Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not.
That's a pretty broad statement: do you have any evidence to back that claim up? I mean, you can make a case with automotive or financial services*, but not really for any other sectors that I can think of.
* And even there, we do lots of trade with the rest of the world. Before we sold it to the Swiss, my fund management company's biggest clients were in Australia. And Jaguar and Aston Martin are increasing global in outlook.
What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.
It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
Valium is tightly controlled at the GP end. They get flashing red messages on their patient information screen when they try and prescribe it and iirc are measured by some outside agency or other in the NHS system as to how much each GP is letting slip through their fingers.
This is in response to the 1960s/70s housewives all addicted to Valium scare presumably.
Ignoring the short term impact and Carney's response, what the forecasts did I believe is this.
Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not. The interesting long term economic forecast would be what are the impacts of the changes we can now make, out of the EU, do to the growth rate. Every economic forecast is based on the BoE and Government will change nothing, leave it all geared to the EU and we leave it. This is silly, and it is no surprise that they forecast a slow down in the growth rate. They did factor in Tariffs and NTB's but based no thought on how to mitigate them or reduce their impacts. One group who did try to say things can change so we will model some potential changes was The Economists for Free Trade. Instead of being congratulated for at least understanding the main issue, all the "group think" stay in the EU mob tried to ridicule it. What a state the countries economic profession is in.
I think Minford et al made their forecasts pretty clear and were received with scepticism only because they accepted that their proposed solution would have spelled the end of domestic manufacturing and some commentators, as well as practitioners, baulked at that.
But yes, your central thrust its the nail on the head - do we try to remain as close as possible to the EU thereby incurring some limited amount of damage, or do we tear up the rule book and start again, thereby trying to reposition ourselves somehow.
The former is the more attainable (politically as well as practically) while the latter will involve breaking a lot of eggs in the meantime for no certain (!) beneficial outcome in the long run*.
All accounted for, the party spent £400,000 to entertain a 4,000-strong group of its most hardcore, mostly London-based supporters.
Michael Foot rallied 40,000 of the Labour faithful, and even Neil Kinnock managed 10,000, both for considerably less than Labour Live’s £100-a-head cost, but the applause did not translate to votes in the elections that followed.
What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.
It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
Drugs cause mental illness to afflict those with a hereditary or genetic predisposition to it. Individuals who do them are dicing with the possibility of instigating life ruining Schizophrenia or variants of this debilitating condition. Anyone who thinks Drugs should be decriminalized is frankly stupid. Drugs and the people who push them on others are frankly evil and should be dealt with in the harshest terms.
Mr. Jessop, it'll be more and more successful if they do, financially at least.
The problem is that a crowd of cultists singing Corbyn's name might delight the well-dressed socialists of Islington, but is unlike to enthuse the rest of the nation.
All accounted for, the party spent £400,000 to entertain a 4,000-strong group of its most hardcore, mostly London-based supporters.
Michael Foot rallied 40,000 of the Labour faithful, and even Neil Kinnock managed 10,000, both for considerably less than Labour Live’s £100-a-head cost, but the applause did not translate to votes in the elections that followed.
no they jumbled a whole lot of factors few of which are based on anything they could know and called it a forecast.
it is the role of the forecaster to permanently explain why his last guess wasn't correct but why his next one is.
the point of a forecast imo isn't to give you an answer but to make you think about what is important and hence how youre going to handle it.
and then there's Deus ex Machina the things the forecasters just cant quantify because they don't even think about them. Trump, Merkel losing her job, Jezza, the Yellowstone Caldera. shit happens and forecasts guarantee nothing.
Yesterday Mrs Brooke was as happy as a pig in the proverbial as Junior was having a whale of a time Japan. He's in Osaka, now she's less happy.
The NIESR "jumbled a whole lot of factors...snipped uninformed garbage"
I agree with your point about forecasts' usefulness but really, to dismiss them in the way you just spelled out is asinine squared.
I very much hope your son is ok.
he;s fine thanks , when youre 22 it's all a big laugh
I don't necessarily dismiss the forecasts, I dismiss the people who abuse them.
Personally I expected the economy to slow off a bit due to the uncertainty and for investment to have a wobble. I'm pleasantly surprised the economy has held up as it has.
Since 2016 however we have had sufficient changes to base forecasts as to make the pre Brexit ones irrelevant.
Trump, Cameron flounce, TMay cant negotiate, oil prices, QE, exchange rates. Like every forecast it's time to forget what has been and look forward.
Trade wars, Merkel, Italy, Juncker goes, EU slowdown, China slowdown, oil price drops.
plus all the things we don't know which lurk round the corner and which will make our best guesses laughable.
I cannot help but think of hard cases make bad law.
There's a lot of truth in that maxim. But in this case the correct answer is that the law is wrong and this is just a particularly vivid example of it. Legalise marijuana completely and the issue of medicinal use exemption no longer arises. We can then do proper trials as to whether it is really helping people with this condition, MS, chronic pain, etc etc and decide when, if ever, it should be available on the NHS.
You don’t need to legalise it fully for that, just make the derived medication available by prescription.
Scotland has the worst record for drug deaths in the EU and Dundee, I am ashamed to say, is the worst in Scotland. The winnowing of my children's generation by drug deaths is an incredible indictment of our current, failed policies. It's time to change.
But I don't think Javid is going to stick his neck out that far. At least, not yet.
Drug rooms might be a start. If the Scottish party that says it will ensure Scotland's voice will be heard in cabinet stopped opposing them, the Home Office may actually take notice.
What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.
It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
Drugs cause mental illness to afflict those with a hereditary or genetic predisposition to it. Individuals who do them are dicing with the possibility of instigating life ruining Schizophrenia or variants of this debilitating condition. Anyone who thinks Drugs should be decriminalized is frankly stupid. Drugs and the people who push them on others are frankly evil and should be dealt with in the harshest terms.
And alcohol is different how? Tobacco isn’t quite as addictive but the physical problems resulting from abuse can be really nasty. No-one is suggesting a total free-for all for ‘drugs’; or for all drugs. Managed supply, like alcohol, is the way forward.
no they jumbled a whole lot of factors few of which are based on anything they could know and called it a forecast.
it is the role of the forecaster to permanently explain why his last guess wasn't correct but why his next one is.
the point of a forecast imo isn't to give you an answer but to make you think about what is important and hence how youre going to handle it.
and then there's Deus ex Machina the things the forecasters just cant quantify because they don't even think about them. Trump, Merkel losing her job, Jezza, the Yellowstone Caldera. shit happens and forecasts guarantee nothing.
Yesterday Mrs Brooke was as happy as a pig in the proverbial as Junior was having a whale of a time Japan. He's in Osaka, now she's less happy.
The NIESR "jumbled a whole lot of factors...snipped uninformed garbage"
I agree with your point about forecasts' usefulness but really, to dismiss them in the way you just spelled out is asinine squared.
I very much hope your son is ok.
he;s fine thanks , when youre 22 it's all a big laugh
I don't necessarily dismiss the forecasts, I dismiss the people who abuse them.
Personally I expected the economy to slow off a bit due to the uncertainty and for investment to have a wobble. I'm pleasantly surprised the economy has held up as it has.
Since 2016 however we have had sufficient changes to base forecasts as to make the pre Brexit ones irrelevant.
Trump, Cameron flounce, TMay cant negotiate, oil prices, QE, exchange rates. Like every forecast it's time to forget what has been and look forward.
Trade wars, Merkel, Italy, Juncker goes, EU slowdown, China slowdown, oil price drops.
plus all the things we don't know which lurk round the corner and which will make our best guesses laughable.
Good to hear it, and yes, I was in an earthquake in Japan at around that age. Funniest thing that had happened the whole trip (apart from the love hotels).
Ignoring the short term impact and Carney's response, what the forecasts did I believe is this.
Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not. The interesting long term economic forecast would be what are the impacts of the changes we can now make, out of the EU, do to the growth rate. Every economic forecast is based on the BoE and Government will change nothing, leave it all geared to the EU and we leave it. This is silly, and it is no surprise that they forecast a slow down in the growth rate. They did factor in Tariffs and NTB's but based no thought on how to mitigate them or reduce their impacts. One group who did try to say things can change so we will model some potential changes was The Economists for Free Trade. Instead of being congratulated for at least understanding the main issue, all the "group think" stay in the EU mob tried to ridicule it. What a state the countries economic profession is in.
I think Minford et al made their forecasts pretty clear and were received with scepticism only because they accepted that their proposed solution would have spelled the end of domestic manufacturing and some commentators, as well as practitioners, baulked at that.
But yes, your central thrust its the nail on the head - do we try to remain as close as possible to the EU thereby incurring some limited amount of damage, or do we tear up the rule book and start again, thereby trying to reposition ourselves somehow.
The former is the more attainable (politically as well as practically) while the latter will involve breaking a lot of eggs in the meantime for no certain (!) beneficial outcome in the long run*.
*when you know what happens.
No my central point is we do not know what the future holds from any forecasts because they have not even used the correct thought process to compare the different economic models.
Ignoring the short term impact and Carney's response, what the forecasts did I believe is this.
Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not. The interesting long term economic forecast would be what are the impacts of the changes we can now make, out of the EU, do to the growth rate. Every economic forecast is based on the BoE and Government will change nothing, leave it all geared to the EU and we leave it. This is silly, and it is no surprise that they forecast a slow down in the growth rate. They did factor in Tariffs and NTB's but based no thought on how to mitigate them or reduce their impacts. One group who did try to say things can change so we will model some potential changes was The Economists for Free Trade. Instead of being congratulated for at least understanding the main issue, all the "group think" stay in the EU mob tried to ridicule it. What a state the countries economic profession is in.
I think Minford et al made their forecasts pretty clear and were received with scepticism only because they accepted that their proposed solution would have spelled the end of domestic manufacturing and some commentators, as well as practitioners, baulked at that.
But yes, your central thrust its the nail on the head - do we try to remain as close as possible to the EU thereby incurring some limited amount of damage, or do we tear up the rule book and start again, thereby trying to reposition ourselves somehow.
The former is the more attainable (politically as well as practically) while the latter will involve breaking a lot of eggs in the meantime for no certain (!) beneficial outcome in the long run*.
*when you know what happens.
No my central point is we do not know what the future holds from any forecasts because they have not even used the correct thought process to compare the different economic models.
Oh I see they have the wrong thought process. Right, k.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
It’s the wrong question. Does the public nevertheless support this spending item? I expect the answer is a resounding yes. The dishonesty is priced into politics.
It’s the wrong question. Does the public nevertheless support this spending item? I expect the answer is a resounding yes. The dishonesty is priced into politics.
Also, we continually over-estimate how much the public (not the ones answering polls) actually are aware and remember things. I would suggest in 3 months they may remember more money for the NHS, even that isn't a cert.
New Labour were brilliant at shaping a message and pumping it day in day out, because they realized Mondeo Man doesn't spend their days on PB.com. For those more politically engaged, it was frustrating to hear the say BS from every Labour minister, not matter if it had been debunked or repeated 100 times, but the normal member of the public they probably only heard it once.
I think there are two reasonable objections one can make:
1. South Korea has managed the near impossible feat of having FTAs with every major industrialised country in the world. Why? Because it has pretty high tariffs under MFN, and therefore the gains for countries in signing an FTA with South Korea are high.
2. His analysis ignores NTBs. The risk with going zero tariff, and not thinking about NTBs is that parliament is used as a piecemeal method of applying restrictictions to other countries selling into the UK. Essentially, we end up with what India had for a long-time: producer capture, where rules and regulations discourage imports. This is a particular issue for us, as we're a relatively small market.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.
On Germany it does seem somewhat hypocritical that Merkel is going on about not taking unilateral action apparently, when if memory serves that's precisely what she did several years ago, whether one thinks that was a good or bad thing.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.
On Germany it does seem somewhat hypocritical that Merkel is going on about not taking unilateral action apparently, when if memory serves that's precisely what she did several years ago, whether one thinks that was a good or bad thing.
Merkel crapped on Europe by throwing the doors open to all and sundry and then telling everyone they had to share the problem she created.
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this mess
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.
On Germany it does seem somewhat hypocritical that Merkel is going on about not taking unilateral action apparently, when if memory serves that's precisely what she did several years ago, whether one thinks that was a good or bad thing.
What a good day its been in the drug policy debate on medical cannabis.Firstly,Labour has come out in favour of decriminalisation for medical users and a wider look at the matter as a whole.The Lib Dems and SDP are already on-board as now are the DUP,Murdoch,Rothermere and assorted others.Secondly,government is facing calls from its own side from unusual sources in the Tory party,not the usual suspects,eg Mike Penning. Absolute key now is to get the right doctors on the new panel.I nominate Dr Lester Greenspoon,Harvard psychiatrist aged 89,who can tell them how cannabis saved his son's life during treatment for leucemia.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.
On Germany it does seem somewhat hypocritical that Merkel is going on about not taking unilateral action apparently, when if memory serves that's precisely what she did several years ago, whether one thinks that was a good or bad thing.
Yes, but she's learnt her lesson now
I doubt it
she's playing her old anaconda tactics to see if she can strangle the opposition
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
This is paranoid as the withdrawal agreement will only contain a political statement about the future relationship and this can be very thin if nothing is agreed at that point. The details will still need to be negotiated post-Brexit.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this mess
Well it was a small majority so I doubt it would have been easy, it would still be messy, but clearly it would have been easier.
It’s the wrong question. Does the public nevertheless support this spending item? I expect the answer is a resounding yes. The dishonesty is priced into politics.
The public are inherently dishonest too.
When asked if they were willing to give up a bit more of their inheritance to fund their elderly parents social care - which would increae local government funding for social care (including home care) and reduce pressure on the NHS by limiting bed blocking - they apparently said no in large numbers.
It's quite crazy that we have a welfare system - via pension credit - and a social care system - via home helps - that provides taxpayer cash to multi millionaires (in property terms).
Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski has been told no action will be taken over claims he acted inappropriately towards a female researcher.
Mr Kawczynski was referred to the Conservatives' internal disciplinary committee after media reports he tried to set up a date between a visitor and the woman in 2013.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this mess
Calling it was the right decision, fighting it so poorly and hubristically was not.
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.
There is currently little scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of these oils as a treatment for epilepsy, although they do contain the same active ingredients.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this mess
Has anyone worked out if that is actually true based on the Brexit leanings of those who lost seats and newly-elected MPs?
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this mess
Calling it was the right decision, fighting it so poorly and hubristically was not.
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.
I could see that. The 'stay at home next time' next time reaction arising from a deal which disappoints even a minority of the party could be enough.
Gove on the environment, Hunt on Health, and Javid now on migration and law & order.
Theresa May is providing no leadership whatsoever.
She's only there to see Brexit through and take as much of the hit from that as can be managed. It's why she she has survived thus far, as I don't think the others want to take on the job at this juncture. But they seem to be on active maneuvers, suggesting things have spiraled enough that they might risk moving before it is done after all.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this mess
Calling it was the right decision, fighting it so poorly and hubristically was not.
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.
This is why it's in the interests of the Conservative party to hold a people's vote on the Brexit deal, otherwise they may be forced into a General Election in a position of extreme weakness.
How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.
Highly problematic? The Portuguese say more than 10 days of personal usage is considered criminal, and that seems sensible.
Eh? Don't understand how that relates to my reply, sorry.
"10 days of personal use"? What does that mean?
The definition of supplier can be linked to how much you are caught with.
I think Canada's already been through this debate. Possessing 30 g of dried cannabis is legal. Sorry, I have no idea if this is a little or a lot. I haven't taken it since university.
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
Sounds significant - how many of the remainer rebels will decide the deceit from last time from May justifies them not playing ball? Presumably the Lords think it will be close.
It seems to me that the nub of the problem is that society/politics and logic/science don't seem to mix very well. That looks set to be our undoing, unless we heed wisdom.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Or maybe it is just the fact that they are so useless and have taken so long to come up with nothing.
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
Lords. Signing. Their. Death. Warrant......
The government won a close vote through deceit (or at least that is what several MPs feel happened, which amounts to the same outcome even if there was no intention to deceive) - the Lords can probably justify seeing if the Commons really does feel the way it previously indicated.
But do it on too many votes, or a third time if the Commons send it back again, and I should think that would be pushing it for many people.
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately can only delay not block
The government can't invoke the parliament act until after Brexit so it will be too late then, unless May is planning to ask for an Article 50 extension.
How one defines supplier is highly problematic. Criminalises otherwise completely law abiding citizens who offer joints or pills at a party.
Highly problematic? The Portuguese say more than 10 days of personal usage is considered criminal, and that seems sensible.
Eh? Don't understand how that relates to my reply, sorry.
"10 days of personal use"? What does that mean?
The definition of supplier can be linked to how much you are caught with.
I think Canada's already been through this debate. Possessing 30 g of dried cannabis is legal. Sorry, I have no idea if this is a little or a lot. I haven't taken it since university.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Or maybe it is just the fact that they are so useless and have taken so long to come up with nothing.
Yes, and that’s a direct consequence of Grieve’s amendment and the politicking done by the House of Lords to frustrate the Government’s negotiating position.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
Its Mays fault for calling a GE if she still had a majority she wouldnt be in this mess
Calling it was the right decision, fighting it so poorly and hubristically was not.
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.
Don't forget 20% of UKIP voters went for Corbyn too and could also go back if too many concessions to the EU
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately can only delay not block
The government can't invoke the parliament act until after Brexit so it will be too late then, unless May is planning to ask for an Article 50 extension.
Theoretically the Commons could amend the Parliament Act if needed, in 1911 the Commons forced the Lords to move from being a blocking to delaying body
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately can only delay not block
The government can't invoke the parliament act until after Brexit so it will be too late then, unless May is planning to ask for an Article 50 extension.
Theoretically the Commons could amend the Parliament Act if needed, in 1911 the Commons forced the Lords to move from being a blocking to delaying body
There isn't even a genuine Commons majority against the amendment so this is firmly in the realms of fantasy.
Mr. Jessop, it'll be more and more successful if they do, financially at least.
The problem is that a crowd of cultists singing Corbyn's name might delight the well-dressed socialists of Islington, but is unlike to enthuse the rest of the nation.
Nay, Mr Dancer; I'm afraid to say your knowledge of the nation is as poor as your grasp of history. We were informed this morning that this successful event would lead to more votes for Labour, perhaps even enough for them to win the next election.
Pensioners would see the hordes enraptured at Jezza's words, throw down their zimmer frames and strut their funky stuff as they put their cross against Labour. Businessmen would start waving glow-sticks in the air as they jive down to polling stations. Poor mothers would buy £100 t-shirts of Jezza's face for each of their kids instead of food, knowing that the feelings of self-righteousness would feed them for a month.
Even you might feel the immutable force of the Jezza.
I realise you struggle with dates more recent than 1690 but that poll was taken before the events of last Wednesday, so quite how you tie it into my thread header is beyond me.
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately can only delay not block
The government can't invoke the parliament act until after Brexit so it will be too late then, unless May is planning to ask for an Article 50 extension.
Theoretically the Commons could amend the Parliament Act if needed, in 1911 the Commons forced the Lords to move from being a blocking to delaying body
There isn't even a genuine Commons majority against the amendment so this is firmly in the realms of fantasy.
There was when it was voted on and in any case the Commons has already voted by a huge majority to leave the Single Market and a comfortable majority to leave the Customs Union so the most it can do is try and ensure we move towards a Canada style FTA with the EU which is May's aim anyway
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
Government defeated in the Lords on a meaningful vote by a bigger majority than last time.
So what, the elected Commons has already backed the government and ultimately the unelected Lords can only delay not block
Delay for 12 months!
As I have already pointed out the Commons could even amend the Parliament Act to reduce that time if it really wanted as in 1911 it forced the Lords to become a delaying not a blocking body.
May could even appoint 200 Leaver peers if she wanted as well even if the Lords then became standing room only I doubt she would care
What about that suggests it might not still be a winner? If people want more money for the NHS we will have to pay for it, whoever is offering it. We all know politicians promise more for less, but there has to be an element of public skepticism in such claims, and yet we still accept some policies as worth it.
I think increasing funding almost certainly is a winner. The question is, given that they were going to increase funding, should May have tried to link it to the Brexit dividend? There's two apsects to that- internal party politics and national politics. And I don't think it's unambiguous, I can see arguments both ways.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
To be fair she never said it would cover the whole funding increase and that is why she has said taxes will rise
Comments
However, there’ll be several ‘deals’ before!
* And even there, we do lots of trade with the rest of the world. Before we sold it to the Swiss, my fund management company's biggest clients were in Australia. And Jaguar and Aston Martin are increasing global in outlook.
This is in response to the 1960s/70s housewives all addicted to Valium scare presumably.
He goeth to the dressing room.
But yes, your central thrust its the nail on the head - do we try to remain as close as possible to the EU thereby incurring some limited amount of damage, or do we tear up the rule book and start again, thereby trying to reposition ourselves somehow.
The former is the more attainable (politically as well as practically) while the latter will involve breaking a lot of eggs in the meantime for no certain (!) beneficial outcome in the long run*.
*when you know what happens.
It'll be interesting to see if they really do try to do the same thing next year ...
I find it hard to identify any positive results from criminalisation of recreational (for want of a better word) drugs.
I told my MP to get of her posterior, make herself unpopular (she already is) and agitate for decriminalisation.
---------------------------------------------------
What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.
It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
Drugs cause mental illness to afflict those with a hereditary or genetic predisposition to it. Individuals who do them are dicing with the possibility of instigating life ruining Schizophrenia or variants of this debilitating condition. Anyone who thinks Drugs should be decriminalized is frankly stupid. Drugs and the people who push them on others are frankly evil and should be dealt with in the harshest terms.
Son of immigrant married to immigrant complains about immigrants....
The problem is that a crowd of cultists singing Corbyn's name might delight the well-dressed socialists of Islington, but is unlike to enthuse the rest of the nation.
.
I don't necessarily dismiss the forecasts, I dismiss the people who abuse them.
Personally I expected the economy to slow off a bit due to the uncertainty and for investment to have a wobble. I'm pleasantly surprised the economy has held up as it has.
Since 2016 however we have had sufficient changes to base forecasts as to make the pre Brexit ones irrelevant.
Trump, Cameron flounce, TMay cant negotiate, oil prices, QE, exchange rates. Like every forecast it's time to forget what has been and look forward.
Trade wars, Merkel, Italy, Juncker goes, EU slowdown, China slowdown, oil price drops.
plus all the things we don't know which lurk round the corner and which will make our best guesses laughable.
What I find amazing about illegal drugs (and I'm 40 and relatively normal) is that I could go on the Whatsapp group with the rugby boys and get coke, flake, skunk weed, MDMA and ketamine DELIVERED to me from just one message, but when I try to get hold of prescription valium to fly (I don't like flying) it's easier to find rocking horse shit.
It would be a lot harder to get hard drugs like crack or heroin (basically because hardly anybody does hard drugs) but recreational drugs are EVERYWHERE. Why the govt just doesn't legalise it all, make it safer and trawl in the taxes is beyond me.
Drugs cause mental illness to afflict those with a hereditary or genetic predisposition to it. Individuals who do them are dicing with the possibility of instigating life ruining Schizophrenia or variants of this debilitating condition. Anyone who thinks Drugs should be decriminalized is frankly stupid. Drugs and the people who push them on others are frankly evil and should be dealt with in the harshest terms.
And alcohol is different how? Tobacco isn’t quite as addictive but the physical problems resulting from abuse can be really nasty.
No-one is suggesting a total free-for all for ‘drugs’; or for all drugs. Managed supply, like alcohol, is the way forward.
The EU now know they can take the Government right down to the wire, whereupon Parliament will impose the softest possible Brexit in the EU’s favour at the 11th hour.
New Labour were brilliant at shaping a message and pumping it day in day out, because they realized Mondeo Man doesn't spend their days on PB.com. For those more politically engaged, it was frustrating to hear the say BS from every Labour minister, not matter if it had been debunked or repeated 100 times, but the normal member of the public they probably only heard it once.
And no, but that does sound like an interesting market.
I think there are two reasonable objections one can make:
1. South Korea has managed the near impossible feat of having FTAs with every major industrialised country in the world. Why? Because it has pretty high tariffs under MFN, and therefore the gains for countries in signing an FTA with South Korea are high.
2. His analysis ignores NTBs. The risk with going zero tariff, and not thinking about NTBs is that parliament is used as a piecemeal method of applying restrictictions to other countries selling into the UK. Essentially, we end up with what India had for a long-time: producer capture, where rules and regulations discourage imports. This is a particular issue for us, as we're a relatively small market.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1008751906842464256
Absolute key now is to get the right doctors on the new panel.I nominate Dr Lester Greenspoon,Harvard psychiatrist aged 89,who can tell them how cannabis saved his son's life during treatment for leucemia.
she's playing her old anaconda tactics to see if she can strangle the opposition
When asked if they were willing to give up a bit more of their inheritance to fund their elderly parents social care - which would increae local government funding for social care (including home care) and reduce pressure on the NHS by limiting bed blocking - they apparently said no in large numbers.
It's quite crazy that we have a welfare system - via pension credit - and a social care system - via home helps - that provides taxpayer cash to multi millionaires (in property terms).
2 Walker
5 Stones
6 Maguire
8 Henderson
12 Trippier
7 Lingard
20 Alli
18 Young
9 Kane
10 Sterling
Predictable, but still disappointing.
Mr Kawczynski was referred to the Conservatives' internal disciplinary committee after media reports he tried to set up a date between a visitor and the woman in 2013.
He always denied the allegations.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-44523573
I now think there will be serious fallout for her and the Conservatives next year. I expect her to be boxed into accepting a poor deal, basically similar to EU membership except no voting rights, and perhaps one or two extract checks on migration. I think she will lose a chunk of her voting coalition in the process who will opt for anyone but her (some will go back to UKIP again) on a “plague on all your houses” basis.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Conservatives in the mid 30s by Easter next year.
There is currently little scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of these oils as a treatment for epilepsy, although they do contain the same active ingredients.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44519058
Gove on the environment, Hunt on Health, and Javid now on migration and law & order.
Theresa May is providing no leadership whatsoever.
That looks set to be our undoing, unless we heed wisdom.
But do it on too many votes, or a third time if the Commons send it back again, and I should think that would be pushing it for many people.
Pensioners would see the hordes enraptured at Jezza's words, throw down their zimmer frames and strut their funky stuff as they put their cross against Labour. Businessmen would start waving glow-sticks in the air as they jive down to polling stations. Poor mothers would buy £100 t-shirts of Jezza's face for each of their kids instead of food, knowing that the feelings of self-righteousness would feed them for a month.
Even you might feel the immutable force of the Jezza.
LOL.
But on the national politics front, it does seem that she's needlessly alienating Remainers, and that the prospect this will significantly help her with Leavers is a bit dubious. What's the latest polling we have on how many Leavers actually believe in a Brexit dividend big enough to cover this funding increase?
May could even appoint 200 Leaver peers if she wanted as well even if the Lords then became standing room only I doubt she would care
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1008688962486132737?s=21
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/18/theresa-may-pledges-overhaul-david-cameron-health-reforms-get/