May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
Pointless writing to my MP. He's on the payroll. Therefore impossible to influence his vote, nor discover what his true feelings about anything are. Write to him, you get a govt press release back.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Pointless writing to my MP. He's on the payroll. Therefore impossible to influence his vote, nor discover what his true feelings about anything are. Write to him, you get a govt press release back.
In my case I am a member of the local constituency
Pointless writing to my MP. He's on the payroll. Therefore impossible to influence his vote, nor discover what his true feelings about anything are. Write to him, you get a govt press release back.
Brilliant, that is actually a concern of mine believe it or not !
Me too. The Gov.uk website spells out the implications if there is no deal, and it would mean rabies tests and waiting for the result before being able to travel, as currently for taking a pet to an "unlisted country" (listed countries being not only the EU but major others including the USA).
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
It was in the FT. Presumably you didn't receive one of their leaflets, as you weren't a target for the message.
Brilliant, that is actually a concern of mine believe it or not !
Me too. The Gov.uk website spells out the implications if there is no deal, and it would mean rabies tests and waiting for the result before being able to travel, as currently for taking a pet to an "unlisted country" (listed countries being not only the EU but major others including the USA).
JCJ is an animal lover and specifically said he wanted to keep pet passports as part of a barebones “lifeboat” deal.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
It was in the FT. Presumably you didn't receive one of their leaflets, as you weren't a target for the message.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
It was in the FT. Presumably you didn't receive one of their leaflets, as you weren't a target for the message.
At the moment I'm stuck at 100x "I must not rest Toby when we're playing Inter and Arsenal away"
Gary Neville was very much in agreement with the cold shoulder policy of Tottenham. It'll be interesting to see what Arsenal do with Ramsey. He showed his worth yesterday, but if the club's already made up its mind...
Considering child poverty is lower now than when they took office, that the changes to personal allowances and national living wage means those earning at the bottom have seen their wages rise quicker, oh and there's absolutely *ZERO* evidence to suggest that there's been any increase in undernourishment rates amongst children.
But facts don't fit the "evil milk-stealing Tory" trope.
LOL, Tories and facts are strangers, you fan boys of CCHQ mouth the lies you are spouted from the nasty party. Ask your servants how they are doing.
FPT You should be careful who you call a liar.
This a document that pulls together the stats on poverty and inequality.
Actually. None of them do. They all use the same statistics but try to bowl them in a way that looks bad, for whatever poverty mongering nonsense they are spouting this week.
It’s all the same stats I linked to. 60% of average earnings. If you are clever and the fools reading are wanting to hear you can talk about “400,000 plunged into poverty”. That 400,000 plunged into poverty still means less in poverty than under the last government.
It’s all the same figures, they are just manipulating them. Get back to the core data I linked to, before they’ve cherry picked the ones that give them the picture they want.
Here is a paraphrase of the actual document, not the cherry picked one. The labour government were quite good in lowering certain types of poverty, and by 2010 on many of the measures it was the lowest it had been for decades. By 2013/14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income. Since then some measures have showed a slight reduction, most have stayed the same with some a mild increase. But all still the same as or below the 2010 figures.
That’s why I call the position you talked about earlier as poverty mongering. Poverty is not getting worse, the growth in food bank usage is a phenomena but it’s not connected to poverty.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
It was in the FT. Presumably you didn't receive one of their leaflets, as you weren't a target for the message.
As you know he doesn't have a vote in Parliament and doesn't speak for or against motions or bills in the Commons.
This has been a real problem for his Buckingham constituents regarding HS2, East West Rail, the Oxford Cambridge Expressway and plans to build a million houses along the Oxford Cambridge corridor - all of which impact Buckingham more than any other constituency.
Proposals have been made to the House of Commons Procedure Committee so that once elected the Speaker becomes the MPs MP and another MP is elected in a by-election for their original constituency. This proposal was turned down in 2011 but Bercow said he would ensure it was put to them again last year. Like many promises by Bercow he has not kept to the promise.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
As you know he doesn't have a vote in Parliament and doesn't speak for or against motions or bills in the Commons.
This has been a real problem for his Buckingham constituents regarding HS2, East West Rail, the Oxford Cambridge Expressway and plans to build a million houses along the Oxford Cambridge corridor - all of which impact Buckingham more than any other constituency.
Proposals have been made to the House of Commons Procedure Committee so that once elected the Speaker becomes the MPs MP and another MP is elected in a by-election for their original constituency. This proposal was turned down in 2011 but Bercow said he would ensure it was put to them again last year. Like many promises by Bercow he has not kept to the promise.
He's even stopped working the school fairs in recent years.... used to be assiduous at those even when became speaker. I guess the finishing line has been in sight for some time.
Considering child poverty is lower now than when they took office, that the changes to personal allowances and national living wage means those earning at the bottom have seen their wages rise quicker, oh and there's absolutely *ZERO* evidence to suggest that there's been any increase in undernourishment rates amongst children.
But facts don't fit the "evil milk-stealing Tory" trope.
LOL, Tories and facts are strangers, you fan boys of CCHQ mouth the lies you are spouted from the nasty party. Ask your servants how they are doing.
FPT You should be careful who you call a liar.
This a document that pulls together the stats on poverty and inequality.
It’s all the same figures, they are just manipulating them. Get back to the core data I linked to, before they’ve cherry picked the ones that give them the picture they want. Here is a paraphrase of the actual document, not the cherry picked one. The labour government were quite good in lowering certain types of poverty, and by 2010 on many of the measures it was the lowest it had been for decades. By 2013/14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income. Since then some measures have showed a slight reduction, most have stayed the same with some a mild increase. But all still the same as or below the 2010 figures. That’s why I call the position you talked about earlier as poverty mongering. Poverty is not getting worse, the growth in food bank usage is a phenomena but it’s not connected to poverty.
They all manipulate the data they use , so it is personal interpretation of who is most economical with the truth , the Tories have serious form on that subject.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Do we have zero people unemployed in the UK then.
In economic terms, pretty close to be as good as. The recorded figure will never be precisely zero for reasons that don't really need spelling out.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Do we have zero people unemployed in the UK then.
In economic terms, pretty close to be as good as. The recorded figure will never be precisely zero for reasons that don't really need spelling out.
As you know he doesn't have a vote in Parliament and doesn't speak for or against motions or bills in the Commons.
This has been a real problem for his Buckingham constituents regarding HS2, East West Rail, the Oxford Cambridge Expressway and plans to build a million houses along the Oxford Cambridge corridor - all of which impact Buckingham more than any other constituency.
Proposals have been made to the House of Commons Procedure Committee so that once elected the Speaker becomes the MPs MP and another MP is elected in a by-election for their original constituency. This proposal was turned down in 2011 but Bercow said he would ensure it was put to them again last year. Like many promises by Bercow he has not kept to the promise.
He's even stopped working the school fairs in recent years.... used to be assiduous at those even when became speaker. I guess the finishing line has been in sight for some time.
When appointed Bercow said he would only serve for nine years, which were due up last June. Instead when last re-elected he said he would serve another full term ie to 2022.
Bercow's spokesperson recently denied that he would not serve beyond next summer.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Do we have zero people unemployed in the UK then.
In economic terms, pretty close to be as good as. The recorded figure will never be precisely zero for reasons that don't really need spelling out.
We have 7 vacancies currently which we cannot fill, one position has been vacant for a year.
Brexit vote holding at 1.17 6.60. Sooo, does the government have something up their sleeve? They seem remarkably relaxed.
Suspension of 400 hostile MPs from Parliament?
I did see in the Dan Hodges piece that my 'floated question' here during the period now known as the Mogg Uprising was something that actually No. 10 had considered the nuclear option of withdrawing the Whip from those writing public letters to Brady....
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Do we have zero people unemployed in the UK then.
In economic terms, pretty close to be as good as. The recorded figure will never be precisely zero for reasons that don't really need spelling out.
What we need is for employed people to move to more productive jobs and/or be trained to become more productive in their current job. This will mean more output from the same number of people. For example, applying technology like the internet is a great opportunity for improvement.
Productivity has been stagnant in the Uk for the last decade.
It is only by improving productivity that people's incomes and the country's wealth can be increased.
How's the Prime Minister's cunning plan of winning people to her side by not disclosing the full legal advice going?
Actually the evidence to the select committee this afternoon by the Brexit Secretary is far more interesting and when explained to an open mind seems logical and very professional.
I have no problem with the backstop now as we will have control of our coastal waters immediately we leave transistion and that any agreement with the EU on a FTA, Norway or Canada would require a back stop anyway
Furthermore the EU fishing fleets will need a deal and EU companies will challenge the EU in their courts if Northern Ireland has free access to the single market for any period of time.
In addition while the political declaration is an ambition it is cross referenced to the WDA thereby making it part of an international treaty and the requirement to negotiate in good faith towards the objectives of the political declaration. In addition this is subject to independent arbitration as is any international treaty
I am convinced this is a good deal and hard won. It is professional and protects our busineeses
It is the ultra brexiteers who want to crash out on WTO and those who want to turnover a democratic vote that are clinging on to crash the deal for their own self centred beliefs, while the rest of us career down the path to economic disaster
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Did you ever think that your final statement "The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here" would be the situation just 10 years on from the financial crisis. As I have said many, many times, the economic and employment situation is this country is truly remarkable and the governemnt just do not get the credit for it.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Do we have zero people unemployed in the UK then.
In economic terms, pretty close to be as good as. The recorded figure will never be precisely zero for reasons that don't really need spelling out.
Yes. In essence we have full employment. Doesn’t mean there isn’t churn, or some people in some areas don’t have difficulty getting work. But yup. Full employment. We’ll look back I’m ten years time and say things like “did we rally have full employment?”
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Do we have zero people unemployed in the UK then.
In economic terms, pretty close to be as good as. The recorded figure will never be precisely zero for reasons that don't really need spelling out.
What we need is for employed people to move to more productive jobs and/or be trained to become more productive in their current job. This will mean more output from the same number of people. For example, applying technology like the internet is a great opportunity for improvement.
Productivity has been stagnant in the Uk for the last decade.
It is only by improving productivity that people's incomes and the country's wealth can be increased.
Three years ago a Mechanical Contracts Manager in Hampshire would earn £40,000. Now they earn £55-60,000, or £90,000 if they go to London.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
Which single market (for goods) provisions are you talking about specifically?
I can think of VAT, but that's about it. The market for non-EC certified electronics is going to be non-existent. (Just as the market for non-FCC and UL certified electronics is zero.)
Mr. NorthWales, many Remainers are also planning to vote against the deal.
Game of Thrones: could we avoid spoilers? Whilst I've caught up, so it doesn't bother me specifically, anyone behind might see something they'd prefer not to.
Hopefully with the next series being the last they don't have a stupid delay to the DVD release.
Brexit vote holding at 1.17 6.60. Sooo, does the government have something up their sleeve? They seem remarkably relaxed.
Suspension of 400 hostile MPs from Parliament?
I did see in the Dan Hodges piece that my 'floated question' here during the period now known as the Mogg Uprising was something that actually No. 10 had considered the nuclear option of withdrawing the Whip from those writing public letters to Brady....
now that would have been interesting!
How the hell do you justify withdrawing the Whip from people acting in accordance with the proper procedures of the party? It's for the PM to win the argument - or lose her job.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
It was in the FT. Presumably you didn't receive one of their leaflets, as you weren't a target for the message.
Considering child poverty is lower now than when they took office, that the changes toZERO* evidence to suggest that there's been any increase in undernourishment rates amongst children.
But facts don't fit the "evil milk-stealing Tory" trope.
LOL, Tories and facts are strangers, you fan boys of CCHQ mouth the lies you are spouted from the nasty party. Ask your servants how they are doing.
FPT You should be careful who you call a liar.
This a document that pulls together the stats on poverty and inequality.
It’s 14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income. Since then some measures have showed a slight reduction, most have stayed the same with some a mild increase. But allot getting worse, the growth in food bank usage is a phenomena but it’s not connected to poverty.
They all manipulate the data they use , so it is personal interpretation of who is most economical with the truth , the Tories have serious form on that subject.
No, no and no again. The reports you linked to misinterpret for an agenda. The link I gave was the statistician report showing all the figures over a reasonable period of time. They were not cherry picked for favourable results. You can take some of that and cherry pick it. But the report is not cherry picked. The report shows that while poverty across the board as either stayed the same or ticked up mildly in the last two to three years, it is still lower than what it was in 2010, which was already considered quite a low point.
Don’t just dismiss the facts because it’s possible to pull some facts and ignore others. The data is there, warts and all, the picture is clear, on some levels a mild improvement, on others a mild deterioration and on the others they’ve stayed the same.
Nothing, and I repeat nothing shows spiralling poverty or a growth in malnutrition etc.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Do we have zero people unemployed in the UK then.
In economic terms, pretty close to be as good as. The recorded figure will never be precisely zero for reasons that don't really need spelling out.
What we need is for employed people to move to more productive jobs and/or be trained to become more productive in their current job. This will mean more output from the same number of people. For example, applying technology like the internet is a great opportunity for improvement.
Productivity has been stagnant in the Uk for the last decade.
It is only by improving productivity that people's incomes and the country's wealth can be increased.
Three years ago a Mechanical Contracts Manager in Hampshire would earn £40,000. Now they earn £55-60,000, or £90,000 if they go to London.
If they only contribute the same at the higher salary as before, then the cost of the product or service they provide is increased and the country's wealth is diminished along with that of the users of the product or service.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
Which single market (for goods) provisions are you talking about specifically?
I can think of VAT, but that's about it. The market for non-EC certified electronics is going to be non-existent. (Just as the market for non-FCC and UL certified electronics is zero.)
I'm not even sure VAT is in that category.
The burden of VAT rates (which we might change) fall on customers; the burden of VAT administration (which we won't) on business. Post-Brexit, exporters will need to VAT register in the EU.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
I campaigned for Leave and I never heard anyone say anything like that. As my MP is now the Immigration Minister, I expect immigration policy to be a mess for many years to come.
It was in the FT. Presumably you didn't receive one of their leaflets, as you weren't a target for the message.
May’s problem is that she completely reneged on the plan outlined in her Lancaster House speech, gave way on all her red lines for no acceptable quid pro quo, betrayed the DUP who are supposed to be herallies and failedto build any kind of consensus for her deal as she went along. She sees Brexit as a matter of immigration control which is risible. May has given the EU all they want and got nothing worthwhile in exchange.
May supported Remain. What she appears to be trying to do is keep all the advantages of the Single Market while cutting back on immigration. On which, of course, has some rather unpleasant form.
Except that she is not keeping all the advantages of the Single Market, particularly for services. A lot of Leavers voted Leave to get rid of some of the EU’s more onerous burdens on business notto be tied in just as closely. All exporters have to comply with the regs of the country to whom they export, whether it be the EU under the Single Market or the US under WTO terms. No need to burden the domestic economy, which is 80% of GDP with those.
It’s not as though May has an immigration policy worth the name. She hasn’t ended the immigration apartheid between EU and non EU immigration and all she has done is reduce EU immigration and replace it with non EU immigration. Big deal.
The latter is what the Brexit campaign said would and should happen - it's certainly what our Asian community was told by leavers, as a reason for them to support it.
Which part ? Ending immigration apartheid and having one rule and process for all is fine. Failing to reduce immigration numbers is not.
The Leave campaign told Asians that Brexit would allow more of their relations to come here, once the 'discrimination' in favour of EU citizens was ended. From the figures this seems to be happening already. The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here.
Did you ever think that your final statement "The jobs need filling so one way or another we need people coming here" would be the situation just 10 years on from the financial crisis. As I have said many, many times, the economic and employment situation is this country is truly remarkable and the governemnt just do not get the credit for it.
Because then the whataboutery starts, usually with zero hours contract, part time, only working one hour once for two weeks, then it used to be followed by a passionate take down of the bedroom tax.
It’s 14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income. Since then some measures have showed a slight reduction, most have stayed the same with some a mild increase. But allot getting worse, the growth in food bank usage is a phenomena but it’s not connected to poverty.
They all manipulate the data they use , so it is personal interpretation of who is most economical with the truth , the Tories have serious form on that subject.
No, no and no again. The reports you linked to misinterpret for an agenda. The link I gave was the statistician report showing all the figures over a reasonable period of time. They were not cherry picked for favourable results. You can take some of that and cherry pick it. But the report is not cherry picked. The report shows that while poverty across the board as either stayed the same or ticked up mildly in the last two to three years, it is still lower than what it was in 2010, which was already considered quite a low point.
Don’t just dismiss the facts because it’s possible to pull some facts and ignore others. The data is there, warts and all, the picture is clear, on some levels a mild improvement, on others a mild deterioration and on the others they’ve stayed the same.
Nothing, and I repeat nothing shows spiralling poverty or a growth in malnutrition etc.
I will take your word for it , but still think government lies through their teeth as a matter of course.
If they only contribute the same at the higher salary as before, then the cost of the product or service they provide is increased and the country's wealth is diminished along with that of the users of the product or service.
Not really - if you assume they saved the company £1m when they earnt £40,000 and they still save the company £1m today the only difference is more is going to the employee and less to their employers shareholders.
It means that as that leaflet is inconvenient to AmfieldAndy's worldview, and that he would feel more confortable believing it didn't happen, then he prefers to deny its existence.
The FT article is an example of Fake News, i.e. news that he personally doesn't want to be true.
If they only contribute the same at the higher salary as before, then the cost of the product or service they provide is increased and the country's wealth is diminished along with that of the users of the product or service.
Not really - if you assume they saved the company £1m when they earnt £40,000 and they still save the company £1m today the only difference is more is going to the employee and less to their employers shareholders.
Unless the company was previously making excessive profits above the cost of capital they will be forced to increase the price to customers. Customers will thus be worse off.
It’s 14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income
They all manipulate the data they use , so it is personal interpretation of who is most economical with the truth , the Tories have serious form on that subject.
No, no and no again. The reports you linked to misinterpret for an agenda. The link I gave was the statistician report showing all the figures over a reasonable period of time. They were not cherry picked for favourable results. You can take some of that and cherry pick it. But the report is not cherry picked. The report shows that while poverty across the board as either stayed the same or ticked Don’t just dismiss the facts because it’s possible to pull some facts and ignore others. The data is there, warts and all, the picture is clear, on some levels a mild improvement, on others a mild deterioration and on the others they’ve stayed the same.
Nothing, and I repeat nothing shows spiralling poverty or a growth in malnutrition etc.
I will take your word for it , but still think government lies through their teeth as a matter of course.
That’s a given. But it’s back to the original point about food bank usage. What is it showing, if there’s no data showing to an increase in poverty or inequality over the period they’ve grown most quickly. Food is so cheap that it comprises of probably the smallest part of household income since we all stopped working on farms.
It means that as that leaflet is inconvenient to AmfieldAndy's worldview, and that he would feel more confortable believing it didn't happen, then he prefers to deny its existence.
The FT article is an example of Fake News, i.e. news that he personally doesn't want to be true.
It certainly was a line pushed in Asian communities in Leicester by Leave, and convinced some of my sub continental colleagues.
If they only contribute the same at the higher salary as before, then the cost of the product or service they provide is increased and the country's wealth is diminished along with that of the users of the product or service.
Not really - if you assume they saved the company £1m when they earnt £40,000 and they still save the company £1m today the only difference is more is going to the employee and less to their employers shareholders.
Sure, but has the balance of the economy, between profit and wages shifted meaningfully in the last 25 years or so.
In other words, has profit as a percent of GDP increased thanks to immigration reducing the share of labour, or has it remained constant (or declined). Without that information (and also for the rest of the world), you have no idea whether the rising wages will have an impact on the overall level of jobs in the economy.
If they only contribute the same at the higher salary as before, then the cost of the product or service they provide is increased and the country's wealth is diminished along with that of the users of the product or service.
Not really - if you assume they saved the company £1m when they earnt £40,000 and they still save the company £1m today the only difference is more is going to the employee and less to their employers shareholders.
Unless the company was previously making excessive profits above the cost of capital they will be forced to increase the price to customers. Customers will thus be worse off.
It’s 14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income
They all manipulate the data they use , so it is personal interpretation of who is most economical with the truth , the Tories have serious form on that subject.
No, no and no again. The reports you linked to misinterpret for an agenda. The link I gave was the statistician report showing all the figures over a reasonable period of time. They were not cherry picked for favourable results. You can take some of that and cherry pick it. But the report is not cherry picked. The report shows that while poverty across the board as either stayed the same or ticked
Nothing, and I repeat nothing shows spiralling poverty or a growth in malnutrition etc.
I will take your word for it , but still think government lies through their teeth as a matter of course.
That’s a given. But it’s back to the original point about food bank usage. What is it showing, if there’s no data showing to an increase in poverty or inequality over the period they’ve grown most quickly. Food is so cheap that it comprises of probably the smallest part of household income since we all stopped working on farms.
Still wonder why so many foodbanks are opening , and why Trussel Trust has majority of them. Are they in bed with Tories.
There is a common attitude to official statistics that wouldn't have been out of place in the pre-glasnost USSR. It's doubtless also possible to state that intelligence in a large part of the population hasn't fallen through the floor in the smartphone era.
It’s 14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income
They all manipulate the data they use , so it is personal interpretation of who is most economical with the truth , the Tories have serious form on that subject.
Nothing, and I repeat nothing shows spiralling poverty or a growth in malnutrition etc.
I will take your word for it , but still think government lies through their teeth as a matter of course.
That’s a given. But it’s back to the original point about food bank usage. What is it showing, if there’s no data showing to an increase in poverty or inequality over the period they’ve grown most quickly. Food is so cheap that it comprises of probably the smallest part of household income since we all stopped working on farms.
Demand for free food has no doubt always existed but been unsatisfied. As more Food Banks have been set up the latent demand has been met. This does not necessarily show that there is more poverty now than in previous decades when Food Banks did not exist - at least not under that branding.
You could equally argue that as there are no longer any Workhouses, as there were a hundred years ago, then all poverty has been conquered. It hasn't.
When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
If they only contribute the same at the higher salary as before, then the cost of the product or service they provide is increased and the country's wealth is diminished along with that of the users of the product or service.
Not really - if you assume they saved the company £1m when they earnt £40,000 and they still save the company £1m today the only difference is more is going to the employee and less to their employers shareholders.
Sure, but has the balance of the economy, between profit and wages shifted meaningfully in the last 25 years or so.
In other words, has profit as a percent of GDP increased thanks to immigration reducing the share of labour, or has it remained constant (or declined). Without that information (and also for the rest of the world), you have no idea whether the rising wages will have an impact on the overall level of jobs in the economy.
I can safely say that the average wage for a Senior Developer in my neck of the woods hasn't changed from £45,000 back in 2007 to the £45,000 I offered someone last week.
In the same time the rate I was charged out at was £500 a day back in 2007 and I now charge £800 a day so yes wages haven't changed but prices (and so company profits) have. So I suspect that proves the original point - there has been a period of excessive profits due to supply of labour...
Mr. G, since their first introduction during the boom under Blair, the number of food banks has only increased. Their numbers going up cannot be taken as evidence of anything as it's happened in boom, recession, return to growth and so on.
Comments
“The Reconquest starts on Andalusian soil and will extend to the rest of Spain,”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/03/catholicism-conservatism-far-right-vox-party-gathered-momentum/
Also horse passports for travel between France, Ireland and the UK is an important item in everyone's interests to solve.
https://www.ft.com/content/94adcefa-1dd5-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15
The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place.
Saqib Bhatti, a board member for Vote Leave, said English-language leaflets had been sent out to Muslim voters, while others in different languages were set to follow.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/94adcefa-1dd5-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15
J Bercow Esquire.
At the moment I'm stuck at 100x "I must not rest Toby when we're playing Inter and Arsenal away"
You’re better than Chelsea or West Ham, the true racists of London football.
This is what you call a hostile environment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46431656
Actually. None of them do. They all use the same statistics but try to bowl them in a way that looks bad, for whatever poverty mongering nonsense they are spouting this week.
It’s all the same stats I linked to. 60% of average earnings. If you are clever and the fools reading are wanting to hear you can talk about “400,000 plunged into poverty”. That 400,000 plunged into poverty still means less in poverty than under the last government.
It’s all the same figures, they are just manipulating them. Get back to the core data I linked to, before they’ve cherry picked the ones that give them the picture they want.
Here is a paraphrase of the actual document, not the cherry picked one. The labour government were quite good in lowering certain types of poverty, and by 2010 on many of the measures it was the lowest it had been for decades. By 2013/14 it had lowered even further to the lowest levels since we measured poverty by average household income. Since then some measures have showed a slight reduction, most have stayed the same with some a mild increase. But all still the same as or below the 2010 figures.
That’s why I call the position you talked about earlier as poverty mongering. Poverty is not getting worse, the growth in food bank usage is a phenomena but it’s not connected to poverty.
The South African truth and reconciliation inquiry helped heal a nation, so will this.
Let alone the sheer idiocy..... Sissoko, Rose, Davinson, Aurier - how would we react to oppo clubs doing something like that? Tw@
This has been a real problem for his Buckingham constituents regarding HS2, East West Rail, the Oxford Cambridge Expressway and plans to build a million houses along the Oxford Cambridge corridor - all of which impact Buckingham more than any other constituency.
Proposals have been made to the House of Commons Procedure Committee so that once elected the Speaker becomes the MPs MP and another MP is elected in a by-election for their original constituency. This proposal was turned down in 2011 but Bercow said he would ensure it was put to them again last year. Like many promises by Bercow he has not kept to the promise.
Bercow's spokesperson recently denied that he would not serve beyond next summer.
now that would have been interesting!
I am hoping for a moment of clarity from Cons MPs and Lab to act as opposition, as is their mandate. DUP? I am going to call it voting with the govt.
How absolutey bonkers is that!!??
Productivity has been stagnant in the Uk for the last decade.
It is only by improving productivity that people's incomes and the country's wealth can be increased.
I have no problem with the backstop now as we will have control of our coastal waters immediately we leave transistion and that any agreement with the EU on a FTA, Norway or Canada would require a back stop anyway
Furthermore the EU fishing fleets will need a deal and EU companies will challenge the EU in their courts if Northern Ireland has free access to the single market for any period of time.
In addition while the political declaration is an ambition it is cross referenced to the WDA thereby making it part of an international treaty and the requirement to negotiate in good faith towards the objectives of the political declaration. In addition this is subject to independent arbitration as is any international treaty
I am convinced this is a good deal and hard won. It is professional and protects our busineeses
It is the ultra brexiteers who want to crash out on WTO and those who want to turnover a democratic vote that are clinging on to crash the deal for their own self centred beliefs, while the rest of us career down the path to economic disaster
Yes. In essence we have full employment. Doesn’t mean there isn’t churn, or some people in some areas don’t have difficulty getting work. But yup. Full employment. We’ll look back I’m ten years time and say things like “did we rally have full employment?”
I can think of VAT, but that's about it. The market for non-EC certified electronics is going to be non-existent. (Just as the market for non-FCC and UL certified electronics is zero.)
Game of Thrones: could we avoid spoilers? Whilst I've caught up, so it doesn't bother me specifically, anyone behind might see something they'd prefer not to.
Hopefully with the next series being the last they don't have a stupid delay to the DVD release.
https://youtu.be/_KbvDvc-WFE?t=464
No, no and no again. The reports you linked to misinterpret for an agenda. The link I gave was the statistician report showing all the figures over a reasonable period of time. They were not cherry picked for favourable results. You can take some of that and cherry pick it. But the report is not cherry picked. The report shows that while poverty across the board as either stayed the same or ticked up mildly in the last two to three years, it is still lower than what it was in 2010, which was already considered quite a low point.
Don’t just dismiss the facts because it’s possible to pull some facts and ignore others. The data is there, warts and all, the picture is clear, on some levels a mild improvement, on others a mild deterioration and on the others they’ve stayed the same.
Nothing, and I repeat nothing shows spiralling poverty or a growth in malnutrition etc.
The burden of VAT rates (which we might change) fall on customers; the burden of VAT administration (which we won't) on business. Post-Brexit, exporters will need to VAT register in the EU.
Carlotta Vance had an avatar of May as Cersei.
https://youtu.be/rCB8DUGpYQQ?t=191
The FT article is an example of Fake News, i.e. news that he personally doesn't want to be true.
This was also done nationally eg by Priti Patel:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-ministers-misled-us-over-immigration-say-furious-curry-house-bosses-a3537356.html
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1069635401793617927
In other words, has profit as a percent of GDP increased thanks to immigration reducing the share of labour, or has it remained constant (or declined). Without that information (and also for the rest of the world), you have no idea whether the rising wages will have an impact on the overall level of jobs in the economy.
You could equally argue that as there are no longer any Workhouses, as there were a hundred years ago, then all poverty has been conquered. It hasn't.
When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
In the same time the rate I was charged out at was £500 a day back in 2007 and I now charge £800 a day so yes wages haven't changed but prices (and so company profits) have. So I suspect that proves the original point - there has been a period of excessive profits due to supply of labour...