact, it seems that the two countries are on the verge of a proxy war in Syria.
I disagree with you there, migration trends, show people move to less regulated places not more, the biggest example is in the US where people are moving to low regulation Texas and out of states like high regulation California.
California has had positive net migration, so that's not the best example. (And I suspect the reason for migration to Texas is more about the oil boom than about regulation.)
California is losing people to net internal migration that is off set by global inflow of people form out side the USA, however is population as a proportion of the total USA is now falling.
Texas is growing fast for lost of reasons, oil is one, but the big drive IMO is that when wages and cost of living are calculated, it is amongst the best places to live.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state. Sweden is also richer than we are and is far more regulated than the UK is and spends significantly more, generally economic freedom leads to more wealth but that is not absolute
So there is room for improvement!!!!
Singapore is not a Libertarian utopia, but it is close to being the freest economy on the planet at the moment, and its wealth speak to that.
So free that when to drive out to Malaysia, your petrol tank must be 3/4 full.
Didn't know that one! I'll guess it's because Singapore petrol is taxed up to British prices and Malasiya petrol is almost free as they make the stuff there. If they didn't restrict it everyone would just fill up on the Malaysian side of the border
That is correct. But proves Singapore is hardly "free market".
I knew they charged something like 200% import duty on cars, as the island is completely full and they can't cope with any more, so I guessed the petrol would be similarly expensive there. Thankfully the public transport is like London, with tubes, buses and taxis everywhere.
By way of contrast here in Dubai everyone is complaining that petrol just went past $0.50 a litre - there was a fixed subsidised price of about $0.40 so when the market price dropped that low they abolished the subsidy and no-one really noticed. Until now as the oil price is recovering, the pump prices are also on the up!!
I knew they charged something like 200% import duty on cars, as the island is completely full and they can't cope with any more, so I guessed the petrol would be similarly expensive there. Thankfully the public transport is like London, with tubes, buses and taxis everywhere.
By way of contrast here in Dubai everyone is complaining that petrol just went past $0.50 a litre - there was a fixed subsidised price of about $0.40 so when the market price dropped that low they abolished the subsidy and no-one really noticed. Until now as the oil price is recovering, the pump prices are also on the up!!
*thinks about Gordon Brown and his fuel tax escalator and LOL (in an ironic fashion) about the idea of subsidised fuel*
Better standards of living for the lower paid will be most speedily achieved through reducing supply of those willing to work at low wages.
Beneath a veneer of conservatism your rhetoric is that of a Trotskyite. In other circumstances you'd be mouthing off about 'scabs' undermining the proletariat by 'willing to work at low wages'.
This must be a record - called a Neo-Fascist and a Trot in the same fortnight! Both incorrect labels by loud Remainers, Surprise surprise!
Brexit has created some strange alliances. Traditionalist conservatives and socialists on one side; liberal leftists, ultra economic liberals, the SNP and Sinn Fein on the other.
Not all 'Ultra Economic Liberals' are pro EU remainders!
I don't clam or wish to speak on behalf of anybody but myself, so if you now ultra Economic Liberals who are Pro EU then that's nice for them.
But at least one, me, supported Brexit. in an ideal would we could now adopted unilateral elimination of all trade tariffs and barriers, and adopt agricularal policy of New Zealand and an economic policy slimier to Singapore.
I am not naive enough to think that is going to happen, at least not right away. But it does weaken the strength of the state, which is a wonderful thing. In a far more real way the UK government will be in competition with the EU and governments of the EU. and competition brings improves. for the customers i.e. people!
When a cartel falls its the little guy who benefits most!
Best argument for Brexit I have heard. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense.
If it's the first time you've heard and/or comprehended that argument than you really haven't been listening.
Sorry but this is a crap argument. Brexit la la fantasy land.
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
Sorry but this is a crap argument. Brexit la la fantasy land.
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
Sorry but this is a crap argument. Brexit la la fantasy land.
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
Sorry but this is a crap argument. Brexit la la fantasy land.
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
Whether it's crap or not is beside the point, the point being that an avowedly clued up Remainer is apparently unaware of one of the chief arguments for leaving.
Better standards of living for the lower paid will be most speedily achieved through reducing supply of those willing to work at low wages.
Beneath a veneer of conservatism your rhetoric is that of a Trotskyite. In other circumstances you'd be mouthing off about 'scabs' undermining the proletariat by 'willing to work at low wages'.
This must be a record - called a Neo-Fascist and a Trot in the same fortnight! Both incorrect labels by loud Remainers, Surprise surprise!
Brexit has created some strange alliances. Traditionalist conservatives and socialists on one side; liberal leftists, ultra economic liberals, the SNP and Sinn Fein on the other.
When a cartel falls its the little guy who benefits most!
Best argument for Brexit I have heard. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense.
If it's the first time you've heard and/or comprehended that argument than you really haven't been listening.
Sorry but this is a crap argument. Brexit la la fantasy land.
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
It will be a long time before we know what happens and even then, economies are complex with lots of variables so it may be hard to tell, but as a general rule, small nations, or nations witch are highly devolved, tend to be more economically free.
I'm not shore what you are saying about china, the nation tried communism and massive and increasing state control, which led to famine and then slowly started allowing small bits of economic freedom creep in which have brought more people out of poverty than has ever been accomplished in such a sort period of time. The contrary is still not as economically free as we are, which is why they are not as rich as we are, for the moment at least.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
Sorry but this is a crap argument. Brexit la la fantasy land.
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
I knew they charged something like 200% import duty on cars, as the island is completely full and they can't cope with any more, so I guessed the petrol would be similarly expensive there. Thankfully the public transport is like London, with tubes, buses and taxis everywhere.
By way of contrast here in Dubai everyone is complaining that petrol just went past $0.50 a litre - there was a fixed subsidised price of about $0.40 so when the market price dropped that low they abolished the subsidy and no-one really noticed. Until now as the oil price is recovering, the pump prices are also on the up!!
*thinks about Gordon Brown and his fuel tax escalator and LOL (in an ironic fashion) about the idea of subsidised fuel*
Different countries choose their priorities in taxes, subsidies and government-provided services according to their wishes, and what behaviours they wish to encourage or discourage in their populations.
Cheap cars and petrol are good in a rapidly-expanding city with good roads, not so much in older and more congested places like London or Singapore.
However a beer in my "local" is up past £10 now, so the sandpit's not all rosy. A beer in Singapore is even more expensive!
Interesting to read the PB discussion. Usual rehash of the same discussion on Brexit. Isn't the real political story what is going on in the US?
1. Bannon lost his seat on the national security council and appears to be being sidelined within the administration. 2. Trump decided to bomb Syria without any attempt at legal justification or use of the UN. Essentially an act of rogue, anarchic justice. Back to business as usual with the US being the worlds policeman, albeit ineffective and almost a parody of itself. 3. The prospect (welcomed here by a number of PB'ers) of some kind of rapproachment or alliance between the US and Russia appears to be dead in the water. In fact, it seems that the two countries are on the verge of a proxy war in Syria.
Wow. This really isn't likely to end well.
The SJW community with be split down the middle - those who hate Trump will back Assad to the hilt, and those who hate Assad will back Trump to the hilt.
Those of us who are SJW-sceptical are spoilt for choice.
On May 4th, I'm expecting a good night for the Conservatives; a good but not outstanding night for the Lib Dems; a terrible night for Labour.
Labour are going to retreat further into their city heartlands; Middle England will abandon them. Here in Oxfordshire, for example, I think they'll do fine in Oxford but be hammered in the market towns (Banbury, Witney).
The Conservatives are going to be buttressed by the collapse of the UKIP vote - much of which will return to them (or simply disappear) - as well as benefiting from the Government's overall popularity.
The Lib Dems will pick up remain voters from Labour and the Conservatives, and benefit from their slow post-coalition rehabilitation. Their campaigning operation will be more thinly spread than at the recent by-elections, so we won't see Aylesbury-type swings repeated across the shires. Labour's collapse should at least mean they become the principal opposition on some councils, and join ruling coalitions on others. It will be a good night of progress for them, but it's not going to be the meteoric success that the by-election bar chart might suggest.
For me, the big question will be the scale of the Labour collapse.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state
And since 2004 when EU expansion happened, Singapore's population has grown by over 30%. I'm not sure many Leavers would be happy with that!
Indeed, though Singapore does at least have control of its own immigration policy. In any case as a city state which broke away from Malaysia, Singapore is really closer to London than it is the UK
London should be free. The 32 boroughs, I mean.
It would be more difficult for London to be a city state than Singapore because of all the commuters from the Home Counties, Singapore has far fewer Malaysian commuters
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state
And since 2004 when EU expansion happened, Singapore's population has grown by over 30%. I'm not sure many Leavers would be happy with that!
Indeed, though Singapore does at least have control of its own immigration policy. In any case as a city state which broke away from Malaysia, Singapore is really closer to London than it is the UK
London should be free. The 32 boroughs, I mean.
It would be more difficult for London to be a city state than Singapore because of all the commuters from the Home Counties, Singapore has far fewer Malaysian commuters
This discussion about GDP per capita and the relative merits of Singapore or California (or anywhere else you care to mention) tends to overlook the unquantifiable element of "quality of life". No doubt in global terms I am a pauper, but I do live within walking distance of some decent pubs, restaurants and a cricket ground, with a fast train to Lord's (and other parts of London) at my disposal. Thirty-five years ago I could have moved to the USA, and by now I might well have a "home" in a gated community, a car which I would need to go absolutely anywhere (soberly) and a boat on a trailer in the yard, where most American boats live (and die). I'm not convinced I would feel better off, even though the statistics prove otherwise.
Sorry but this is a crap argument. Brexit la la fantasy land.
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
On May 4th, I'm expecting a good night for the Conservatives; a good but not outstanding night for the Lib Dems; a terrible night for Labour.
Labour are going to retreat further into their city heartlands; Middle England will abandon them. Here in Oxfordshire, for example, I think they'll do fine in Oxford but be hammered in the market towns (Banbury, Witney).
The Conservatives are going to be buttressed by the collapse of the UKIP vote - much of which will return to them (or simply disappear) - as well as benefiting from the Government's overall popularity.
The Lib Dems will pick up remain voters from Labour and the Conservatives, and benefit from their slow post-coalition rehabilitation. Their campaigning operation will be more thinly spread than at the recent by-elections, so we won't see Aylesbury-type swings repeated across the shires. Labour's collapse should at least mean they become the principal opposition on some councils, and join ruling coalitions on others. It will be a good night of progress for them, but it's not going to be the meteoric success that the by-election bar chart might suggest.
For me, the big question will be the scale of the Labour collapse.
Labour defending around 400 seats in Scotland - 250 would be a good result for them !
I disagree with you there, migration trends, show people move to less regulated places not more, the biggest example is in the US where people are moving to low regulation Texas and out of states like high regulation California.
California has had positive net migration, so that's not the best example. (And I suspect the reason for migration to Texas is more about the oil boom than about regulation.)
California is losing people to net internal migration that is off set by global inflow of people form out side the USA, however is population as a proportion of the total USA is now falling.
Texas is growing fast for lost of reasons, oil is one, but the big drive IMO is that when wages and cost of living are calculated, it is amongst the best places to live.
It is also flipping to the Democrats , like Arizona.
This discussion about GDP per capita and the relative merits of Singapore or California (or anywhere else you care to mention) tends to overlook the unquantifiable element of "quality of life". No doubt in global terms I am a pauper, but I do live within walking distance of some decent pubs, restaurants and a cricket ground, with a fast train to Lord's (and other parts of London) at my disposal. Thirty-five years ago I could have moved to the USA, and by now I might well have a "home" in a gated community, a car which I would need to go absolutely anywhere (soberly) and a boat on a trailer in the yard, where most American boats live (and die). I'm not convinced I would feel better off, even though the statistics prove otherwise.
If you live in the UK by definition in global terms you are not a pauper
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Fair point on the Budget, for now at least. The amount of regulation and the range of things that are being covered by it is far to big and growing, at least in my opinion.
As to the rest of the would, china is one country, but almost everywhere the GDP is growing faster than in the EU, and overall the would is becoming a less regulated, more free economically and slowly that is translating in to more social freedom as well, the EU seems to me to be going in the other direction at lest economically.
Singapore is 94% richer per person than we are, if we wanted it we could be as well, all you have to do is embrace economic freedom!!! IMO
Singapore bans chewing gum and a majority of its residents own property provided by the state
And since 2004 when EU expansion happened, Singapore's population has grown by over 30%. I'm not sure many Leavers would be happy with that!
Indeed, though Singapore does at least have control of its own immigration policy. In any case as a city state which broke away from Malaysia, Singapore is really closer to London than it is the UK
London should be free. The 32 boroughs, I mean.
It would be more difficult for London to be a city state than Singapore because of all the commuters from the Home Counties, Singapore has far fewer Malaysian commuters
We will control our borders.
A substantial percentage of London's gdp comes from those very same commuters from the Home Counties
This discussion about GDP per capita and the relative merits of Singapore or California (or anywhere else you care to mention) tends to overlook the unquantifiable element of "quality of life". No doubt in global terms I am a pauper, but I do live within walking distance of some decent pubs, restaurants and a cricket ground, with a fast train to Lord's (and other parts of London) at my disposal. Thirty-five years ago I could have moved to the USA, and by now I might well have a "home" in a gated community, a car which I would need to go absolutely anywhere (soberly) and a boat on a trailer in the yard, where most American boats live (and die). I'm not convinced I would feel better off, even though the statistics prove otherwise.
If you live in the UK by definition in global terms you are not a pauper
Yes. Even British paupers aren't really paupers in global terms. How can we convince them of this? "You've never had it so good" might work this time round. It's as true now as it was in 1959.
Meanwhile a "middle-class" American family living in the middle of nowhere without a bar, a decent restaurant, a theatre, a cinema, a museum or an art gallery within 50 miles are somehow reckoned to be "rich" because of their headline $$$ income.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
On May 4th, I'm expecting a good night for the Conservatives; a good but not outstanding night for the Lib Dems; a terrible night for Labour.
Labour are going to retreat further into their city heartlands; Middle England will abandon them. Here in Oxfordshire, for example, I think they'll do fine in Oxford but be hammered in the market towns (Banbury, Witney).
The Conservatives are going to be buttressed by the collapse of the UKIP vote - much of which will return to them (or simply disappear) - as well as benefiting from the Government's overall popularity.
The Lib Dems will pick up remain voters from Labour and the Conservatives, and benefit from their slow post-coalition rehabilitation. Their campaigning operation will be more thinly spread than at the recent by-elections, so we won't see Aylesbury-type swings repeated across the shires. Labour's collapse should at least mean they become the principal opposition on some councils, and join ruling coalitions on others. It will be a good night of progress for them, but it's not going to be the meteoric success that the by-election bar chart might suggest.
For me, the big question will be the scale of the Labour collapse.
Labour defending around 400 seats in Scotland - 250 would be a good result for them !
This discussion about GDP per capita and the relative merits of Singapore or California (or anywhere else you care to mention) tends to overlook the unquantifiable element of "quality of life". No doubt in global terms I am a pauper, but I do live within walking distance of some decent pubs, restaurants and a cricket ground, with a fast train to Lord's (and other parts of London) at my disposal. Thirty-five years ago I could have moved to the USA, and by now I might well have a "home" in a gated community, a car which I would need to go absolutely anywhere (soberly) and a boat on a trailer in the yard, where most American boats live (and die). I'm not convinced I would feel better off, even though the statistics prove otherwise.
If you live in the UK by definition in global terms you are not a pauper
Yes. Even British paupers aren't really paupers in global terms. How can we convince them of this? "You've never had it so good" might work this time round. It's as true now as it was in 1959.
Meanwhile a "middle-class" American family living in the middle of nowhere without a bar, a decent restaurant, a theatre, a cinema, a museum or an art gallery within 50 miles are somehow reckoned to be "rich" because of their headline $$$ income.
Indeed, though even the average small town in America has at least one restaurant and diner, a theatre/cinema and maybe even a museum or gallery
It will be interesting to see what happens in wales? I had thought that it could be the one place in the UK were UKIP pickup seats, and they still might, but IIRC, mark senior numbers the other night had them only standing in 77 seats.
LD and PC probably will pick up some seats, but how will the conservatives do? any thoughts?
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
You think China and Globalisation are just going to disappear?
Fair doos. The Boris is obviously learning, let's see about the Johnson.
Well Ruth Davidson won on that front.
"Although I am pleased to hear that the PLP is about to show how united they are by launching possibly a second unity candidate against the first. All of this has happened in the time that it takes for Theresa to take the crown.
"That’s kind of the difference between our two parties. You know, Labour’s still fumbling with its flies while the Tories are enjoying a post-coital cigarette after withdrawing our massive Johnson."
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
Judging by your posts I think even the 1874 election was something you remember well
Sorry but this is a crap argument. Brexit la la fantasy land.
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
Brexit la la fantasy land.
Well at least we'll win lots of Oscars.
Phew Brexit is a movie !
I hope it is. It has a bad ending!
No matter how bad the movie, the sequels are usually worse.
I'm sorry if my spelling distracts from what I am trying to say, I am dyslectic, witch is one reason why I do not post that much, but at the moment I'm trying to keep the discussion flowing. I hope you are OK with that.
You should keep posting much more.
Honestly if people reduced their posting because of typos/spelling mistakes/piss poor grammar, PB would be a very quiet place.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
Judging by your posts I think even the 1874 election was something you remember well
Not quite. I was 10 in 1964 a few months away from sitting the 11plus. To be serious,though, I don't think of Harold Wilson and Ted Heath as particularly distant figures at all - but when I sit down and work it out I am forced to accept that circa 60% of people now living in the UK will have no memory of them being in office.Indeed circa 40% will have no memory of Thatcher as PM.
Fair doos. The Boris is obviously learning, let's see about the Johnson.
Well Ruth Davidson won on that front.
"Although I am pleased to hear that the PLP is about to show how united they are by launching possibly a second unity candidate against the first. All of this has happened in the time that it takes for Theresa to take the crown.
"That’s kind of the difference between our two parties. You know, Labour’s still fumbling with its flies while the Tories are enjoying a post-coital cigarette after withdrawing our massive Johnson."
I'm sorry if my spelling distracts from what I am trying to say, I am dyslectic, witch is one reason why I do not post that much, but at the moment I'm trying to keep the discussion flowing. I hope you are OK with that.
You should keep posting much more.
Honestly if people reduced their posting because of typos/spelling mistakes/piss poor grammar, PB would be a very quiet place.
I love that. What is due from you is a sodding great apology, but you attempt to fob off the poster you have insulted with a condolence, hoping he will be misled by the word "sorry". Classy.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
Judging by your posts I think even the 1874 election was something you remember well
Not quite. I was 10 in 1964 a few months away from sitting the 11plus. To be serious,though, I don't think of Harold Wilson and Ted Heath as particularly distant figures at all - but when I sit down and work it out I am forced to accept that circa 60% of people now living in the UK will have no memory of them being in office.Indeed circa 40% will have no memory of Thatcher as PM.
However in both cases the central government took over ore and more power, move spending in the center and less at the local level, move regulations from the center and so on. and at that point the exeptialisum faded, slowly, but it faded. My fear is the EU is centralising already before it has a golden age, and its demise, in terms of comparison to the rest of the would has already started.
The EU budget is 1% of GDP and it has proven itself to be institutionally resistant to large scale fiscal transfers. I think your fears are misplaced.
The comparison with the rest of the world over the recent period is heavily skewed by the integration of China into the global economy and rapid globalisation. To judge the progress of Europe on that basis will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
You think China and Globalisation are just going to disappear?
You should be addressing that question to your fellow Brexiteers.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
Judging by your posts I think even the 1874 election was something you remember well
Not quite. I was 10 in 1964 a few months away from sitting the 11plus. To be serious,though, I don't think of Harold Wilson and Ted Heath as particularly distant figures at all - but when I sit down and work it out I am forced to accept that circa 60% of people now living in the UK will have no memory of them being in office.Indeed circa 40% will have no memory of Thatcher as PM.
Thatcher was my first PM certainly
I recall the last two years of Macmillan and Gaitskell's death.
Although I don't follow Scottish politics too closely, (the droning from the SNP is very wearing) but I seem to hear/read continual reports about the effectiveness of the aforementioned Ruth Davidson as a very effective opposition politician. Effectiveness is one thing, but turning it into seats???
Fair doos. The Boris is obviously learning, let's see about the Johnson.
Well Ruth Davidson won on that front.
"Although I am pleased to hear that the PLP is about to show how united they are by launching possibly a second unity candidate against the first. All of this has happened in the time that it takes for Theresa to take the crown.
"That’s kind of the difference between our two parties. You know, Labour’s still fumbling with its flies while the Tories are enjoying a post-coital cigarette after withdrawing our massive Johnson."
Although I don't follow Scottish politics too closely, (the droning from the SNP is very wearing) but I seem to hear/read continual reports about the effectiveness of the aforementioned Ruth Davidson as a very effective opposition politician. Effectiveness is one thing, but turning it into seats???
She more than doubled their number of seats in the Scottish Parliament last time out and is on course to double the number of Tory councillors in May. Both from really low bases but still, a remarkable achievement.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
Judging by your posts I think even the 1874 election was something you remember well
Not quite. I was 10 in 1964 a few months away from sitting the 11plus. To be serious,though, I don't think of Harold Wilson and Ted Heath as particularly distant figures at all - but when I sit down and work it out I am forced to accept that circa 60% of people now living in the UK will have no memory of them being in office.Indeed circa 40% will have no memory of Thatcher as PM.
Thatcher was my first PM certainly
I recall the last two years of Macmillan and Gaitskell's death.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
That's really quite amazing.
How are you so venerable in years and yet still possess the intellectual capacity, reasoning ability and posting style of a thirteen year old?
The first Prime Minister I remember is Tony Blair...
I wish I could say Clem Attlee was the first PM I remember, but he was kicked out when I was 6 months old. I certainly remember Harold Macmillan and President Eisenhower and, of course, as a child one "learns" such facts as building blocks of knowledge, only for them to crumble away as time passes. I started taking an interest in politics when Sir Alec Douglas Home entered No. 10. He is under-rated in my opinion, not because of his short tenure as PM but because of his long years of public service, including four years as Ted Heath's foreign secretary. As our most recent Nobel Laureate once sang, "Everything passes, everything changes, just do what you think you should do..."
Brexit poll: Eurosceptics think ending EU payments more important than stopping free movement
The £350m for the NHS bus comes back to haunt the Brexiteers...
I'm keen to stop paying the Danegeld.
Unfortunately that comes at a cost much greater than £350m and as the scales start falling off the voter's eyes this is why the LDs, as the only party seeing the Emperor's New Clothes are moth-eaten, are doing so much better.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
That's really quite amazing.
How are you so venerable in years and yet still possess the intellectual capacity, reasoning ability and posting style of a thirteen year old?
It's truly remarkable.
Whereas posting insults anonymously on the Internet betokens adulthood?
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
I disagree - to me it seems like yesterday! Even the 1964 election feels like just a few years ago in many ways.
That's really quite amazing.
How are you so venerable in years and yet still possess the intellectual capacity, reasoning ability and posting style of a thirteen year old?
It's truly remarkable.
Whereas posting insults anonymously on the Internet betokens adulthood?
Fear not - I'll happily patronise* him to his face too.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
Brexit poll: Eurosceptics think ending EU payments more important than stopping free movement
The £350m for the NHS bus comes back to haunt the Brexiteers...
I'm keen to stop paying the Danegeld.
Unfortunately that comes at a cost much greater than £350m and as the scales start falling off the voter's eyes this is why the LDs, as the only party seeing the Emperor's New Clothes are moth-eaten, are doing so much better.
Ahahahaha aha ahahaha ahaha ha ahaha
That's why I keep coming back to this site. The pure comedy.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
Watching Election 92 - it seems like a lifetime ago - which it is! I was 16. Amazing though how many bods are still around - Dimbleby, Galloway, Kate Hoey, Eric Pickles, Jane Corbin.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
"bomb like" device found in Oslo - suspect in custody.
"We'll Never Know the Motive," Norwegian Police Vow
But his name was Dave and he was mentally ill :-)
I guess we'll never really know for sure. We can only speculate that all of these Lone Wolf Attackers probably have alt-Right connections.
In the thread spirit of remembering stuff .... I saw the Lone Wolf Attackers open for Unassimilated Killer Youth at Woodstock in 2009.
seen some great gigs - but I think my absolute favourites a toss up between the Police supported by Squeeze and a Thin Lizzy concert, think the first was 79 and the second was definitely 1980.
Mind you Saxon with a guest appearance from Lemmy was pretty special too :-)
Comments
But that’s because there were massive, external geopolitical forces — Hitler and Mussolini’s rise to power, the Holocaust, and World War II — that highlighted the possible dangers of his beliefs. There are no such pressures today."
Singapore is not a Libertarian utopia, but it is close to being the freest economy on the planet at the moment, and its wealth speak to that.
Most foreigners there are on a sponsored work permit/visa tied to an employer, same as in Dubai and the Middle East. These countries take immigration control seriously, will deport you if you lose your job and fine you for overstaying a visit visa.
Very, very different to how immigration works in Europe.
I'm sorry if my spelling distracts from what I am trying to say, I am dyslectic, witch is one reason why I do not post that much, but at the moment I'm trying to keep the discussion flowing. I hope you are OK with that.
Isn't the real political story what is going on in the US?
1. Bannon lost his seat on the national security council and appears to be being sidelined within the administration.
2. Trump decided to bomb Syria without any attempt at legal justification or use of the UN. Essentially an act of rogue, anarchic justice. Back to business as usual with the US being the worlds policeman, albeit ineffective and almost a parody of itself.
3. The prospect (welcomed here by a number of PB'ers) of some kind of rapproachment or alliance between the US and Russia appears to be dead in the water. In fact, it seems that the two countries are on the verge of a proxy war in Syria.
Wow. This really isn't likely to end well.
Ironically, despite everyone whining about Trump and WW3 it's the people who are trying to wrest power from him that are the real nutjobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World
Singapore, in non economic areas, is not particularly free, but nor is it the bottom of the pack, lots of counters have some funny rules, I think the petrol tank thing was to reduce congestion on the causeway between the counters.
SNAFU
Texas is growing fast for lost of reasons, oil is one, but the big drive IMO is that when wages and cost of living are calculated, it is amongst the best places to live.
By way of contrast here in Dubai everyone is complaining that petrol just went past $0.50 a litre - there was a fixed subsidised price of about $0.40 so when the market price dropped that low they abolished the subsidy and no-one really noticed. Until now as the oil price is recovering, the pump prices are also on the up!!
*thinks about Gordon Brown and his fuel tax escalator and LOL (in an ironic fashion) about the idea of subsidised fuel*
To me it seems that the political forces behind brexit are anti globalisation, a desire to control immigration and for more state intervention in the economy and - ultimately - protectionism. Same forces behind Trump. Same forces behind the ultimate economic success of China. It is for a strong state, not a state weakened by globalisation.
To me the greatest argument for Brexit is that it reduces the formerly overwhelming political power of the financial services industry, and offers us the opportunity to have greater control of our own laws, and our economy more generally. Unfortunately it is more likely than not that we end up with a Brexit that simply serves the winning group of vested interests and for the little guy it will simply be a disappointment. One of the many reasons why I voted remain
Brexit la la fantasy land.
Well at least we'll win lots of Oscars.
I'm not shore what you are saying about china, the nation tried communism and massive and increasing state control, which led to famine and then slowly started allowing small bits of economic freedom creep in which have brought more people out of poverty than has ever been accomplished in such a sort period of time. The contrary is still not as economically free as we are, which is why they are not as rich as we are, for the moment at least.
Labour with 49 seats in Scotland and the SNP with 3 raised a chuckle. Peter Kellner predicted the EU would enforce Proportional Representation on the UK early in the 21st century whether the Conservatives wanted it or not.
Cheap cars and petrol are good in a rapidly-expanding city with good roads, not so much in older and more congested places like London or Singapore.
However a beer in my "local" is up past £10 now, so the sandpit's not all rosy. A beer in Singapore is even more expensive!
25 years later and Rick Ashley still more famous than 2 of the 3...
Labour are going to retreat further into their city heartlands; Middle England will abandon them. Here in Oxfordshire, for example, I think they'll do fine in Oxford but be hammered in the market towns (Banbury, Witney).
The Conservatives are going to be buttressed by the collapse of the UKIP vote - much of which will return to them (or simply disappear) - as well as benefiting from the Government's overall popularity.
The Lib Dems will pick up remain voters from Labour and the Conservatives, and benefit from their slow post-coalition rehabilitation. Their campaigning operation will be more thinly spread than at the recent by-elections, so we won't see Aylesbury-type swings repeated across the shires. Labour's collapse should at least mean they become the principal opposition on some councils, and join ruling coalitions on others. It will be a good night of progress for them, but it's not going to be the meteoric success that the by-election bar chart might suggest.
For me, the big question will be the scale of the Labour collapse.
'Boris Johnson pulls out of Moscow trip'
http://tinyurl.com/kr8nzhu
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/748471159621095424
Meanwhile a "middle-class" American family living in the middle of nowhere without a bar, a decent restaurant, a theatre, a cinema, a museum or an art gallery within 50 miles are somehow reckoned to be "rich" because of their headline $$$ income.
The Boris is obviously learning, let's see about the Johnson.
LD and PC probably will pick up some seats, but how will the conservatives do? any thoughts?
"Although I am pleased to hear that the PLP is about to show how united they are by launching possibly a second unity candidate against the first. All of this has happened in the time that it takes for Theresa to take the crown.
"That’s kind of the difference between our two parties. You know, Labour’s still fumbling with its flies while the Tories are enjoying a post-coital cigarette after withdrawing our massive Johnson."
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/dot-commons-diary/77226/ruth-davidson-shovel-faced
Honestly if people reduced their posting because of typos/spelling mistakes/piss poor grammar, PB would be a very quiet place.
To be serious,though, I don't think of Harold Wilson and Ted Heath as particularly distant figures at all - but when I sit down and work it out I am forced to accept that circa 60% of people now living in the UK will have no memory of them being in office.Indeed circa 40% will have no memory of Thatcher as PM.
My rule is that any middle aged bloke that jogs in the morning still thinks he's a playah.
https://twitter.com/crehage/status/850594841872539648
How are you so venerable in years and yet still possess the intellectual capacity, reasoning ability and posting style of a thirteen year old?
It's truly remarkable.
In the thread spirit of remembering stuff .... I saw the Lone Wolf Attackers open for Unassimilated Killer Youth at Woodstock in 2009.
*(that means "talk down to")
That's why I keep coming back to this site. The pure comedy.
Mind you Saxon with a guest appearance from Lemmy was pretty special too :-)