"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
I think a double-lock makes sense for pensions in the long-term, but not a triple-one.
The latter was designed to achieve rapid increases in the state pension to bring it up to par, which has now been achieved.
If its right for pensioners, how about a double lock for state benefits generally?
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Think that applies to the East Coast, not the West.
Peterhead is in Moray which is still held by the Tories and most of the Scottish fishing fleet comes in there certainly
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
This is not a universal truth. When the current pensioners were in their 20s the average 20 year old was richer than the average pensioner.
Basically as the Baby Boomers have aged so the wealth distribution between the young and the very old has inverted.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Surely pensioners are taxed the same as anyone else, if they earn more than their tax allowance then they get taxed on it. They do not get any special tax treatment.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
The problem with that is the moral hazard. It will be even less worthwhile to save for retirement. With the demographic changes within the country, encouraging saving for retirement is nessecary.
Incidentally, a major contribution to resolving the demographic timebomb was the abolition of compulsory retirement age, by Ed Davey under the coalition. Ed may not be a media darling, but he was one of the most effective LD ministers. One reason why I voted for him.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
A Government that is delivering the manifesto it got 13.9 million votes and a majority of 80 to implement actually
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
Yes, after a lifetime of a combination of hard work and good luck I have assets. I'm happy to share with people who have been less lucky or haven't yet had the chance to accumulate them, on the understanding that they will be expected to do the same. A cursory glance at my own life and my contemporaries suggests that good and bad fortune play a huge part - the idea that the successful did it all by their intrinsic genius is false.
It used to be different - pensioner poverty was a major issue, and I remember pensioners really struggling to have both food and heating. That is now rare.
I think pensioner poverty is still perhaps significant. There was a big reduction in 1997-2005, then a plateau, then a slow increase. Perhaps that indicates that we need to look beyond the simple existence or not of the triple lock. These are Age UK numbers.
That is certainly a signicant reduction on this measure of say 40%. But there is a big chunk still there.
Is it fair to suggest you need to add "in the public sector" to that first sentence? I've had to recast my long-term pension arrangements twice now in response to major changes - the latest being the collapse in annuity rates in the 2000-2010 period and since.
I see a similar cleavage in Corona impact.
In my circles people in "essential services" - mainly public sector but also food supply chain etc have kept full salaries and perhaps overtime, whilst furloughed people are down 20-30% on income and will need 1-2 years to recover.
In the future there will be a stampede for public jobs with guaranteed employment or huge payouts if let go , plus gold plated pensions. Very few private companies have decent pensions left , future poverty will be the lot of people working for private companies, who will get little provision and have to work till they die whilst paying for gold plated public service pensions.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Making it an election issue in 2024 does make a lot of political sense for a one trick pony government (well, two tricks if you include outrageous incompetence).
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
what utter bollox. How much tax have they paid in their lives compared to average. Another greedy grasping lazy git pops up. Go and earn your own money and stop trying to leech of people who have worked for their money.
Those taxes went to pay for the benefits paid out to the previous generation. They’ve been spent: that’s how the system works. At least have the grace to be grateful that the current generation is choosing to pay for yours now.
I’m not exactly convinced that your ”I’ve got mind, so f u” attitude is going to score highly on the “make friends & influence people” stakes
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Think that applies to the East Coast, not the West.
Peterhead is in Moray which is still held by the Tories and most of the Scottish fishing fleet comes in there certainly
Moray IS the East Coast when one is talking about fishing.
But Peterhead is not in Moray anyway. It's in Aberdeenshire. Whivch makes me wonder how much you know about it.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
You are right, but by no means all pensioners are wealthy. Many still have to live off the relatively low state pension (£134.25 a week is not a lot of money), or the state pension plus a small occupational pension. Very few, if any, poorer pensioners seem to be active on PB.
So the triple lock helps the poorer pensioners keep up, as it benefits the state pension. Rather than abandon it, surely the equitable solution is to use taxation (both on income and assets, on inheritance) to raise more money from those pensioners that can afford it, while protecting those at the bottom of the heap.
Surely pensioners are taxed the same as anyone else, if they earn more than their tax allowance then they get taxed on it. They do not get any special tax treatment.
They don't pay NI, even if they're still earning extra money, as I understand it. But basically I'm in favour of increasing taxes anyway (including on myself, I hasten to add).
They will have paid NI for 50 years, that should be sufficient I would have thought , but if still working then would not be a big deal. Thanks for reminding me though , means next year my almost 500 a month NI will stop and I will be getting a huge state pension with 10% + increases on top of my humungous salary. Happy days, pity about the 30K tax though, time they stopped income tax for pensioners..
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stuff in the first place both for the domestic market and for export without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Think that applies to the East Coast, not the West.
Peterhead is in Moray which is still held by the Tories and most of the Scottish fishing fleet comes in there certainly
You show your great knowledge of Scotland yet again , NOT.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Think that applies to the East Coast, not the West.
Peterhead is in Moray which is still held by the Tories and most of the Scottish fishing fleet comes in there certainly
Moray IS the East Coast when one is talking about fishing.
But Peterhead is not in Moray anyway. It's in Aberdeenshire. Whivch makes me wonder how much you know about it.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
This is not a universal truth. When the current pensioners were in their 20s the average 20 year old was richer than the average pensioner.
Basically as the Baby Boomers have aged so the wealth distribution between the young and the very old has inverted.
I don't think your first assertion is correct. Can you prove me wrong? Btw if baby boomers are "very old" I must be a fossil as I predate them.
edit: What do you mean by "richer"? We were discussing assets, not income.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Think that applies to the East Coast, not the West.
Peterhead is in Moray which is still held by the Tories and most of the Scottish fishing fleet comes in there certainly
Moray IS the East Coast when one is talking about fishing.
But Peterhead is not in Moray anyway. It's in Aberdeenshire. Whivch makes me wonder how much you know about it.
@HYUFD doesn’t know much about any part of the country north of Watford to be honest. That is very clear.
"the biggest problem we have is that pensioners are now on average wealthier than the younger population" No shit Sherlock, after a lifetime at work the retired have assets.
On average, pensioner households in the UK have higher weekly income after direct taxation (income, council tax etc, but not VAT) than working households (see latest ONS release) - pity the working household unable to access mortgage credit & therefore forced to grind without even the carrot of being able to retire having paid off a mortgage!
(Working age household incoming was hammered in the 2008-13 recession, whereas retired people’s income was mostly either index linked pensions or index linked benefits.)
We are in a situation as a country where we have a retired people’s party who have a massive vested interest in keeping up the incomes of their voters at the expense of a working population who not only must pay taxes to counter the inflationary consequences of the older generation’s benefits but are also must pay them rent in return for the right to a roof over their heads.
You can see why certain parts of the younger generation might be a tad tetchy about this.
what utter bollox. How much tax have they paid in their lives compared to average. Another greedy grasping lazy git pops up. Go and earn your own money and stop trying to leech of people who have worked for their money.
Those taxes went to pay for the benefits paid out to the previous generation. They’ve been spent: that’s how the system works. At least have the grace to be grateful that the current generation is choosing to pay for yours now.
I’m not exactly convinced that your ”I’ve got mind, so f u” attitude is going to score highly on the “make friends & influence people” stakes
Listen pal, I have paid enough taxes to pay for me 10 times over and enough left to keep a good few greedy grasping no-marks like you comfortable. I don't want anyone's savings unlike you, I don't spend my time anguishing about someone getting a state pension after working all their lives. Unlike you I go out and work and earn my own money and am happy with that and don't waste my life being envious of people on state pension. Suggest you go out and get a job and earn your own money and stop fetishing on pensioners being rich.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Think that applies to the East Coast, not the West.
Peterhead is in Moray which is still held by the Tories and most of the Scottish fishing fleet comes in there certainly
Moray IS the East Coast when one is talking about fishing.
But Peterhead is not in Moray anyway. It's in Aberdeenshire. Whivch makes me wonder how much you know about it.
@HYUFD doesn’t know much about any part of the country north of Watford to be honest. That is very clear.
Quite. Given how twitchy Berwikshire fishermen, for instance, are about Brexit - despite handwaving that the exports will be no problem, such as by HYUFD just now - I'd look for other factors to explain the Conservative vote.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
The ones he is talking about are all from overseas and don't have votes. He is talking about 4 or 5 Tory owners of fleets.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Must admit I struggle to care about Brexit negotiations. Whatever Boris comes out with, we will have to live with it for 3 years.
And however bad it is, going to struggle to be worse than the impact of corona.
Yes, I would probably take any Brexit outcome as long as the Brexiteer voters would associate the outcome with their Brexiteer leaders and hold them accountable. Unfortunately they won't, they will blame the evil EU, remoaners, the deep state and immigrants instead.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
Yes you’ve nailed it. The Economy Stupid has completely blinded informed opinion to the fact that self identity trumps everything. When the history is written, having separate English and Scottish football teams will be seen as the worst mistake made by British unionists. One wonders whether the success of the Olympics in 2012 was what really mattered in nudging No over the line just two years later.
Unionists would have done better to have had a state of origin type football match occasionally but all sporting endeavours should otherwise have been under the Union flag. The final throw of the dice at this point is something approaching full federalism but good luck making that work with the population domination of England. Maybe if you threw in Canada, Ireland, Oz and NZ but we’re over 100 years too late for that too.
I don't think it's all, or even mostly, about football. Though it would be nice to be on the same sporting side more often. But even when we are, and the hero is Scottish, we see complete inventions like 'When Andy wins he's called British, and when loses he's called Scottish', which at least the Nats here had the good grace to admit was utterly baseless - eventually. Doesn't stop it being common currency up here.
I also don't think it's really the constitution, though it would be nice if it were neater.
True, the Scotland vs England story is arguably 2000 years old, predating either Scotland or England thanks to Hadrian’s blunt line.
But centuries later it didn’t take too long for affiliations to Mercia, Northumberland or Wessex to be replaced by England, despite the various ravages inflicted on the regions by the other heptarchy kingdoms at various times. What went wrong with Britain? What spurred 19th century Scottish nationalism? And when did it cease being a fringe interest to a mainstream one?
People can only be robbed and treated like crap for so long before they finally say enough.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
The ones he is talking about are all from overseas and don't have votes. He is talking about 4 or 5 Tory owners of fleets.
Quite.
The processing industry onshore is another factor. It's also directly affected by Brexit and - so far as I know - the inshore industry is pretty dependent on it.
Whicvh is why HYOFD's implkicit asumption that the Scottish fisherfolk all vote for Brexit - or at least support it now - sounds so wrong to me.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
Yes you’ve nailed it. The Economy Stupid has completely blinded informed opinion to the fact that self identity trumps everything. When the history is written, having separate English and Scottish football teams will be seen as the worst mistake made by British unionists. One wonders whether the success of the Olympics in 2012 was what really mattered in nudging No over the line just two years later.
Unionists would have done better to have had a state of origin type football match occasionally but all sporting endeavours should otherwise have been under the Union flag. The final throw of the dice at this point is something approaching full federalism but good luck making that work with the population domination of England. Maybe if you threw in Canada, Ireland, Oz and NZ but we’re over 100 years too late for that too.
I don't think it's all, or even mostly, about football. Though it would be nice to be on the same sporting side more often. But even when we are, and the hero is Scottish, we see complete inventions like 'When Andy wins he's called British, and when loses he's called Scottish', which at least the Nats here had the good grace to admit was utterly baseless - eventually. Doesn't stop it being common currency up here.
I also don't think it's really the constitution, though it would be nice if it were neater.
True, the Scotland vs England story is arguably 2000 years old, predating either Scotland or England thanks to Hadrian’s blunt line.
But centuries later it didn’t take too long for affiliations to Mercia, Northumberland or Wessex to be replaced by England, despite the various ravages inflicted on the regions by the other heptarchy kingdoms at various times. What went wrong with Britain? What spurred 19th century Scottish nationalism? And when did it cease being a fringe interest to a mainstream one?
People can only be robbed and treated like crap for so long before they finally say enough.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held.
The fishing port of Lossiemouth in Moray is also Tory held
Must admit I struggle to care about Brexit negotiations. Whatever Boris comes out with, we will have to live with it for 3 years.
And however bad it is, going to struggle to be worse than the impact of corona.
Yes, I would probably take any Brexit outcome as long as the Brexiteer voters would associate the outcome with their Brexiteer leaders and hold them accountable. Unfortunately they won't, they will blame the evil EU, remoaners, the deep state and immigrants instead.
I think blaming the EU may wear a bit thin actually. We will have been gone for 3+ years. Boris whining about how the other countries aren't giving us what we want may not be that compelling.
Immigrants of course can and have been blamed for time immemorial, but may be trickier when Boris has been expounding for some time about how we have border control.
So that leaves Remainers. Starmer is vulnerable here. But he appears to be aware of the danger and keen to avoid refighting a losing battle.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Is that to do with the state pension benefits, or more to do with the fact that most people were on final salary pensions? I bet cutting the state pension has a disproportionate effect on the less wealthy, leaving those that have those great pensions completely unaffected.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Is that to do with the state pension benefits, or more to do with the fact that most people were on final salary pensions? I bet cutting the state pension has a disproportionate effect on the less wealthy, leaving those that have those great pensions completely unaffected.
That's a good question, though it is median figures.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
Currently staying with my brother and his family in central Buchan. Have no idea how the natives vote but they're all lovely people.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Is that to do with the state pension benefits, or more to do with the fact that most people were on final salary pensions? I bet cutting the state pension has a disproportionate effect on the less wealthy, leaving those that have those great pensions completely unaffected.
Indeed and the government has ended most final salary pensions now anyway and switched to direct contributions
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Is that to do with the state pension benefits, or more to do with the fact that most people were on final salary pensions? I bet cutting the state pension has a disproportionate effect on the less wealthy, leaving those that have those great pensions completely unaffected.
That's a good question, though it is median figures.
The median for the non-retired and all-households coincides. Funny that. One of those categories is redundant.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Triple lock has led to about 34% increase over the last decade, vs about 20% increases in earnings and cpi inflation.
State pensions are about 12% of govt spending which is tied heavily to earnings in the long run.
If we continue the triple lock to 2030, and had the same earnings and CPI as the previous decade, and same proportion of pensioners, and earnings drive govt spending, then state pensions would become 13.4% of spending by 2030.
Taking it forward as a proportion of state spending it becomes:
It is an absurd and wholly unsustainable policy, even before you consider we are expecting a far higher proportion of pensioners and the 10%+ 2022 blip.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Could you do it with a negative income tax band for pensioners? Those with no other income get the full amount, but as you earn more there is a taper for the state pension until you get zero.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Triple lock has led to about 34% increase over the last decade, vs about 20% increases in earnings and cpi inflation.
State pensions are about 12% of govt spending which is tied heavily to earnings in the long run.
If we continue the triple lock to 2030, and had the same earnings and CPI as the previous decade, and same proportion of pensioners, and earnings drive govt spending, then state pensions would become 13.4% of spending by 2030.
Taking it forward as a proportion of state spending it becomes:
It is an absurd and wholly unsustainable policy, even before you consider we are expecting a far higher proportion of pensioners and the 10%+ 2022 blip.
Does that account for the shape of the population age distribution?
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
The ones he is talking about are all from overseas and don't have votes. He is talking about 4 or 5 Tory owners of fleets.
Quite.
The processing industry onshore is another factor. It's also directly affected by Brexit and - so far as I know - the inshore industry is pretty dependent on it.
Whicvh is why HYOFD's implkicit asumption that the Scottish fisherfolk all vote for Brexit - or at least support it now - sounds so wrong to me.
Over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Yes my state pension goes in the bank, no way I could spend it unless I overdose on cruises and holidays, even less so now.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
The ones he is talking about are all from overseas and don't have votes. He is talking about 4 or 5 Tory owners of fleets.
Quite.
The processing industry onshore is another factor. It's also directly affected by Brexit and - so far as I know - the inshore industry is pretty dependent on it.
Whicvh is why HYOFD's implkicit asumption that the Scottish fisherfolk all vote for Brexit - or at least support it now - sounds so wrong to me.
Over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
The UK would still be in the top 10 economies in the world, the G7, the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council hardly isolated and insignificant.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Triple lock has led to about 34% increase over the last decade, vs about 20% increases in earnings and cpi inflation.
State pensions are about 12% of govt spending which is tied heavily to earnings in the long run.
If we continue the triple lock to 2030, and had the same earnings and CPI as the previous decade, and same proportion of pensioners, and earnings drive govt spending, then state pensions would become 13.4% of spending by 2030.
Taking it forward as a proportion of state spending it becomes:
It is an absurd and wholly unsustainable policy, even before you consider we are expecting a far higher proportion of pensioners and the 10%+ 2022 blip.
Does that account for the shape of the population age distribution?
No, ive assumed a flat population distribution, so the real increases as a share of state spending will be even sharper. That is just the impact of the triple lock replicating the earnings and inflation data from the last decade. It doesnt take account of the 2022 boost either.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Is that to do with the state pension benefits, or more to do with the fact that most people were on final salary pensions? I bet cutting the state pension has a disproportionate effect on the less wealthy, leaving those that have those great pensions completely unaffected.
Most government pensions are quite modest. I think the average is £4000 per annum. There are some bigger than that, my own will be £40K*, but most NHS workers are on low pay, and I think average length of service is 7 years. Mrs Foxy will get £5K or so.
* though not non contributory! Contributions to Superannuation for me 19-20 were £31K.
Forty babies have been infected with coronavirus in their first month of life, although most of them have not had any symptoms, according to a registry launched in April by the Spanish Society of Neonatology (seNeo). Of these, 26 were infected by a relative at home, mainly the mother (in 16 of the cases).
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
That argument always falls over when presented with the Canada Problem.
Relative to the United States, Canada is isolated and insignificant. Does it necessarily follow that it should give in and join?
After all, they've got a great deal more in common with the Yanks than we do with Bulgaria.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
The logic would seem to be that every Tory candidate should be opposed by just one non-Tory candidate. I have a feeling that, if this were dne, the Conservatives would be annihilated. But if that is what you Conservatives would like to see, I expect the country could learn to live without a Conservative Party.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
The UK would still be in the top 10 economies in the world, the G7, the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council hardly isolated and insignificant.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
How do you know where any economy will be in 10 years time?
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
Gavin Williamson is a lucky man. In any ordinary government he would have been sacked over the exams fiasco this month, ex-Chief Whip’s book or not.
So the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh governments have all sacked his equivalent who'd all made the same decisions - along similar timelines too - to him? Or are they not ordinary either?
Gavin Williamson is a lucky man. In any ordinary government he would have been sacked over the exams fiasco this month, ex-Chief Whip’s book or not.
So the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh governments have all sacked his equivalent who'd all made the same decisions - along similar timelines too - to him? Or are they not ordinary either?
It's a fair point. No ones looked good on it, and some of them are meant to be better than johnson
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
The logic would seem to be that every Tory candidate should be opposed by just one non-Tory candidate. I have a feeling that, if this were dne, the Conservatives would be annihilated. But if that is what you Conservatives would like to see, I expect the country could learn to live without a Conservative Party.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
The problem is the Labour Party remain unelectable and are not really making much progress to alter that situation. Most voters can’t see any change since corbyn retired and those that take some interest are buying into the Starmer boring narrative, they should be 12 points clear at the moment, that they aren’t is telling.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
It's not corrupt. I happen to think a different system would be better, but the current one isnt corrupt.
Overstating that may be one reason people arent persuaded to an alternative - if people think the problem is not as bad as you say, they wont buy your solution.
Same reason its possible to have too much doom and gloom as an opposition.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Triple lock has led to about 34% increase over the last decade, vs about 20% increases in earnings and cpi inflation.
State pensions are about 12% of govt spending which is tied heavily to earnings in the long run.
If we continue the triple lock to 2030, and had the same earnings and CPI as the previous decade, and same proportion of pensioners, and earnings drive govt spending, then state pensions would become 13.4% of spending by 2030.
Taking it forward as a proportion of state spending it becomes:
It is an absurd and wholly unsustainable policy, even before you consider we are expecting a far higher proportion of pensioners and the 10%+ 2022 blip.
Yet pensioner poverty has not fallen in the period. How will you avoid driving it up again?
How do these % of budget numbers compare across different countries?
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
The ones he is talking about are all from overseas and don't have votes. He is talking about 4 or 5 Tory owners of fleets.
Quite.
The processing industry onshore is another factor. It's also directly affected by Brexit and - so far as I know - the inshore industry is pretty dependent on it.
Whicvh is why HYOFD's implkicit asumption that the Scottish fisherfolk all vote for Brexit - or at least support it now - sounds so wrong to me.
Over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections
Ah good! I thought. We're getting somewhere - but in fact when I look ...
(a) that is a sample of "Scottish skippers who work on vessels over 10 m in length". Which excludes the rest of the crews. And much of the inshore industry. And the processors. All of whom are 'fishermen' in the voting sense.
(b) are small [edit} or more probably big businessmen in a business based on expoloiting the public goods and the envorinment as much as they are allowed to - they are going to be biased towards tyhe Tories anyway, look at that massive discrepancy with Labour
(c) doesn't mean they support Brexit now in the light of what has emerged - remember the Tory MPs in 2017 were against it
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
The UK would still be in the top 10 economies in the world, the G7, the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council hardly isolated and insignificant.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
How do you know where any economy will be in 10 years time?
Forecasts from PWC etc but regardless of where our economy is better to run it as an Independent nation than have it run for us as a region of a Federal EU
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Could you do it with a negative income tax band for pensioners? Those with no other income get the full amount, but as you earn more there is a taper for the state pension until you get zero.
I can see the newspapers trying to explain that . Would be fun.
They don't even get why CGT rates are different to income tax rates!
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
The logic would seem to be that every Tory candidate should be opposed by just one non-Tory candidate. I have a feeling that, if this were dne, the Conservatives would be annihilated. But if that is what you Conservatives would like to see, I expect the country could learn to live without a Conservative Party.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
The ones he is talking about are all from overseas and don't have votes. He is talking about 4 or 5 Tory owners of fleets.
Quite.
The processing industry onshore is another factor. It's also directly affected by Brexit and - so far as I know - the inshore industry is pretty dependent on it.
Whicvh is why HYOFD's implkicit asumption that the Scottish fisherfolk all vote for Brexit - or at least support it now - sounds so wrong to me.
Over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections
Just because someone voted Conservative it doesn't mean they agree with you on everything. That should be clear simply from here.
Only 50% seems pretty low to me anyway, considering how important it is according to you.
Using your logic it should be at least in the high 70s.
Quite. It's been a useful discussion, in that I've got a much clearer idea of the industry's structure - and [edit] strengthened my strong suspicions what what is portyrayed by HYUFD is Brexiter propaganda. The [edit] remaining loose end (apart from actual documentation of votes) is that where people live isn't nbecessarily where their boats are registered - but I don't know what one can do about that [edit], especially for crew members.
I'm off now, I think for good today, after that second dip in PB.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
The logic would seem to be that every Tory candidate should be opposed by just one non-Tory candidate. I have a feeling that, if this were dne, the Conservatives would be annihilated. But if that is what you Conservatives would like to see, I expect the country could learn to live without a Conservative Party.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
Thankfully the left enjoy fighting amongst themselves too much to ever put up a unified opposition. Progressive alliance, anyone?
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Triple lock has led to about 34% increase over the last decade, vs about 20% increases in earnings and cpi inflation.
State pensions are about 12% of govt spending which is tied heavily to earnings in the long run.
If we continue the triple lock to 2030, and had the same earnings and CPI as the previous decade, and same proportion of pensioners, and earnings drive govt spending, then state pensions would become 13.4% of spending by 2030.
Taking it forward as a proportion of state spending it becomes:
It is an absurd and wholly unsustainable policy, even before you consider we are expecting a far higher proportion of pensioners and the 10%+ 2022 blip.
Yet pensioner poverty has not fallen in the period. How will you avoid driving it up again?
How do these % of budget numbers compare across different countries?
I am certainly not against addressing poverty, whether pensioner or otherwise. I am pointing out that the triple lock itself is wholly unsustainable and inevitably because of quite simple maths eventually will have to be ditched.
Given the blip that will come in 2022 it gives great political cover to do it now. Better to be ahead of that curve, than trying to justify why pensions increased by 10%+ in the 2024 election.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry. I Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
I have just posted figures showing over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Holyrood elections which you have ignored
No, you haven't. They're nothing ofd the sort.
Oh they are and prove my point absolutely, game, set and match as you have no voting intention figures to refute them since and as by 2016 it was the Tory government which had granted the EU referendum giving the chance to Leave.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
The UK would still be in the top 10 economies in the world, the G7, the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council hardly isolated and insignificant.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
How do you know where any economy will be in 10 years time?
Forecasts from PWC etc but regardless of where our economy is better to run it as an Independent nation than have it run for us as a region of a Federal EU
To most people it makes no difference if the economy is run from London, Brussels or Timbuktu they have to accept whatever the powers that be impose on them. Now if most of the economy was run regionally (Yorkshire style) then people would be far more engaged and involved.
I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
It is a majority administration elected under the standard voting system used by billions of people across the globe, an order of magnitude more people than any other voting system at all.
The party got millions more votes than any other party. Don't be a sore loser.
Still a minority administration governing (If you can call it that) in the interests of a very small group of people
364/650 is a majority. Its a majority administration by definition.
Minority of votes no majority support within the country, lucky to have been up against corbyn, lucky to be up against a party still seriously damaged by corbyn. A privileged position that should not be abused to benefit one group of people or one view point.
It got a minority of votes but that doesn't make it a minority administration. It is by definition a majority one.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
With yet again elected with minority support and millions of votes entirely irrelevant, just because other countries use a corrupt voting system to sustain corrupt political parties doesn’t make it right. But posting here changes nothing, not even opinion so it’s really a waste of electrons, just like those millions of votes.
The voting system is not corrupt. Millions of votes aren't irrelevant, every vote is counted - just because millions lose doesn't make them irrelevant.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
The logic would seem to be that every Tory candidate should be opposed by just one non-Tory candidate. I have a feeling that, if this were dne, the Conservatives would be annihilated. But if that is what you Conservatives would like to see, I expect the country could learn to live without a Conservative Party.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
The problem is the Labour Party remain unelectable and are not really making much progress to alter that situation. Most voters can’t see any change since corbyn retired and those that take some interest are buying into the Starmer boring narrative, they should be 12 points clear at the moment, that they aren’t is telling.
In crude terms, Labour was always the nice party that people voted for to improve public services and help themselves to more handouts. Labour then crashed the economy, floating voters began to worry less about hospitals and more about their wallets, and the nasty Tory party was drafted in to clean up the mess.
What ought to be happening at the moment is that the electorate should be tiring of the nasty party and thinking about bringing the nice party back in to deal with the consequences of austerity and spray about the cash to help ease the pain of Covid - but Labour's problem is that (a) the Tories have already hosed the economy down with cash, and (b) Labour is now also a nasty party, at least insofar as a large chunk of its former core vote is concerned. And thus, the post-War political pendulum is broken.
Can Starmer get it swinging again? Time will tell.
It is an absurd and wholly unsustainable policy, even before you consider we are expecting a far higher proportion of pensioners and the 10%+ 2022 blip.
Yet pensioner poverty has not fallen in the period. How will you avoid driving it up again?
That’s what the pension credit benefit is for.
The one true solution to all this is sustained real wage growth of course, which salves all ills. Sadly Covid-19 means that’s the one thing we don’t have right now. (Ignoring any effect of Brexit on real wages.)
"Biden’s deceptive political strength derives from what appears to be his greatest weakness – his age. He grew up, politically, in a time when success depended on an ability to build coalitions, across parties and ideologies, rather than focusing on a core constituency. That means he never aligns himself fully with any one political group. Just as he was not a committed Clintonian centrist, today he is not a progressive. He aims to embody the prevailing ethos"
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
I have just posted figures showing over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Holyrood elections which you have ignored
No, you haven't. They're nothing ofd the sort.
Oh they are and prove my point absolutely, game, set and match as you have no voting intention figures to refute them since.
You are the one making the assertions. You are th eone to produce the proof. Why else should anyone ever believe you again?
I'm thje one who provided some supporting evidence in the large number of fishermen in Banff and Buchan - BUT DO THEY VOTE TORY disproportionately?? Etither there or across Scotland as a whole?
Al lyou could document was a small number of small or large businessmen who ofr course vote Tory.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
The UK would still be in the top 10 economies in the world, the G7, the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council hardly isolated and insignificant.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
How do you know where any economy will be in 10 years time?
Forecasts from PWC etc but regardless of where our economy is better to run it as an Independent nation than have it run for us as a region of a Federal EU
To most people it makes no difference if the economy is run from London, Brussels or Timbuktu they have to accept whatever the powers that be impose on them. Now if most of the economy was run regionally (Yorkshire style) then people would be far more engaged and involved.
That would require most nations in the world to be broken up into regions and no EU either, also reducing economies of scale
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Cummings is not a magician, if the public buys what he sells that is on them.
I meant that Cummings won't allow a No Deal. That's why he fell out with Farage et al. My prediction is a cave in promoted as a great victory.
The political paradox is that the government needs Brexit to Be Done (partly because they promised it, partly because the status quo is a mess) and In Peril (because it holds the team together). They can't allow no deal, or emaciated deal, because the short term shock hasn't been prepared for.
So, the temptation will still be a "Not an extension honest" deal, ending in, say, 2025...
Yes, WTO terms is indeed purgatory.
No Trade Deal is a way point, not an endpoint. It would merely mean disruption for some years while a new relationship was negotiated, by this government or the next.
The only flaw in that argument being that, if one arrives in a new dispensation in which trade is disrupted for some years, the economy will reconfigure to adapt to it. Less trade with continental Europe, more with the rest of the world. It's certainly what one would expect in an area like food imports, once the UK no longer has to apply the EU's common external tariffs.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I see little reason for divergence, merely trade barriers. If anything the polling supports stronger food, agricultural and environmental protections.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
We are not going to rejoin the EU now we have left, EEA/EFTA at most, in 10 years the EU will be a Federal superstate with all members in the Euro, with its own army, an even more powerful ECJ and European President and Parliament etc. Its members will basically be regions not countries
An ideal outcome for them leaving the UK isolated offshore and insignificant.
The UK would still be in the top 10 economies in the world, the G7, the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council hardly isolated and insignificant.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
How do you know where any economy will be in 10 years time?
Forecasts from PWC etc but regardless of where our economy is better to run it as an Independent nation than have it run for us as a region of a Federal EU
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
I have just posted figures showing over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Holyrood elections which you have ignored
No, you haven't. They're nothing ofd the sort.
Oh they are and prove my point absolutely, game, set and match as you have no voting intention figures to refute them since.
You are the one making the assertions. You are th eone to produce the proof. Why else should anyone ever believe you again?
I'm thje one who provided some supporting evidence in the large number of fishermen in Banff and Buchan - BUT DO THEY VOTE TORY disproportionately?? Etither there or across Scotland as a whole?
Al lyou could document was a small number of small or large businessmen who ofr course vote Tory.
I produced the figure showing most Scottish fishermen voted Tory, most Tory voters voted Leave in 2016, you have still not shown any figures since to refute that.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Is that to do with the state pension benefits, or more to do with the fact that most people were on final salary pensions? I bet cutting the state pension has a disproportionate effect on the less wealthy, leaving those that have those great pensions completely unaffected.
Indeed and the government has ended most final salary pensions now anyway and switched to direct contributions
Not in the public sector though - another big injustice
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
I have just posted figures showing over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Holyrood elections which you have ignored
No, you haven't. They're nothing ofd the sort.
Oh they are and prove my point absolutely, game, set and match as you have no voting intention figures to refute them since.
You are the one making the assertions. You are th eone to produce the proof. Why else should anyone ever believe you again?
I'm thje one who provided some supporting evidence in the large number of fishermen in Banff and Buchan - BUT DO THEY VOTE TORY disproportionately?? Etither there or across Scotland as a whole?
Al lyou could document was a small number of small or large businessmen who ofr course vote Tory.
I produced the figure showing most Scottish fishermen voted Tory, most Tory voters voted Leave in 2016, you have still not shown any figures since to refute that.
As I said, game, set and match
Reasd my post.
Your figure is not "most Scxottish fishermen".
It is a small amd self-selected (so probably pro-Breixter biased) sample of big ship skippers.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
I have just posted figures showing over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Holyrood elections which you have ignored
No, you haven't. They're nothing ofd the sort.
Oh they are and prove my point absolutely, game, set and match as you have no voting intention figures to refute them since.
You are the one making the assertions. You are th eone to produce the proof. Why else should anyone ever believe you again?
I'm thje one who provided some supporting evidence in the large number of fishermen in Banff and Buchan - BUT DO THEY VOTE TORY disproportionately?? Etither there or across Scotland as a whole?
Al lyou could document was a small number of small or large businessmen who ofr course vote Tory.
I produced the figure showing most Scottish fishermen voted Tory, most Tory voters voted Leave in 2016, you have still not shown any figures since to refute that.
As I said, game, set and match
Reasd my post.
Your figure is not "most Scxottish fishermen".
It is a small amd self-selected (so probably pro-Breixter biased) sample of big ship skippers.
It is a research paper which quite clearly next to the data says it records the voting intention of Scottish fishermen, no more, no less.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
Is that to do with the state pension benefits, or more to do with the fact that most people were on final salary pensions? I bet cutting the state pension has a disproportionate effect on the less wealthy, leaving those that have those great pensions completely unaffected.
Indeed and the government has ended most final salary pensions now anyway and switched to direct contributions
Not in the public sector though - another big injustice
The NHS final salary scheme closed in 2015. The new scheme is career average earnings.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
That's misleading in that it uses generalised stats to skim over particular questions.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Better off pensioners pay the same tax rates as workers, why would you ask them to pay more than workers. Means testing sounds really crazy , someone works and contributes for 50 years for a miserly pension but you suggest if they have saved they get nothing but someone who has sat on their butt for 50 years and contributed zero gets a state pension, mental.
Uk govt spending on the state pension is a shade under £100bn / year. Should it increase next year by +10% due to an artefact of the triple lock formula, that’s £10bn of extra spending every year, compounded each year thereafter by at least 2.5% and assuming the pension age population stays flat (it’s increasing). So something like £60bn of extra spending in the lifetime of a Parliament. Puts HS2 into perspective, given that spending is one off and spread out over a couple of decades.
There’s zero prospect of the triple lock surviving Covid, it’s all just about the stage management.
Rishi is dead right on the principle, Boris is probably right politically to delay the timing of the announcement.
If the EU want any access at all to our waters then that's a form of cherrypicking and they will need to pay handsomely for that cherry.
If we walk away with a clean break at the end of this transition then we will have 100% of our waters and our fish and they will have nothing.
The idea that the UK is the only party that needs to compromise is nonsensical - and Parliament will back the Government up on that which is wouldn't last year.
The UK voted to be a sovereign independent country in 2016 and elected a government and a Parliament willing and able to back that up in 2019. The idea we must give up our sovereign control over state aid etc or our sovereign natural resources is silly. Once the EU accepts that we are a sovereign neighbour and not a supplicant we can get a deal - and if they don't we can get a clean exit at the end of the year and then get automatic 100% control of our laws and fish etc and they get nothing.
If I am not mistaken, we're not too keen on the fish that swim in our waters, whereas many of our neighbours are. However, we have a taste for those that swim in their waters. Not a lot, for example, of cod in our waters. AIUI, anyway! And, Malc may well know better, but I think much of the catch from West Coast of Scotland fishermen's catch is exported.
Yes OKC, most goes goes to France and Spain , they pay top dollar for langostines , scallops , lobsters , etc
Quite, which is why a lot of Scottish fishermen are very nervous about Brexit - far more than the media and Tory focus on the big east coast trawler barons portrays.
Then why did most Scottish fishermen and most Scottish fishing ports vote Tory even in 2019? They want control of their own waters
Delete "most Scottish fishermen". Unles you have documentary evidence of that.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
They can still sell it, whatever happens France and Spain are not going to ban Scottish imports, however they still need to have stiff in the first place without EU fishermen taking much of the Scottish catch.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
Banff and Buchan did.
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
And Banff and Buchan has a Tory MP and contains Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, indeed more of the Scottish fishing fleet comes into Peterhead than the rest of the Scottish fishing ports combined
Are you feeling OK? You've made no effort to answer my question - especially whether there are real data to confirm whether Scottish fishermen (other than a very few wll-publicised individuals) voted for Brexit. I'm talking about the entire industry across Scotland.
Peterhead contains the majority of the Scottish fishing fleet and is Tory held
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
I have just posted figures showing over 50% of Scottish fishermen voted Tory at the 2016 Holyrood elections which you have ignored
No, you haven't. They're nothing ofd the sort.
Oh they are and prove my point absolutely, game, set and match as you have no voting intention figures to refute them since.
You are the one making the assertions. You are th eone to produce the proof. Why else should anyone ever believe you again?
I'm thje one who provided some supporting evidence in the large number of fishermen in Banff and Buchan - BUT DO THEY VOTE TORY disproportionately?? Etither there or across Scotland as a whole?
Al lyou could document was a small number of small or large businessmen who ofr course vote Tory.
I produced the figure showing most Scottish fishermen voted Tory, most Tory voters voted Leave in 2016, you have still not shown any figures since to refute that.
As I said, game, set and match
Reasd my post.
Your figure is not "most Scxottish fishermen".
It is a small amd self-selected (so probably pro-Breixter biased) sample of big ship skippers.
Not even skippers I suspect , owners is likely to be far more accurate
Comments
Basically as the Baby Boomers have aged so the wealth distribution between the young and the very old has inverted.
Incidentally, a major contribution to resolving the demographic timebomb was the abolition of compulsory retirement age, by Ed Davey under the coalition. Ed may not be a media darling, but he was one of the most effective LD ministers. One reason why I voted for him.
And they need to sell their stuff. Which is no good if rotting in a Kent lorry park.
Once the economy has changed shape and adapted then the incentive to strike a closer partnership becomes even weaker. Moreover, the longer that the UK is separated from the EU's structures, the more the degree of divergence on important matters such as the regulation of the digital economy and genetically modified foodstuffs.
The dynamic of the situation is not that the UK will feel compelled to move closer to the EU again, and the EU certainly won't compromise its desire for control to make a rapprochement easier. It's that both parties will move further and further apart.
I’m not exactly convinced that your ”I’ve got mind, so f u” attitude is going to score highly on the “make friends & influence people” stakes
But Peterhead is not in Moray anyway. It's in Aberdeenshire. Whivch makes me wonder how much you know about it.
If the government does a bad job it can be kicked out next time, using the same voting system we used last time - and used by billions of people in democracies worldwide.
Hence Peterhead, by far the biggest fishing port in Scotland, voted Tory in 2019
But you have no evidence that Peterhead or - mor egenerally in Scotland - the fishermen specifically voted Tory.
What about the northern and western fishing ports? Not obviously Tory, are they?
Btw if baby boomers are "very old" I must be a fossil as I predate them.
edit: What do you mean by "richer"? We were discussing assets, not income.
What was said about post financial crash income.
Must admit I struggle to care about Brexit negotiations. Whatever Boris comes out with, we will have to live with it for 3 years.
And however bad it is, going to struggle to be worse than the impact of corona.
I don't want anyone's savings unlike you, I don't spend my time anguishing about someone getting a state pension after working all their lives. Unlike you I go out and work and earn my own money and am happy with that and don't waste my life being envious of people on state pension.
Suggest you go out and get a job and earn your own money and stop fetishing on pensioners being rich.
If the millions of votes attract millions more so that they win instead of losing then the politics will transform. You win by getting more votes than the opposition, not by changing the voting system.
Pensions really should be frozen and controlled. This gap here has not been paid for. Shocking.
The processing industry onshore is another factor. It's also directly affected by Brexit and - so far as I know - the inshore industry is pretty dependent on it.
Whicvh is why HYOFD's implkicit asumption that the Scottish fisherfolk all vote for Brexit - or at least support it now - sounds so wrong to me.
I expect we will be in the EEA within a decade, with a view to EU membership.
The fishing port of Lossiemouth in Moray is also Tory held
Immigrants of course can and have been blamed for time immemorial, but may be trickier when Boris has been expounding for some time about how we have border control.
So that leaves Remainers. Starmer is vulnerable here. But he appears to be aware of the danger and keen to avoid refighting a losing battle.
I found that one whilst looking for the multi decade wealth gap chart that showed how OAPs and 20somethings have swapped position over the decades
One of those categories is redundant.
That the next person jumps to "pensions should be frozen" says it all.
"Freezing pensions" can only be applied to State Pensions, and will proportionally hit people whom that is all their income - that is the group who are most likely to be in poverty - far harder.
"Hitting the poor people because the rich people have lifted the overall average" is a really silly policy.
Means testing the State Pension would be more sensible, or a different income tax rate for better off pensioners.
Interactive chat showing change in income over the decades by age.
State pensions are about 12% of govt spending which is tied heavily to earnings in the long run.
If we continue the triple lock to 2030, and had the same earnings and CPI as the previous decade, and same proportion of pensioners, and earnings drive govt spending, then state pensions would become 13.4% of spending by 2030.
Taking it forward as a proportion of state spending it becomes:
2040 15%
2050 17%
2060 19%
2070 21%
2080 23%
2090 26%
2100 29%
2150 50%
2210 98%
It is an absurd and wholly unsustainable policy, even before you consider we are expecting a far higher proportion of pensioners and the 10%+ 2022 blip.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/227578895.pdf (page 8)
Only 50% seems pretty low to me anyway, considering how important it is according to you.
Using your logic it should be at least in the high 70s.
France however might ultimately have to give up its UN Security Council seat to the EU and France, Germany and Italy give up their G7 and G20 memberships fully to the EU if that is where it is heading to be a Federal Superstate. Their choice, we chose different and to ensure we stayed an independent nation and to leave
* though not non contributory! Contributions to Superannuation for me 19-20 were £31K.
Relative to the United States, Canada is isolated and insignificant. Does it necessarily follow that it should give in and join?
After all, they've got a great deal more in common with the Yanks than we do with Bulgaria.
That would probably mean a Labour Government and a Lib Dem Opposition.
On 2017 data from the UK Gmt, Peterhead has 382 out of 4799 fishermen for the whole of Scotland - Fraserburgh actually has more and is also in Banff and Buchan, so yes, potentially important. But shor tof anecdotal evidence, can you prove that the fishermen voted Tory more than the other people in the constituency? And in Scotland more generallyt?
Petetrhead's fisherman population is not that large by Scottish standards - other ports of the same size on that measure are in SNP or LD consttiencies.
Also, only about 8% (on quick mental arithmetic) of Scottish fishermen are on Peterhead-registered boats. That is not of course the same thing as working out of Peterhead a lot, but it is a hell of a discrepancy with your assertion.
A lot of crew come from overseas anyway, especially on the big boats of the trawler barons so beloved by your party and the media.
And it's simply untrue to claim that Peterhead contains the majority of the fleet. Most boats are registered elsewhere, more than 90%. It is an important place for landings, thoiugh, so one has to add the processing industry.
Have a look at the stats here - and ask yourself why so many other coastal constituencies in Scotland aren't all Tory as well.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742793/UK_Sea_Fisheries_Statistics_2017.pdf
Overstating that may be one reason people arent persuaded to an alternative - if people think the problem is not as bad as you say, they wont buy your solution.
Same reason its possible to have too much doom and gloom as an opposition.
How do these % of budget numbers compare across different countries?
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1297106599681687552
(a) that is a sample of "Scottish skippers who work on vessels over 10 m in length". Which excludes the rest of the crews. And much of the inshore industry. And the processors. All of whom are 'fishermen' in the voting sense.
(b) are small [edit} or more probably big businessmen in a business based on expoloiting the public goods and the envorinment as much as they are allowed to - they are going to be biased towards tyhe Tories anyway, look at that massive discrepancy with Labour
(c) doesn't mean they support Brexit now in the light of what has emerged - remember the Tory MPs in 2017 were against it
They don't even get why CGT rates are different to income tax rates!
I think not
I'm off now, I think for good today, after that second dip in PB.
Given the blip that will come in 2022 it gives great political cover to do it now. Better to be ahead of that curve, than trying to justify why pensions increased by 10%+ in the 2024 election.
What ought to be happening at the moment is that the electorate should be tiring of the nasty party and thinking about bringing the nice party back in to deal with the consequences of austerity and spray about the cash to help ease the pain of Covid - but Labour's problem is that (a) the Tories have already hosed the economy down with cash, and (b) Labour is now also a nasty party, at least insofar as a large chunk of its former core vote is concerned. And thus, the post-War political pendulum is broken.
Can Starmer get it swinging again? Time will tell.
The one true solution to all this is sustained real wage growth of course, which salves all ills. Sadly Covid-19 means that’s the one thing we don’t have right now. (Ignoring any effect of Brexit on real wages.)
https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1297126401359908864?s=09
I'm thje one who provided some supporting evidence in the large number of fishermen in Banff and Buchan - BUT DO THEY VOTE TORY disproportionately?? Etither there or across Scotland as a whole?
Al lyou could document was a small number of small or large businessmen who ofr course vote Tory.
As I said, game, set and match
Your figure is not "most Scxottish fishermen".
It is a small amd self-selected (so probably pro-Breixter biased) sample of big ship skippers.
As I said, game, set and match
There’s zero prospect of the triple lock surviving Covid, it’s all just about the stage management.
Rishi is dead right on the principle, Boris is probably right politically to delay the timing of the announcement.