Thanks to those who dragged themselves away from their Christmas port and had a stab at the quiz on the previous thread.
Jack
Which famous Liberal cricketer lost to the sound of an opera aria?
C.B.Fry and Clara Butt.
Hooray!
I thought the question was going to pass unanswered.
[C.B. Fry] stood (unsuccessfully) as a Liberal candidate for parliament for the Brighton constituency in 1922. Fry's presence certainly brought some welcome glamour and excitement to the election, and his campaign was given extra colour by the appearance, at an election meeting, of Dame Clara Butt, the opera singer (and a close personal friend of the Frys). He won 22,059 votes, 4,785 fewer than the Conservative victor.
Apologies @AveryLP I missed your excellent question about C B Fry (sometime putative King of Albania)
Thanks to those who dragged themselves away from their Christmas port and had a stab at the quiz on the previous thread.
Jack
Which famous Liberal cricketer lost to the sound of an opera aria?
C.B.Fry and Clara Butt.
Hooray!
I thought the question was going to pass unanswered.
[C.B. Fry] stood (unsuccessfully) as a Liberal candidate for parliament for the Brighton constituency in 1922. Fry's presence certainly brought some welcome glamour and excitement to the election, and his campaign was given extra colour by the appearance, at an election meeting, of Dame Clara Butt, the opera singer (and a close personal friend of the Frys). He won 22,059 votes, 4,785 fewer than the Conservative victor.
Apologies @AveryLP I missed your excellent question about C B Fry (sometime putative King of Albania)
Jack
I have a good one which will almost certainly not be searchable by google (at least the equine detail set out below).
Which future MP, whose father, and three out of four antecedents from preceding generations were MPs, served throughout WWI in the Royal Field Artillery leaving for war with two horses which were named "Eton" and "Christ Church"?
Both horses and their owner survived the war (although the latter was wounded and invalided out for a period). One horse is buried near the owner's house. The other was less fortunate. Three legs now form a door stop at the entrance to his ancestral home. The fourth an ashtray in the boudoir and the coat a rug in an inner hall.
Productivity is a lagging indicator, accentuated in periods of rapid economic change, i.e. the falls into and initial climbs out of recession.
Over the last year - a period when exit from recession has achieved escape velocity - employment (whether measured by head, job or hours worked) has increased at above the rates of output. This will depress productivity in the short term.
As for your banding of years, the massive drops in productivity come at the beginning of recessions, as orders and output falls and firms hold on to employees until it is clear whether there is going to be a sustained recession or temporary blip. So comparing 2004-2013 to earlier decades won't make any sense until the effects of the deepest recession since the 1930s are offset by full recovery.
Up to, or rather down to, your usual standard Avery.
By way of comparison at the same point after previous recessions productivity was 15% higher in 1984 than 7 years earlier and 20% higher in 1995 than 7 years earlier.
You would do better to accept that the UK has 'lost' an entire decade economically speaking and needs to make the necessary adjustments re investments, living standards, pension provisions etc.
The alternative is that the UK is now fundamentally unable to increase productivity in which case our problems are only just beginning.
Whatever it is the complacency which oozes from your comments is extremely dangerous to our future wellbeing.
Thanks to those who dragged themselves away from their Christmas port and had a stab at the quiz on the previous thread.
Jack
Which famous Liberal cricketer lost to the sound of an opera aria?
C.B.Fry and Clara Butt.
Hooray!
I thought the question was going to pass unanswered.
[C.B. Fry] stood (unsuccessfully) as a Liberal candidate for parliament for the Brighton constituency in 1922. Fry's presence certainly brought some welcome glamour and excitement to the election, and his campaign was given extra colour by the appearance, at an election meeting, of Dame Clara Butt, the opera singer (and a close personal friend of the Frys). He won 22,059 votes, 4,785 fewer than the Conservative victor.
Apologies @AveryLP I missed your excellent question about C B Fry (sometime putative King of Albania)
Jack
I have a good one which will almost certainly not be searchable by google (at least the equine detail set out below).
Which future MP, whose father, and three out of four antecedents from preceding generations were MPs, served throughout WWI in the Royal Field Artillery leaving for war with two horses which were named "Eton" and "Christ Church"?
Both horses and their owner survived the war (although the latter was wounded and invalided out for a period). One is buried near the owner's house. The other was less fortunate. Three legs now form a door stop at the entrance to his ancestral home. The fourth an ashtray in the boudoir and the coat a rug in an inner hall.
A wonderfully bonkers question entirely within the remit of PB !!
I'll give it my attention tomorrow, if not solved by then, as I'm getting a few hours sleep before rising early to undertake the family airport taxi uplift .... again !!
Jesus was a refugee for the first years of his life - today's Gospel for you agnostics and atheists.
Jesus was also the world's first Marxist - today's Gospel for you right-wing Tories
No he wasn't.
Jesus didn't say it was the function of government to do through charity what loving human beings do on their own. He was a conservative because he promoted charitable giving on behalf of individuals, not government.
Jesus was a conservative because he promoted the hard work and success of the individual, not the legislative body of government.
Jesus saw giving as a ministry of the gospel, not a secular and spiritless exercise of government in order to level the economic playing field.
@NickPalmer The Syrian refugee problem is not going to be solved by Britain taking 500 or even 500,000 asylum seekers. Nor does Britain have any particular connection with them. Given how many rebels are radical Islamists, I doubt the public is ready for a new batch of Abu Qatadas.
On this I'm in sympathy with the HYSers. Better to offer financial and practical aid in situ.
What do you consider Britain's fair share of 9 million displaced persons?
Many of those who oppose Assad are Islamists of the very worst kind - see what is happening to the Christian community in the north of the country now - and the very opposite of the sort of person we want in this country. We also know that there is a real risk of terrorists coming into this country from that war and there is no practical way of determining who, amongst any refugees, will be the terrorists of today or the future. So I agree with you that aid to the refugee camps now and to the government of Jordan is a better option.
What Farage and others forget is that the first duty of any British government is to protect the people here. We owe no duty to the Syrians to provide them with a home here though we should certainly provide aid and other help to the innocent victims. We also need to remember - as previous British governments have forgotten or ignored - that my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend. We have in the post hosted too many refugees from ghastly Middle Eastern regimes who have turned out to be a threat to us as well. I don't want us to make the same mistake again.
Dear Zlatan. Your services are needed at Arsenal/Chelsea/Spurs (delete as appropriate). We'll pay you the same as you currently get, but you'll get 30% more of it.
WRONG. Typical Tory, never reads the detail. It is the EMPLOYERS who pay the 75% - not the Employee.
What's the difference? And, if you really think there is a difference, why not abolish employee's tax altogether and put it all on the employer's tab? Income tax abolished - a fantastic election winner, non?
Up to, or rather down to, your usual standard Avery.
By way of comparison at the same point after previous recessions productivity was 15% higher in 1984 than 7 years earlier and 20% higher in 1995 than 7 years earlier.
You would do better to accept that the UK has 'lost' an entire decade economically speaking and needs to make the necessary adjustments re investments, living standards, pension provisions etc.
The alternative is that the UK is now fundamentally unable to increase productivity in which case our problems are only just beginning.
Whatever it is the complacency which oozes from your comments is extremely dangerous to our future wellbeing.
Two points in addition to my previous post:
1. Economists are sceptical about the accuracy of the ONS's current productivity figures and their criticisms have been noted by the ONS to the extent that a review of data collection and modelling methods is being undertaken early in 2014. The main concerns relate to whether the ONS is accurately capturing output from the self-employed and SME sectors.
2. The recovery curve and velocity from the 2007-9 recession has not matched that seen in prior post-recessions across all economies. Apart from the fact that the 2007-9 recession was much deeper than any seen since the 1930s, recovery has been much slower, with double dips experienced in many if not all developed economies.
I am not saying that productivity metrics are unimportant. The BoE in particular will be looking to recovery in productivity as a pre-condition for raising interest rates and will, in the interim, be targetting its policies towards accelerating productivity gains.
But it is far too early to draw any final conclusions on the current productivity figures. There is very little consensus among economists, even those who believe the metrics to be accurate, as to what they indicate.
A topic for 2016, ar, when George is well settled into his second term.
Thanks to those who dragged themselves away from their Christmas port and had a stab at the quiz on the previous thread.
Jack
Which famous Liberal cricketer lost to the sound of an opera aria?
C.B.Fry and Clara Butt.
Hooray!
I thought the question was going to pass unanswered.
[C.B. Fry] stood (unsuccessfully) as a Liberal candidate for parliament for the Brighton constituency in 1922. Fry's presence certainly brought some welcome glamour and excitement to the election, and his campaign was given extra colour by the appearance, at an election meeting, of Dame Clara Butt, the opera singer (and a close personal friend of the Frys). He won 22,059 votes, 4,785 fewer than the Conservative victor.
Apologies @AveryLP I missed your excellent question about C B Fry (sometime putative King of Albania)
Jack
I have a good one which will almost certainly not be searchable by google (at least the equine detail set out below).
Which future MP, whose father, and three out of four antecedents from preceding generations were MPs, served throughout WWI in the Royal Field Artillery leaving for war with two horses which were named "Eton" and "Christ Church"?
Both horses and their owner survived the war (although the latter was wounded and invalided out for a period). One horse is buried near the owner's house. The other was less fortunate. Three legs now form a door stop at the entrance to his ancestral home. The fourth an ashtray in the boudoir and the coat a rug in an inner hall.
Dear Zlatan. Your services are needed at Arsenal/Chelsea/Spurs (delete as appropriate). We'll pay you the same as you currently get, but you'll get 30% more of it.
WRONG. Typical Tory, never reads the detail. It is the EMPLOYERS who pay the 75% - not the Employee.
What's the difference? And, if you really think there is a difference, why not abolish employee's tax altogether and put it all on the employer's tab? Income tax abolished - a fantastic election winner, non?
Because he said Zlatan has to pay it, which is incorrect. PSG will pay it. Can you spot the difference ?
Thanks to those who dragged themselves away from their Christmas port and had a stab at the quiz on the previous thread.
Jack
Which famous Liberal cricketer lost to the sound of an opera aria?
C.B.Fry and Clara Butt.
Hooray!
I thought the question was going to pass unanswered.
[C.B. Fry] stood (unsuccessfully) as a Liberal candidate for parliament for the Brighton constituency in 1922. Fry's presence certainly brought some welcome glamour and excitement to the election, and his campaign was given extra colour by the appearance, at an election meeting, of Dame Clara Butt, the opera singer (and a close personal friend of the Frys). He won 22,059 votes, 4,785 fewer than the Conservative victor.
Apologies @AveryLP I missed your excellent question about C B Fry (sometime putative King of Albania)
Jack
I have a good one which will almost certainly not be searchable by google (at least the equine detail set out below).
Which future MP, whose father, and three out of four antecedents from preceding generations were MPs, served throughout WWI in the Royal Field Artillery leaving for war with two horses which were named "Eton" and "Christ Church"?
Both horses and their owner survived the war (although the latter was wounded and invalided out for a period). One horse is buried near the owner's house. The other was less fortunate. Three legs now form a door stop at the entrance to his ancestral home. The fourth an ashtray in the boudoir and the coat a rug in an inner hall.
Is it Sir Smith Child?
Only two generations there, Geoff, but you are very close geographically.
Dear Zlatan. Your services are needed at Arsenal/Chelsea/Spurs (delete as appropriate). We'll pay you the same as you currently get, but you'll get 30% more of it.
WRONG. Typical Tory, never reads the detail. It is the EMPLOYERS who pay the 75% - not the Employee.
What's the difference? And, if you really think there is a difference, why not abolish employee's tax altogether and put it all on the employer's tab? Income tax abolished - a fantastic election winner, non?
Because he said Zlatan has to pay it, which is incorrect. PSG will pay it. Can you spot the difference ?
Ultimately, all taxes are borne by individuals. If a company is charged more tax then those who pay it will be its shareholders, employees and customers.
It's perfectly true that the employer will have to pay the new French tax but it now has a higher salary bill and will have to determine whether those paid above the admittedly high threshold for the tax are really worth it. All things being equal there are likely to be fewer such high earners in future and it is possible that the French government may collect less revenue than before. Of course, its objective may well be not to collect revenue but to deter such high salaries, in which case job done.
"You can trust us, don't trust gypsies" says head of RBS
There'd be hell to pay. Luckily as the Left are winning the cultural war of language we now know these comments are only permitted to flow in one direction.
Thanks to those who dragged themselves away from their Christmas port and had a stab at the quiz on the previous thread.
Jack
Which famous Liberal cricketer lost to the sound of an opera aria?
C.B.Fry and Clara Butt.
Hooray!
I thought the question was going to pass unanswered.
[C.B. Fry] stood (unsuccessfully) as a Liberal candidate for parliament for the Brighton constituency in 1922. Fry's presence certainly brought some welcome glamour and excitement to the election, and his campaign was given extra colour by the appearance, at an election meeting, of Dame Clara Butt, the opera singer (and a close personal friend of the Frys). He won 22,059 votes, 4,785 fewer than the Conservative victor.
Apologies @AveryLP I missed your excellent question about C B Fry (sometime putative King of Albania)
Jack
I have a good one which will almost certainly not be searchable by google (at least the equine detail set out below).
Which future MP, whose father, and three out of four antecedents from preceding generations were MPs, served throughout WWI in the Royal Field Artillery leaving for war with two horses which were named "Eton" and "Christ Church"?
Both horses and their owner survived the war (although the latter was wounded and invalided out for a period). One horse is buried near the owner's house. The other was less fortunate. Three legs now form a door stop at the entrance to his ancestral home. The fourth an ashtray in the boudoir and the coat a rug in an inner hall.
Is it Sir Smith Child?
Only two generations there, Geoff, but you are very close geographically.
Sir Smith also went to Eton and Christ Church which is why I thought I was on a winner. Hmmmm.
Dear Zlatan. Your services are needed at Arsenal/Chelsea/Spurs (delete as appropriate). We'll pay you the same as you currently get, but you'll get 30% more of it.
WRONG. Typical Tory, never reads the detail. It is the EMPLOYERS who pay the 75% - not the Employee.
What's the difference? And, if you really think there is a difference, why not abolish employee's tax altogether and put it all on the employer's tab? Income tax abolished - a fantastic election winner, non?
Because he said Zlatan has to pay it, which is incorrect. PSG will pay it. Can you spot the difference ?
Ultimately, all taxes are borne by individuals. If a company is charged more tax then those who pay it will be its shareholders, employees and customers.
It's perfectly true that the employer will have to pay the new French tax but it now has a higher salary bill and will have to determine whether those paid above the admittedly high threshold for the tax are really worth it. All things being equal there are likely to be fewer such high earners in future and it is possible that the French government may collect less revenue than before. Of course, its objective may well be not to collect revenue but to deter such high salaries, in which case job done.
"You can trust us, don't trust gypsies" says head of RBS
There'd be hell to pay. Luckily as the Left are winning the cultural war of language we now know these comments are only permitted to flow in one direction.
The irony is that many of "our" bankers come from other countries, using the same freedom of movement that Romanians and Bulgarians will use.
I have to say that I am fed up with the way that Eastern Europeans are now routinely described as something like a pestilence. They are fellow Europeans who have been - after far too long under the oppression of the Soviets - able to join or rather, rejoin, the European family. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe is one of the most hopeful and optimistic developments of my lifetime. I'm GLAD that they are now free to travel after years when they were hemmed in behind a wall and shot for having the temerity for trying to escape their prison.
Because he said Zlatan has to pay it, which is incorrect. PSG will pay it. Can you spot the difference ?
No, I can 't. Some amount of money - say €1m - leaves the employer's bank account, and another sum - say €250K - arrives in the employee's bank account, the rest being confiscated by the state. That's it, there's nothing else to know. Whether you call it the employer or the employee paying the tax is just terminology.
Dear Zlatan. Your services are needed at Arsenal/Chelsea/Spurs (delete as appropriate). We'll pay you the same as you currently get, but you'll get 30% more of it.
WRONG. Typical Tory, never reads the detail. It is the EMPLOYERS who pay the 75% - not the Employee.
What's the difference? And, if you really think there is a difference, why not abolish employee's tax altogether and put it all on the employer's tab? Income tax abolished - a fantastic election winner, non?
Because he said Zlatan has to pay it, which is incorrect. PSG will pay it. Can you spot the difference ?
Ultimately, all taxes are borne by individuals. If a company is charged more tax then those who pay it will be its shareholders, employees and customers.
It's perfectly true that the employer will have to pay the new French tax but it now has a higher salary bill and will have to determine whether those paid above the admittedly high threshold for the tax are really worth it. All things being equal there are likely to be fewer such high earners in future and it is possible that the French government may collect less revenue than before. Of course, its objective may well be not to collect revenue but to deter such high salaries, in which case job done.
You mean the Kingdom of Qatar ?
I know nothing about football - and care even less.
Because he said Zlatan has to pay it, which is incorrect. PSG will pay it. Can you spot the difference ?
No, I can 't. Some amount of money - say €1m - leaves the employer's bank account, and another sum - say €20K - arrives in the employee's bank account, the rest being confiscated by the state. That's it, there's nothing else to know. Whether you call it the employer or the employee paying the tax is just terminology.
Since both are the same in your logic, why not lump the ERS NIC on to the employees ? I can't wait to see Gideon do precisely that. You weren't a mug before.
Up to, or rather down to, your usual standard Avery.
By way of comparison at the same point after previous recessions productivity was 15% higher in 1984 than 7 years earlier and 20% higher in 1995 than 7 years earlier.
You would do better to accept that the UK has 'lost' an entire decade economically speaking and needs to make the necessary adjustments re investments, living standards, pension provisions etc.
The alternative is that the UK is now fundamentally unable to increase productivity in which case our problems are only just beginning.
Whatever it is the complacency which oozes from your comments is extremely dangerous to our future wellbeing.
Two points in addition to my previous post:
1. Economists are sceptical about the accuracy of the ONS's current productivity figures and their criticisms have been noted by the ONS to the extent that a review of data collection and modelling methods is being undertaken early in 2014. The main concerns relate to whether the ONS is accurately capturing output from the self-employed and SME sectors.
2. The recovery curve and velocity from the 2007-9 recession has not matched that seen in prior post-recessions across all economies. Apart from the fact that the 2007-9 recession was much deeper than any seen since the 1930s, recovery has been much slower, with double dips experienced in many if not all developed economies.
I am not saying that productivity metrics are unimportant. The BoE in particular will be looking to recovery in productivity as a pre-condition for raising interest rates and will, in the interim, be targetting its policies towards accelerating productivity gains.
But it is far too early to draw any final conclusions on the current productivity figures. There is very little consensus among economists, even those who believe the metrics to be accurate, as to what they indicate.
A topic for 2016, ar, when George is well settled into his second term.
The ignorant complacency you Cameroons wallowed in about the economy before the recession is only exceeded by the arrogant complacency about the economy you wallow in now.
There really is no difference between you and the Brownites - all you care about is to get house prices rising and people spending in the shops.
Anything else - productivity, trade balances, household debt, industrial output, economic mobility, investment levels - is disregarded as nothing to be concerned about.
Although I am somewhat amused by your references to the 2007-9 recession - the recession George didn't notice as he was too busy yachting with oligarchs.
"You can trust us, don't trust gypsies" says head of RBS
There'd be hell to pay. Luckily as the Left are winning the cultural war of language we now know these comments are only permitted to flow in one direction.
The irony is that many of "our" bankers come from other countries, using the same freedom of movement that Romanians and Bulgarians will use.
I have to say that I am fed up with the way that Eastern Europeans are now routinely described as something like a pestilence. They are fellow Europeans who have been - after far too long under the oppression of the Soviets - able to join or rather, rejoin, the European family. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe is one of the most hopeful and optimistic developments of my lifetime. I'm GLAD that they are now free to travel after years when they were hemmed in behind a wall and shot for having the temerity for trying to escape their prison.
As someone who spends a good few months a year in Prague where we have significant business interests I wholeheartedly agree with all of that. The problem is that all countries have a troublesome unpleasant underclass. And it's not our undesirables heading their way but the other way around.
Much as I agree with you that the situation is not as black as painted, it's also not as white as the cheerleaders of unfettered immigration will have you believe either. It is, as with many thinks in life ... a sort of burned ochre.
Since both are the same in your logic, why not lump the ERS NIC on to the employees ?
Yes, I've argued that many times. Or rather, I've argued for the abolition of NI, which is just a con much beloved of Chancellors (especially Gordon Brown) who want to deceive voters as to what the actual rate of income tax is. It is absolutely barmy that ordinary earned income is taxed at a punitive rate, once you include NI, compared with other forms of income such as pensions, dividends, interest payments, and income which can be diverted through the service companies used by the BBC and many other organisations. The really curious feature of the politics is: why are the Left not up in arms about this?
Of course, the politics of putting this right are not straightforward, which is presumably why Mr Osborne hasn't as yet corrected this particular piece of inherited insanity.
Because he said Zlatan has to pay it, which is incorrect. PSG will pay it. Can you spot the difference ?
No, I can 't. Some amount of money - say €1m - leaves the employer's bank account, and another sum - say €250K - arrives in the employee's bank account, the rest being confiscated by the state. That's it, there's nothing else to know. Whether you call it the employer or the employee paying the tax is just terminology.
Have you actually read the French Constitutional Court judgement or are you arguing for the sake of arguing as you usually do ?
The amount relevant to the 75% tax will not be deducted from the employees pay AT ALL.
The calculated equivalent amount will have to paid by the Employer just like the Employer pays the ERS NIC in the UK [ which also is not deducted or included in the employee's salary ].
Correct. But then the name, Dudley Ryder, would include all five in the line of MPs!
He would have been Viscount Sandon during WWI and subsequently as MP for Shrewsbury in the 1920s.
His 'ancestral home' is Sandon Hall, not far from Stone in Staffordshire, where the Second Child baronet was MP, hence the geopgraphical connection.
Viscount Sandon would not have lived at Sandon though until he inherited the Harrowby earldom in 1956. However, the pet cemetery and the parts of the 'warhorses' converted by the taxidermist are (to the best of my knowledge) still and always have been retained at Sandon Hall.
1) Farage should remember back to when Sangatte was all over the news and those tens of thousands of young male Bosnian and Kosovan etc refugees (before they were all given work permits instead).
As there was no place for them to live first of all they were bundled in decrepit tower blocks in London for a bit and then dumped on the south coast towns.
Now obviously taking an area with a young male to young female ratio from 1:1 and increasing it to 2:1 or 3:1 within the space of a couple of years doesn't have a lot of negative consequences for the people living there or the BBC would have reported it and the political class wouldn't have been able to keep repeating the same thing 100s and 100s of times but i bet myself a choccy biscuit a lot of people in those southern coastal towns (and anywhere else the same thing has happened) think the BBC version of reality is a total lie.
2) When members of the media or political class say "we" should provide a safe refuge they actually mean "you" should provide it because 99% of those refugees won't be living where the media and political class live.
3) If he wants to make a point about exceptions to immigration control then talk about the sorts of people who are likely to be net contributors, which makes the reverse point at the same time, or talk about ex-military run afoul of some rule or other as generally people see that different.
4) If you have 1/2 million immigrants a year over ten years followed by 400,000 in the 11th then to the people outside the insulated upper middle class bubble that the BBC and political class live in that isn't a drop of 100,000 it's an increase from 5 million to 5.4 million.
Since both are the same in your logic, why not lump the ERS NIC on to the employees ?
Yes, I've argued that many times. Or rather, I've argued for the abolition of NI, which is just a con much beloved of Chancellors (especially Gordon Brown) who want to deceive voters as to what the actual rate of income tax is. It is absolutely barmy that ordinary earned income is taxed at a punitive rate, once you include NI, compared with other forms of income such as pensions, dividends, interest payments, and income which can be diverted through the service companies used by the BBC and many other organisations.
Of course, the politics of putting this right are not straightforward, which is presumably why Mr Osborne hasn't as yet corrected this particular piece of inherited insanity.
Was it not Nigel Lawson who abolished the Upper Limit of the Employers NIC altogether ? UL was then around £30k. Did he change his name to Gordon Brown later ?
Correct. But then the name, Dudley Ryder, would include all five in the line of MPs!
He would have been Viscount Sandon during WWI and subsequently as MP for Shrewsbury in the 1920s.
His 'ancestral home' is Sandon Hall, not far from Stone in Staffordshire, where the Second Child baronet was MP, hence the geopgraphical connection.
Viscount Sandon would not have lived at Sandon though until he inherited the Harrowby earldom in 1956. The pet cemetery and the parts of the Warhorse converted by the taxidermist are (to the best of my knowledge) still at Sandon Hall.
Not all five. William Henry Smith MP was the maternal grandfather, who after a poor performance as First Lord of the Admiralty was the model for the character Sir Joseph Porter in H.M.S. Pinafore. Notable for founding Baconism; the theory that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays.
His father in turn was also a William Henry Smith - who founded WH Smith's.
Have you actually read the French Constitutional Court judgement or are you arguing for the sake of arguing as you usually do ?
The amount relevant to the 75% tax will not be deducted at all from the employees pay AT ALL.
The calculated equivalent amount will have to paid by the Employer just like the Employer pays the ERS NIC in the UK [ which also is not deducted or included in the employyes' salary ].
The employer pays a sum of money. Some of that sum goes to the employee. The rest is tax. That is all, that is all you need to know. Saying that the tax is not being deducted from the employee's pay is, how shall I put it, bizarre.
Correct. But then the name, Dudley Ryder, would include all five in the line of MPs!
He would have been Viscount Sandon during WWI and subsequently as MP for Shrewsbury in the 1920s.
His 'ancestral home' is Sandon Hall, not far from Stone in Staffordshire, where the Second Child baronet was MP, hence the geopgraphical connection.
Viscount Sandon would not have lived at Sandon though until he inherited the Harrowby earldom in 1956. The pet cemetery and the parts of the Warhorse converted by the taxidermist are (to the best of my knowledge) still at Sandon Hall.
Not all five. William Henry Smith MP was the maternal grandfather, who after a poor performance as First Lord of the Admiralty was the model for the character Sir Joseph Porter in H.M.S. Pinafore. Notable for founding Baconism; the theory that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays.
His father in turn was also a William Henry Smith - who founded WH Smith's.
Fascinating what a little digging turns up.
The Ryders are a wonderfully eccentric family, Geoff and new blood introduced, say from the Butes, the Money-Coutts or the Smiths have done little to normalise the line.
I believe the 6th Earl's last contribution to the Houses of Parliament was as recorded in Hansard:
FALKLAND ISLANDS GARRISON: MULE TRANSPORT
HL Deb 24 January 1983 vol 438 cc120-1WA 121WA
The Earl of Harrowby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek the advice of the Army Veterinary Corps as to whether it would be advisable to secure a number of mules for the Falkland Islands in view of their outstanding reputation as a means of transport in country very similar to that of those islands.
§Lord Glenarthur The Ministry of Defence is considering whether mules might profitably be employed by the Falkland Islands garrison.
A clear example of how the political world would be much better off without 'professional' politicians. Serving from day one of WWI to its conclusion would have been as much a life experience outside Parliament as anyone could wish for.
Have you actually read the French Constitutional Court judgement or are you arguing for the sake of arguing as you usually do ?
The amount relevant to the 75% tax will not be deducted at all from the employees pay AT ALL.
The calculated equivalent amount will have to paid by the Employer just like the Employer pays the ERS NIC in the UK [ which also is not deducted or included in the employyes' salary ].
The employer pays a sum of money. Some of that sum goes to the employee. The rest is tax. That is all, that is all you need to know. Saying that the tax is not being deducted from the employee's pay is, how shall I put it, bizarre.
Only three figures matter and are real. The amount which I pay out in wages each month to all of my staff, the amount that actually lands in their bank accounts and the percentage theft-by-government in between those two points.
And all we get in return for all that money is a vote. Terrific.
@NickPalmer The Syrian refugee problem is not going to be solved by Britain taking 500 or even 500,000 asylum seekers. Nor does Britain have any particular connection with them. Given how many rebels are radical Islamists, I doubt the public is ready for a new batch of Abu Qatadas.
On this I'm in sympathy with the HYSers. Better to offer financial and practical aid in situ.
What do you consider Britain's fair share of 9 million displaced persons?
Well, I don't think we should be supporting either side, as you know - I was an early anti- Syria interventionist before my party came to the same view (and I was against the Libyan attack too - I'm a born-again non-interventionist). But there's a middle ground between taking 9 million people including loads of armed Islamists and doing nothing whatever: the number who are actually seeking to come and are in immediate danger is unlikely to be in the millions. Let's make a start with a few thousand, focusing on the elderly and most vulnerable, together with a score of other countries, and see how we get on.
That said, I agree that the main effort should overwhelmingly be practical aid on the spot.
On topic: I went for 5-6. I expect to see sentiment moving towards both parties of the government, and away from Labour, as the economy improves further, the election becomes more in view, and Labour supporters begin to wake up to the fact that Balls has no intention whatsoever of spending more than Osborne plans to do. Whether this shift will be enough to avoid a Miliband-led government remains to be seen.
Incidentally, anyone who followed my advice in 2011/12 and bet on sentiment shifting towards Labour (despite the then-widespread panic in Labour circles about Ed Miliband) should be in a good betting position, or will already have taken profits.
On topic: I went for 5-6. I expect to see sentiment moving towards both parties of the government, and away from Labour, as the economy improves further, the election becomes more in view, and Labour supporters begin to wake up to the fact that Balls has no intention whatsoever of spending more than Osborne plans to do. Whether this shift will be enough to avoid a Miliband-led government remains to be seen.
Incidentally, anyone who followed my advice in 2011/12 and bet on sentiment shifting towards Labour (despite the then-widespread panic in Labour circles about Ed Miliband) should be in a good betting position, or will already have taken profits.
Your best Labour related tip that I've seen was the Ed Balls next Chancellor at 7-2. Had £50 at that price. The man does worry me a bit though.
Your individual constituency bets on the Blue side were v nice too.
Your best Labour related tip that I've seen was the Ed Balls next Chancellor at 7-2. Had £50 at that price. The man does worry me a bit though.
He worries me much less than Ed Miliband does. Balls is reassuringly dishonest. I have a horrible feeling that Ed Miliband actually believes the utter tosh he speaks.
Your best Labour related tip that I've seen was the Ed Balls next Chancellor at 7-2. Had £50 at that price. The man does worry me a bit though.
He worries me much less than Ed Miliband does. Balls is reassuringly dishonest. I have a horrible feeling that Ed Miliband actually believes the utter tosh he speaks.
Some good news Re Mr Balls from a betting perspective:
Interesting article, although I never really believed the LibDems could dictate who would be Chancellor (just as they could not have insisted on someone other than Osborne). Basically the deal in coalitions is that you divvie up the posts and each side puts whoever they want into those posts. Only in the most extreme cases would the personalities be a sticking point, and I can't see Balls being such a case; if anything, he is economically closer to the Orange Bookers than most Labour MPs are.
1. Economists are sceptical about the accuracy of the ONS's current productivity figures and their criticisms have been noted by the ONS to the extent that a review of data collection and modelling methods is being undertaken early in 2014. The main concerns relate to whether the ONS is accurately capturing output from the self-employed and SME sectors.
2. The recovery curve and velocity from the 2007-9 recession has not matched that seen in prior post-recessions across all economies. Apart from the fact that the 2007-9 recession was much deeper than any seen since the 1930s, recovery has been much slower, with double dips experienced in many if not all developed economies.
I am not saying that productivity metrics are unimportant. The BoE in particular will be looking to recovery in productivity as a pre-condition for raising interest rates and will, in the interim, be targetting its policies towards accelerating productivity gains.
But it is far too early to draw any final conclusions on the current productivity figures. There is very little consensus among economists, even those who believe the metrics to be accurate, as to what they indicate.
A topic for 2016, ar, when George is well settled into his second term.
The ignorant complacency you Cameroons wallowed in about the economy before the recession is only exceeded by the arrogant complacency about the economy you wallow in now.
There really is no difference between you and the Brownites - all you care about is to get house prices rising and people spending in the shops.
Anything else - productivity, trade balances, household debt, industrial output, economic mobility, investment levels - is disregarded as nothing to be concerned about.
Although I am somewhat amused by your references to the 2007-9 recession - the recession George didn't notice as he was too busy yachting with oligarchs.
Too late in the day to fisk your response in detail, ar, so I'll content myself with a single sniping shot at one statistic.
You claim that household debt is being "disregarded as nothing to be concerned about".
On the contrary, the latest BoE Inflation Report reveals that household debt has fallen to 140% of household income in the fourth quarter of 2012 from a peak of almost 170% in 2008.
Perhaps George learnt how to keep the UK economy afloat when taking advice from oligarchs on mediterranean yachts?
The Have Your Say public doesn't have much charity for Syrian asylum seekers.
The HYS "public" is as representative of the public as, say, ConHome is of the Conservative Party. To be fair, Farage is doing a good job of separating his criticism of immigration from any kind of general anti-foreigner stuff. He's quite right that we should do our share in helping people in obvious immediate danger, and if the HYS public don't like it they can emigrate to somewhere less civilised. Polls are consistently clear that most people don't mind taking a fair share of genuine refugees at extreme risk.
Jesus was a refugee for the first years of his life - today's Gospel for you agnostics and atheists.
However, we need to allow refugees to work and support themselves in this country rather than adopt the policies that we did with e.g. Somali refugees which still see them languishing at the bottom of the pile - and worse - becoming radicalised.
The refugees will mainly be from the Christian minority in Syria, so should integrate fairly easily with help of their fellow Christians.
Seeing as that buffoon Hague encouraged the attempted overthrow of the legitimate government of Syria, it's the least the UK can do.
Your best Labour related tip that I've seen was the Ed Balls next Chancellor at 7-2. Had £50 at that price. The man does worry me a bit though.
He worries me much less than Ed Miliband does. Balls is reassuringly dishonest. I have a horrible feeling that Ed Miliband actually believes the utter tosh he speaks.
A similar thing might be said about Cameron and Osborne.
The again a similar thing might be said about you and Avery.
It is amusing that the more obvious it becomes that the climate catastrophists are losing the argument over the science of AGW, the more shriekingly strident they become in their declarations that the science proves their claims.
Of course it does not but then people like Huhne have never really been interested in what the science has to say,. only in how they can misrepresent it.
It is amusing that the more obvious it becomes that the climate catastrophists are losing the argument over the science of AGW, the more shriekingly strident they become in their declarations that the science proves their claims.
Of course it does not but then people like Huhne have never really been interested in what the science has to say,. only in how they can misrepresent it.
They have been interested in how to twist and distort in the pursuit of money and power.
Not exactly original but in this case it's been astonishingly successful.
Oh come on, seriously? In the first sentence of that wiki page we have "a form of" and "many believe". It's obvious by the end of line 1 that it's not a mainstream interpretation. Bunch of nutters.
Too late in the day to fisk your response in detail, ar, so I'll content myself with a single sniping shot at one statistic.
You claim that household debt is being "disregarded as nothing to be concerned about".
On the contrary, the latest BoE Inflation Report reveals that household debt has fallen to 140% of household income in the fourth quarter of 2012 from a peak of almost 170% in 2008.
Perhaps George learnt how to keep the UK economy afloat when taking advice from oligarchs on mediterranean yachts?
As you seem to have the household debt percentages handy perhaps you could produce them from 2000 or 1997 or 1995 onwards.
I suspect that in those years it was significantly lower than 140% of household income you appear to be proud of.
I'll also point out that George has been basing his economic plans on household debt starting to rise again from his 2010 budget onwards.
That he has up to now failed in this aim is something to be relieved about but that doesn't mean he deserves anything but condemnation for attempting otherwise.
" The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year, in the belief that families and individuals will respond to straitened times by extra borrowing. Average household debt based on the OBR figures is forecast to rise to £77,309 by 2015, rather than the £66,291 under previous projections.
Economists say the figures show that George Osborne's drive to slash the public deficit and his predictions on growth are based on assumptions that debt will switch from the government's books to private households – undermining his claims to be a debt-slashing chancellor.
At last year's budget the official forecast from Osborne was that household debt – which includes mortgages and credit card debt – would be £1,823bn. But in a recent adjustment not highlighted in last month's budget, the OBR has raised the figure to £2,126bn. "
@NickPalmer The Syrian refugee problem is not going to be solved by Britain taking 500 or even 500,000 asylum seekers. Nor does Britain have any particular connection with them. Given how many rebels are radical Islamists, I doubt the public is ready for a new batch of Abu Qatadas.
On this I'm in sympathy with the HYSers. Better to offer financial and practical aid in situ.
What do you consider Britain's fair share of 9 million displaced persons?
Well, I don't think we should be supporting either side, as you know - I was an early anti- Syria interventionist before my party came to the same view (and I was against the Libyan attack too - I'm a born-again non-interventionist). But there's a middle ground between taking 9 million people including loads of armed Islamists and doing nothing whatever: the number who are actually seeking to come and are in immediate danger is unlikely to be in the millions. Let's make a start with a few thousand, focusing on the elderly and most vulnerable, together with a score of other countries, and see how we get on.
That said, I agree that the main effort should overwhelmingly be practical aid on the spot.
I think Farage's point is entirely reasonable on this and consistent. Indeed if we had fewer economic migrants coming from countries which are relatively secure (even if living standards are lower) then we would be in a much better position to take more refugees who are in real danger and need our support and help.
There is clearly a limit to how many refugees we can take but the sort of action Farage proposes would make a small but significant difference and might also encourage other EU countries to be more generous in the help they give, both in terms of taking in refugees and helping to support the displaced in the camps along Syria's borders. It is still shocking (although a matter of pride I would contend) that the UK has contributed more money to helping these refugees than all the other EU countries put together.
Oh come on, seriously? In the first sentence of that wiki page we have "a form of" and "many believe". It's obvious by the end of line 1 that it's not a mainstream interpretation. Bunch of nutters.
Search your feelings, Geoff. You will know it to be true!
Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.
It would be stupid. But, no more stupid than those Conservatives who long for the break up of their country for temporary partisan advantage.
Could you imagine US Democrats wanting the South to secede, or Republicans wanting the North East to declare independence?
Actually, with the racial divide in America getting ever more stark and unignorable, I don't think such speculations are quite as fanciful as you say.
White America voted 59-39 for Romney - a huge, huge margin. Whites didn't want Obama, they didn't want Obamacare, they didn't want a Democrat president.
Yet that's what they got: Obama won thanks to non whites.
If Democrats continue to win presidential elections thanks to minority votes (quite conceivable) and white Americans NEVER get the president they vote for, is it impossible that America would begin to break down as a political unity?
This racial/political divide seems fundamentally unstable to me.
There's a lot of regional variation in that racial divide. What we're really talking about is white people in the old confederacy vs the rest, but they've already fought a war over that one.
I have a question which I have been wondering about for a while, but first the preliminary thought:
When I was 10/11, in 1979, the outside world gradually became aware of the genocidal catastrophe that had been happening in Cambodia, as a trickle of refugees turned into a flood of information as the Vietnamese invaded and the Khmer Rouge régime collapsed. The annual Blue Peter Appeal in the autumn/winter of 1979/80 raised £4m from a bring-and-buy sale using the Oxfam shops. It was the most amazing moment of my childhood of TV-watching when the original appeal target of £100,000 was reached within two days of the appeal being launched.
My question (for anybody aged about 55 or more, and perhaps for SeanT due to his specialist knowledge) is: How much of what was happening in Cambodia was known to the outside world before the collapse of the Khmer Rouge government, i.e. in the period of about 1975 to 1978? What was there in terms of rumours, wild stories, or hard information?
The reason I ask is because I am beginning to wonder how much parallel there might be with the current situation in North Korea vis-a-vis the labour camps and general cruelty, particularly now that a juvenile mad tyrant (Kim Jong-un) is on the loose and seems to be getting the upper hand over the military leaders. I wonder if the situation in some parts of North Korea might be much worse that we think. I am of the opinion that the collapse of the DPRK, when it happens, will be very sudden and very quick, and that it might happen at any time within the next 20 years or so. It might not happen for ages yet, but equally it could happen next year or next month or in 5 years' time.
I have a question which I have been wondering about for a while ... I am of the opinion that the collapse of the DPRK, when it happens, will be very sudden and very quick, and that it might happen at any time within the next 20 years or so. It might not happen for ages yet, but equally it could happen next year or next month or in 5 years' time.
A very fair question.
I think it is quite a well established principle that despotic regimes collapse with dramatic suddenness (hence the word "collapse"). With hindsight it becomes clear that a lot of the underlying supports had become rotten, but this was well concealed.
You only have to think about Romania or East Germany or the Velvet Revolution (or more recently the Arab Spring - even if you don't like the replacement regimes - to appreciate the weakness of those previously in power).
Fundamentally - although Assad is doing his best to prove the rule wrong - governments can only remain in power with the consent of the population (even if that consent is obtained through force). A regime simply doesn't have the numbers to maintain power if the population rises against them.
I have a question which I have been wondering about for a while ... I am of the opinion that the collapse of the DPRK, when it happens, will be very sudden and very quick, and that it might happen at any time within the next 20 years or so. It might not happen for ages yet, but equally it could happen next year or next month or in 5 years' time.
A very fair question.
I think it is quite a well established principle that despotic regimes collapse with dramatic suddenness (hence the word "collapse"). With hindsight it becomes clear that a lot of the underlying supports had become rotten, but this was well concealed.
You only have to think about Romania or East Germany or the Velvet Revolution (or more recently the Arab Spring - even if you don't like the replacement regimes - to appreciate the weakness of those previously in power).
Fundamentally - although Assad is doing his best to prove the rule wrong - governments can only remain in power with the consent of the population (even if that consent is obtained through force). A regime simply doesn't have the numbers to maintain power if the population rises against them.
I suspect that the collapse of the DPRK will have more profound implications on the world stage than all of the others mentioned here.
The collapse of Eastern Europe worried Russian hawks in that it theoretically moved NATO tanks a few miles nearer to Moscow. The fall of the DPRK will almost inevitably mean reunification and a massive bill which South Korea and the United States would struggle to pick up. It would make the West/East German transfer of capital investment look like loose change. And western tanks will in a more worrying sense be moving closer to Peking and indeed to the Chinese border.
Incidentally, one of my daily web-reads is the DPRK news agency. If the background wasn't so dark it'd be a comedy site "The Great Leader Visits A Fish Farm" etc etc http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
I have a question which I have been wondering about for a while ... I am of the opinion that the collapse of the DPRK, when it happens, will be very sudden and very quick, and that it might happen at any time within the next 20 years or so. It might not happen for ages yet, but equally it could happen next year or next month or in 5 years' time.
A very fair question.
I think it is quite a well established principle that despotic regimes collapse with dramatic suddenness (hence the word "collapse"). With hindsight it becomes clear that a lot of the underlying supports had become rotten, but this was well concealed.
You only have to think about Romania or East Germany or the Velvet Revolution (or more recently the Arab Spring - even if you don't like the replacement regimes - to appreciate the weakness of those previously in power).
Fundamentally - although Assad is doing his best to prove the rule wrong - governments can only remain in power with the consent of the population (even if that consent is obtained through force). A regime simply doesn't have the numbers to maintain power if the population rises against them.
I went out for a little stroll the other day (all I can blooming well do at the moment, annoyingly) and it suddenly struck me that the 'Arab Spring' is sadly turning out pretty much like the 1848 revolutions around Europe.
The people in one country (France / Tunisia) suddenly overthrow a largely unloved and corrupt government).
Without warning, the insurrection spreads to neighbouring countries (Italy, Germany, Hasburg, Germany / Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Syria) amidst ongoing protests.
In both, many thousands of people lost their lives, and within a couple of years governments *worse* than the original regimes were back in power in many of the countries.
The similarities can probably be pushed too far, but it does not bode well in my mind.
I went out for a little stroll the other day (all I can blooming well do at the moment, annoyingly) and it suddenly struck me that the 'Arab Spring' is sadly turning out pretty much like the 1848 revolutions around Europe.
The people in one country (France / Tunisia) suddenly overthrow a largely unloved and corrupt government).
Without warning, the insurrection spreads to neighbouring countries (Italy, Germany, Hasburg, Germany / Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Syria) amidst ongoing protests.
In both, many thousands of people lost their lives, and within a couple of years governments *worse* than the original regimes were back in power in many of the countries.
The similarities can probably be pushed too far, but it does not bode well in my mind.
One does not know where to begin. History is so easily re-written these days your analysis may well be "correct"....
I suspect that the collapse of the DPRK will have more profound implications on the world stage than all of the others mentioned here.
The collapse of Eastern Europe worried Russian hawks in that it theoretically moved NATO tanks a few miles nearer to Moscow. The fall of the DPRK will almost inevitably mean reunification and a massive bill which South Korea and the United States would struggle to pick up. ...
And China. Financially, it will have to be a joint rescue effort between South Korea and China. The decisive element in the timing might be when/if China loses patience and decides to pull the plug in terms of aid/subsidy. If Kim Jong-un starts playing silly games with nuclear weapons, China and the USA may come to some sort of behind-the-scenes agreement on when and how to take his toys off him and pull the plug.
1. Economists are sceptical about the accuracy of the ONS's current productivity figures and their criticisms have been noted by the ONS to the extent that a review of data collection and modelling methods is being undertaken early in 2014. The main concerns relate to whether the ONS is accurately capturing output from the self-employed and SME sectors.
2. The recovery curve and velocity from the 2007-9 recession has not matched that seen in prior post-recessions across all economies. Apart from the fact that the 2007-9 recession was much deeper than any seen since the 1930s, recovery has been much slower, with double dips experienced in many if not all developed economies.
I am not saying that productivity metrics are unimportant. The BoE in particular will be looking to recovery in productivity as a pre-condition for raising interest rates and will, in the interim, be targetting its policies towards accelerating productivity gains.
But it is far too early to draw any final conclusions on the current productivity figures. There is very little consensus among economists, even those who believe the metrics to be accurate, as to what they indicate.
A topic for 2016, ar, when George is well settled into his second term.
The ignorant complacency you Cameroons wallowed in about the economy before the recession is only exceeded by the arrogant complacency about the economy you wallow in now.
There really is no difference between you and the Brownites - all you care about is to get house prices rising and people spending in the shops.
Anything else - productivity, trade balances, household debt, industrial output, economic mobility, investment levels - is disregarded as nothing to be concerned about.
Although I am somewhat amused by your references to the 2007-9 recession - the recession George didn't notice as he was too busy yachting with oligarchs.
Too late in the day to fisk your response in detail, ar, so I'll content myself with a single sniping shot at one statistic.
You claim that household debt is being "disregarded as nothing to be concerned about".
On the contrary, the latest BoE Inflation Report reveals that household debt has fallen to 140% of household income in the fourth quarter of 2012 from a peak of almost 170% in 2008.
Perhaps George learnt how to keep the UK economy afloat when taking advice from oligarchs on mediterranean yachts?
Er! I was under the impression that Gideon/George was trying to tap the oligarch for funds for the Conservative party in a way that needn't be reported to the authorities. I also thought, from the reports, that he was either well rehearsed or more likely, exceedingly well practiced in doing so.
Of course, since I obviously wasn't there, I can not possibly comment.
But anyway, my actual question was about Cambodia, not the DPRK..
Been trying to remember, JL I was around 40 at the time. IIRC initially the arrival of Pol Pot was welcomed in the West as some sort of "bulwark against communism!" since it seemed that he wasn't likely to be aligned with anyone else. It also seemed to provide a stable government in a country which had been destabilised as part of the general war going on between various factions and interventionists in Indo-China. There's still, I think, some bitterness that Britain participated in training KR troops. It took a little while for reports to a) come out and b) be believed, although I think people could, albeit with some difficulty, cross into Thailand. The border's not always clearly defined.
Comments
I have a good one which will almost certainly not be searchable by google (at least the equine detail set out below).
Which future MP, whose father, and three out of four antecedents from preceding generations were MPs, served throughout WWI in the Royal Field Artillery leaving for war with two horses which were named "Eton" and "Christ Church"?
Both horses and their owner survived the war (although the latter was wounded and invalided out for a period). One horse is buried near the owner's house. The other was less fortunate. Three legs now form a door stop at the entrance to his ancestral home. The fourth an ashtray in the boudoir and the coat a rug in an inner hall.
By way of comparison at the same point after previous recessions productivity was 15% higher in 1984 than 7 years earlier and 20% higher in 1995 than 7 years earlier.
You would do better to accept that the UK has 'lost' an entire decade economically speaking and needs to make the necessary adjustments re investments, living standards, pension provisions etc.
The alternative is that the UK is now fundamentally unable to increase productivity in which case our problems are only just beginning.
Whatever it is the complacency which oozes from your comments is extremely dangerous to our future wellbeing.
I'll give it my attention tomorrow, if not solved by then, as I'm getting a few hours sleep before rising early to undertake the family airport taxi uplift .... again !!
Nite all
NEW: Sir Jeremy Heywood has decided Chilcot Inquiry can publish a large number of docs on Blair/Brown/Bush. See tomorrow's Mail and Indy
and
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound 3m
Whitehall sources say deal 'close' on publication of secret papers on Iraq War, allowing Chilcot Inquiry to conclude in next few months
Jesus didn't say it was the function of government to do through charity what loving human beings do on their own. He was a conservative because he promoted charitable giving on behalf of individuals, not government.
Jesus was a conservative because he promoted the hard work and success of the individual, not the legislative body of government.
Jesus saw giving as a ministry of the gospel, not a secular and spiritless exercise of government in order to level the economic playing field.
Tomorrow's Times front page: 'Watch your bankers, not our beggars, says top Roma'
http://bit.ly/1ls6kbr
What Farage and others forget is that the first duty of any British government is to protect the people here. We owe no duty to the Syrians to provide them with a home here though we should certainly provide aid and other help to the innocent victims. We also need to remember - as previous British governments have forgotten or ignored - that my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend. We have in the post hosted too many refugees from ghastly Middle Eastern regimes who have turned out to be a threat to us as well. I don't want us to make the same mistake again.
1. Economists are sceptical about the accuracy of the ONS's current productivity figures and their criticisms have been noted by the ONS to the extent that a review of data collection and modelling methods is being undertaken early in 2014. The main concerns relate to whether the ONS is accurately capturing output from the self-employed and SME sectors.
2. The recovery curve and velocity from the 2007-9 recession has not matched that seen in prior post-recessions across all economies. Apart from the fact that the 2007-9 recession was much deeper than any seen since the 1930s, recovery has been much slower, with double dips experienced in many if not all developed economies.
I am not saying that productivity metrics are unimportant. The BoE in particular will be looking to recovery in productivity as a pre-condition for raising interest rates and will, in the interim, be targetting its policies towards accelerating productivity gains.
But it is far too early to draw any final conclusions on the current productivity figures. There is very little consensus among economists, even those who believe the metrics to be accurate, as to what they indicate.
A topic for 2016, ar, when George is well settled into his second term.
That small subsection of UKIP voters
It's perfectly true that the employer will have to pay the new French tax but it now has a higher salary bill and will have to determine whether those paid above the admittedly high threshold for the tax are really worth it. All things being equal there are likely to be fewer such high earners in future and it is possible that the French government may collect less revenue than before. Of course, its objective may well be not to collect revenue but to deter such high salaries, in which case job done.
"You can trust us, don't trust gypsies" says head of RBS
There'd be hell to pay. Luckily as the Left are winning the cultural war of language we now know these comments are only permitted to flow in one direction.
Hmmmm.
Beat that Jesus.
Dudley Ryder?
I have to say that I am fed up with the way that Eastern Europeans are now routinely described as something like a pestilence. They are fellow Europeans who have been - after far too long under the oppression of the Soviets - able to join or rather, rejoin, the European family. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe is one of the most hopeful and optimistic developments of my lifetime. I'm GLAD that they are now free to travel after years when they were hemmed in behind a wall and shot for having the temerity for trying to escape their prison.
There really is no difference between you and the Brownites - all you care about is to get house prices rising and people spending in the shops.
Anything else - productivity, trade balances, household debt, industrial output, economic mobility, investment levels - is disregarded as nothing to be concerned about.
Although I am somewhat amused by your references to the 2007-9 recession - the recession George didn't notice as he was too busy yachting with oligarchs.
Much as I agree with you that the situation is not as black as painted, it's also not as white as the cheerleaders of unfettered immigration will have you believe either. It is, as with many thinks in life ... a sort of burned ochre.
Hardly... Farage has suggested something that is radically different from the Government
Of course, the politics of putting this right are not straightforward, which is presumably why Mr Osborne hasn't as yet corrected this particular piece of inherited insanity.
The amount relevant to the 75% tax will not be deducted from the employees pay AT ALL.
The calculated equivalent amount will have to paid by the Employer just like the Employer pays the ERS NIC in the UK [ which also is not deducted or included in the employee's salary ].
He would have been Viscount Sandon during WWI and subsequently as MP for Shrewsbury in the 1920s.
His 'ancestral home' is Sandon Hall, not far from Stone in Staffordshire, where the Second Child baronet was MP, hence the geopgraphical connection.
Viscount Sandon would not have lived at Sandon though until he inherited the Harrowby earldom in 1956. However, the pet cemetery and the parts of the 'warhorses' converted by the taxidermist are (to the best of my knowledge) still and always have been retained at Sandon Hall.
As there was no place for them to live first of all they were bundled in decrepit tower blocks in London for a bit and then dumped on the south coast towns.
Now obviously taking an area with a young male to young female ratio from 1:1 and increasing it to 2:1 or 3:1 within the space of a couple of years doesn't have a lot of negative consequences for the people living there or the BBC would have reported it and the political class wouldn't have been able to keep repeating the same thing 100s and 100s of times but i bet myself a choccy biscuit a lot of people in those southern coastal towns (and anywhere else the same thing has happened) think the BBC version of reality is a total lie.
2) When members of the media or political class say "we" should provide a safe refuge they actually mean "you" should provide it because 99% of those refugees won't be living where the media and political class live.
3) If he wants to make a point about exceptions to immigration control then talk about the sorts of people who are likely to be net contributors, which makes the reverse point at the same time, or talk about ex-military run afoul of some rule or other as generally people see that different.
4) If you have 1/2 million immigrants a year over ten years followed by 400,000 in the 11th then to the people outside the insulated upper middle class bubble that the BBC and political class live in that isn't a drop of 100,000 it's an increase from 5 million to 5.4 million.
His father in turn was also a William Henry Smith - who founded WH Smith's.
Fascinating what a little digging turns up.
I believe the 6th Earl's last contribution to the Houses of Parliament was as recorded in Hansard:
FALKLAND ISLANDS GARRISON: MULE TRANSPORT
HL Deb 24 January 1983 vol 438 cc120-1WA 121WA
The Earl of Harrowby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek the advice of the Army Veterinary Corps as to whether it would be advisable to secure a number of mules for the Falkland Islands in view of their outstanding reputation as a means of transport in country very similar to that of those islands.
§Lord Glenarthur The Ministry of Defence is considering whether mules might profitably be employed by the Falkland Islands garrison.
A clear example of how the political world would be much better off without 'professional' politicians. Serving from day one of WWI to its conclusion would have been as much a life experience outside Parliament as anyone could wish for.
And all we get in return for all that money is a vote. Terrific.
Syria interventionist before my party came to the same view (and I was against the Libyan attack too - I'm a born-again non-interventionist). But there's a middle ground between taking 9 million people including loads of armed Islamists and doing nothing whatever: the number who are actually seeking to come and are in immediate danger is unlikely to be in the millions. Let's make a start with a few thousand, focusing on the elderly and most vulnerable, together with a score of other countries, and see how we get on.
That said, I agree that the main effort should overwhelmingly be practical aid on the spot.
Incidentally, anyone who followed my advice in 2011/12 and bet on sentiment shifting towards Labour (despite the then-widespread panic in Labour circles about Ed Miliband) should be in a good betting position, or will already have taken profits.
Your individual constituency bets on the Blue side were v nice too.
Six polling events of 2013
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-balls-is-no-longer-a-sticking-point-in-liblab-coalition-9028627.html
You claim that household debt is being "disregarded as nothing to be concerned about".
On the contrary, the latest BoE Inflation Report reveals that household debt has fallen to 140% of household income in the fourth quarter of 2012 from a peak of almost 170% in 2008.
Perhaps George learnt how to keep the UK economy afloat when taking advice from oligarchs on mediterranean yachts?
Seeing as that buffoon Hague encouraged the attempted overthrow of the legitimate government of Syria, it's the least the UK can do.
The again a similar thing might be said about you and Avery.
I wont suggest how the two pairs split ;-)
Beat that, TSE.
Of course it does not but then people like Huhne have never really been interested in what the science has to say,. only in how they can misrepresent it.
Not exactly original but in this case it's been astonishingly successful.
In the first sentence of that wiki page we have "a form of" and "many believe".
It's obvious by the end of line 1 that it's not a mainstream interpretation.
Bunch of nutters.
I suspect that in those years it was significantly lower than 140% of household income you appear to be proud of.
I'll also point out that George has been basing his economic plans on household debt starting to rise again from his 2010 budget onwards.
That he has up to now failed in this aim is something to be relieved about but that doesn't mean he deserves anything but condemnation for attempting otherwise.
" The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year, in the belief that families and individuals will respond to straitened times by extra borrowing. Average household debt based on the OBR figures is forecast to rise to £77,309 by 2015, rather than the £66,291 under previous projections.
Economists say the figures show that George Osborne's drive to slash the public deficit and his predictions on growth are based on assumptions that debt will switch from the government's books to private households – undermining his claims to be a debt-slashing chancellor.
At last year's budget the official forecast from Osborne was that household debt – which includes mortgages and credit card debt – would be £1,823bn. But in a recent adjustment not highlighted in last month's budget, the OBR has raised the figure to £2,126bn. "
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/02/family-debt-burden-government-figures
You lose again Avery.
There is clearly a limit to how many refugees we can take but the sort of action Farage proposes would make a small but significant difference and might also encourage other EU countries to be more generous in the help they give, both in terms of taking in refugees and helping to support the displaced in the camps along Syria's borders. It is still shocking (although a matter of pride I would contend) that the UK has contributed more money to helping these refugees than all the other EU countries put together.
I have a question which I have been wondering about for a while, but first the preliminary thought:
When I was 10/11, in 1979, the outside world gradually became aware of the genocidal catastrophe that had been happening in Cambodia, as a trickle of refugees turned into a flood of information as the Vietnamese invaded and the Khmer Rouge régime collapsed. The annual Blue Peter Appeal in the autumn/winter of 1979/80 raised £4m from a bring-and-buy sale using the Oxfam shops. It was the most amazing moment of my childhood of TV-watching when the original appeal target of £100,000 was reached within two days of the appeal being launched.
My question (for anybody aged about 55 or more, and perhaps for SeanT due to his specialist knowledge) is: How much of what was happening in Cambodia was known to the outside world before the collapse of the Khmer Rouge government, i.e. in the period of about 1975 to 1978? What was there in terms of rumours, wild stories, or hard information?
The reason I ask is because I am beginning to wonder how much parallel there might be with the current situation in North Korea vis-a-vis the labour camps and general cruelty, particularly now that a juvenile mad tyrant (Kim Jong-un) is on the loose and seems to be getting the upper hand over the military leaders. I wonder if the situation in some parts of North Korea might be much worse that we think. I am of the opinion that the collapse of the DPRK, when it happens, will be very sudden and very quick, and that it might happen at any time within the next 20 years or so. It might not happen for ages yet, but equally it could happen next year or next month or in 5 years' time.
I think it is quite a well established principle that despotic regimes collapse with dramatic suddenness (hence the word "collapse"). With hindsight it becomes clear that a lot of the underlying supports had become rotten, but this was well concealed.
You only have to think about Romania or East Germany or the Velvet Revolution (or more recently the Arab Spring - even if you don't like the replacement regimes - to appreciate the weakness of those previously in power).
Fundamentally - although Assad is doing his best to prove the rule wrong - governments can only remain in power with the consent of the population (even if that consent is obtained through force). A regime simply doesn't have the numbers to maintain power if the population rises against them.
The collapse of Eastern Europe worried Russian hawks in that it theoretically moved NATO tanks a few miles nearer to Moscow. The fall of the DPRK will almost inevitably mean reunification and a massive bill which South Korea and the United States would struggle to pick up. It would make the West/East German transfer of capital investment look like loose change. And western tanks will in a more worrying sense be moving closer to Peking and indeed to the Chinese border.
Incidentally, one of my daily web-reads is the DPRK news agency. If the background wasn't so dark it'd be a comedy site "The Great Leader Visits A Fish Farm" etc etc
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
The people in one country (France / Tunisia) suddenly overthrow a largely unloved and corrupt government).
Without warning, the insurrection spreads to neighbouring countries (Italy, Germany, Hasburg, Germany / Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Syria) amidst ongoing protests.
In both, many thousands of people lost their lives, and within a couple of years governments *worse* than the original regimes were back in power in many of the countries.
The similarities can probably be pushed too far, but it does not bode well in my mind.
1. Economists are sceptical about the accuracy of the ONS's current productivity figures and their criticisms have been noted by the ONS to the extent that a review of data collection and modelling methods is being undertaken early in 2014. The main concerns relate to whether the ONS is accurately capturing output from the self-employed and SME sectors.
2. The recovery curve and velocity from the 2007-9 recession has not matched that seen in prior post-recessions across all economies. Apart from the fact that the 2007-9 recession was much deeper than any seen since the 1930s, recovery has been much slower, with double dips experienced in many if not all developed economies.
I am not saying that productivity metrics are unimportant. The BoE in particular will be looking to recovery in productivity as a pre-condition for raising interest rates and will, in the interim, be targetting its policies towards accelerating productivity gains.
But it is far too early to draw any final conclusions on the current productivity figures. There is very little consensus among economists, even those who believe the metrics to be accurate, as to what they indicate.
A topic for 2016, ar, when George is well settled into his second term.
The ignorant complacency you Cameroons wallowed in about the economy before the recession is only exceeded by the arrogant complacency about the economy you wallow in now.
There really is no difference between you and the Brownites - all you care about is to get house prices rising and people spending in the shops.
Anything else - productivity, trade balances, household debt, industrial output, economic mobility, investment levels - is disregarded as nothing to be concerned about.
Although I am somewhat amused by your references to the 2007-9 recession - the recession George didn't notice as he was too busy yachting with oligarchs.
Too late in the day to fisk your response in detail, ar, so I'll content myself with a single sniping shot at one statistic.
You claim that household debt is being "disregarded as nothing to be concerned about".
On the contrary, the latest BoE Inflation Report reveals that household debt has fallen to 140% of household income in the fourth quarter of 2012 from a peak of almost 170% in 2008.
Perhaps George learnt how to keep the UK economy afloat when taking advice from oligarchs on mediterranean yachts?
Er! I was under the impression that Gideon/George was trying to tap the oligarch for funds for the Conservative party in a way that needn't be reported to the authorities. I also thought, from the reports, that he was either well rehearsed or more likely, exceedingly well practiced in doing so.
Of course, since I obviously wasn't there, I can not possibly comment.
IIRC initially the arrival of Pol Pot was welcomed in the West as some sort of "bulwark against communism!" since it seemed that he wasn't likely to be aligned with anyone else. It also seemed to provide a stable government in a country which had been destabilised as part of the general war going on between various factions and interventionists in Indo-China. There's still, I think, some bitterness that Britain participated in training KR troops.
It took a little while for reports to a) come out and b) be believed, although I think people could, albeit with some difficulty, cross into Thailand. The border's not always clearly defined.