politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ups and downs. The referendum’s impact on individual politi
Comments
-
The crying from Wikileaks is most entertaining, they can't believe they've been ignored here.FrancisUrquhart said:
If the full extent of this in terms of British elite is just a few Lords & donors I will in a way be pleasantly surprised...however I am guessing there will be much more juicy stuff that guardian / bbc are going to drag out of course of next few weeks to keep their big scoop in the news (at least that is what I would do)
0 -
Nah the Guardian/BBC will not want to damage Cameron in the run up the EURefFrancisUrquhart said:If the full extent of this in terms of British elite is just a few Lords & donors I will in a way be pleasantly surprised...however I am guessing there will be much more juicy stuff that guardian / bbc are going to drag out of course of next few weeks to keep their big scoop in the news (at least that is what I would do)
0 -
You overlooked in my original words "What if we really have a million more immigrants from the EU under her watch than the ONS stats? " If that level of under estimating comes out, she will come into the focus of the media. (I know you think not).Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't know if you are being deliberate obtuse, but I was referring to whether it was anything specifically to do with Theresa May - which it isn't. This isn't hard to understand, surely?TCPoliticalBetting said:
I cannot see the line of "I cannot stop EU people coming here" going down well with the voters.Richard_Nabavi said:
What I wish to believe is irrelevant. The fact is that, whilst we remain members of the European Union, the Home Secretary cannot 'set the rules' for admitting EU citizens. Of course that will continue to be the case if we leave the EU and join to EEA, or sign up to any other trade deal which includes freedom of movement.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Well if she thinks EU migration is nothing to do with her dept that would explain a lot.... Her dept "manages" the folk at the borders who let in the people and her dept sets the rules for various types of people who stay here. She also made a speech at the Conference last autumn full of concern about immigration. But, if you wish to believe its not her responsibility so be it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would EU migration - which is absolutely nothing to do with her role as Home Sec - be in the least bit relevant to her personal position?TCPoliticalBetting said:Interesting that no Govt cabinet person that has actually filled the media with words for REMAIN is having a good personal campaign. When Mrs May speaks out will be an interesting moment but she will be on weak ground with immigration. What if we really have a million more immigrants from the EU under her watch than the ONS stats? A mjaor challenge for her. If only she had gone with LEAVE. She would be odds on to replace Cameron.
0 -
The slopey shoulders of those in power.runnymede said:
Conceivably the many 'I cannot stop X because of the EU' lines we have heard over many years have also not gone down too well. Hence Remain's polling problems...TCPoliticalBetting said:
I cannot see the line of "I cannot stop EU people coming here" going down well with the voters.Richard_Nabavi said:
What I wish to believe is irrelevant. The fact is that, whilst we remain members of the European Union, the Home Secretary cannot 'set the rules' for admitting EU citizens. Of course that will continue to be the case if we leave the EU and join to EEA, or sign up to any other trade deal which includes freedom of movement.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Well if she thinks EU migration is nothing to do with her dept that would explain a lot.... Her dept "manages" the folk at the borders who let in the people and her dept sets the rules for various types of people who stay here. She also made a speech at the Conference last autumn full of concern about immigration. But, if you wish to believe its not her responsibility so be it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Why would EU migration - which is absolutely nothing to do with her role as Home Sec - be in the least bit relevant to her personal position?TCPoliticalBetting said:Interesting that no Govt cabinet person that has actually filled the media with words for REMAIN is having a good personal campaign. When Mrs May speaks out will be an interesting moment but she will be on weak ground with immigration. What if we really have a million more immigrants from the EU under her watch than the ONS stats? A mjaor challenge for her. If only she had gone with LEAVE. She would be odds on to replace Cameron.
0 -
LEAVE need to make more of her in the media. She thinks quick and has real experience outside politics. (Also has cojones in telling Osborne to eff off once - a braver move than casting aspertions on Farage's finger habits).rcs1000 said:
I like Andrea, and that's a good one to get. Of course, I doubt it would have any long-term impact on real wages. After all, we can only earn what our skills command on the world market.TCPoliticalBetting said:One coming through to make a positive impact for LEAVE.
"Britain 'will thrive after Brexit': Leaving will boost pay and jobs says Tory high-flier
Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom said wages would rise if UK left EU
She also claimed unemployment would fall with 'best stays still ahead'"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3521977/Britain-thrive-Brexit-Leaving-boost-pay-jobs-says-Tory-high-flier.html#ixzz44rlaLFTu
0 -
North Dakota GOP delegates result.
The media seems to be declaring Ted Cruz the winner, whilst Corey Lewandowski and John Weaver are declaring their candidates the winner.
If you care to check out delegate Gary Emineth's twitter he says 15 delegates absolute tops for Cruz. Emineth being a Trump supporter and the former ND GOP chairman. Of course all delegates from ND are unbound but ND should be weighing in with more than a couple of Trump votes by the looks of it.
Ignore the Cruz spin.0 -
It is a dilemma for them. So far the Guardian have gone for maximum smears. But no sign of facts that would prove difficult to explain.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nah the Guardian/BBC will not want to damage Cameron in the run up the EURefFrancisUrquhart said:If the full extent of this in terms of British elite is just a few Lords & donors I will in a way be pleasantly surprised...however I am guessing there will be much more juicy stuff that guardian / bbc are going to drag out of course of next few weeks to keep their big scoop in the news (at least that is what I would do)
0 -
It's hard to see why. The Lib Dems set a precedent when they failed to return a single penny that the convicted fraudster Michael Brown gave them.TheScreamingEagles said:
snipRichard_Tyndall said:
I am no fan of Dave but I agree with Richard and Max that this bit of the Panama revelations really is scraping the barrel.taffys said:
No. My point is that anybody who has the ultimate power to set UK tax rates should be completely subject to those tax rates, and arrange their affairs so that they are completely subject to them.MaxPB said:
So Dave the 3 year old should have told his dad, please don't avoid the tax because I'm going to be PM one day and this will look bad?taffys said:
I'm still not sure that is good enough.MaxPB said:
Tbh, what Dave's dad did or didn't do with his own company has nothing to do with the government or Dave's ability to be PM. It's a cheap shot by a desperate bunch and to be fair to the PM he has done more for clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive avoidance than 50 years of previous government action.taffys said:Is anybody else a bit disturbed by number 10s 'private matter' comment on Panama...??
I'm not sure that will do for voters, to be honest.
Hypothetically, I wouldn't want to have my tax rates decided by somebody who did not have all of their skin in the same game, so to speak.
I do think anyone saying these revelations are unimportant or uninteresting is being short sighted. They still have the potential to embarrass the Government - particularly the Ashcroft stuff and potentially some of the Tory Lords and former MPs - but more importantly it is possible they could bring down governments in some fairly unstable countries, not least Pakistan. As such I think this is all a matter of both interest and concern. But the stuff about Cameron's dad seems really desperate to me.
There might be pressure on the political parties to return these donations.0 -
F1: there's a rumour Sauber may close up before China.
Only a few years ago they scored about four podium finishes with Perez and Kobayashi.0 -
The revelations won't bring any governments down. In most of the world, everyone knows that the public authorities are as corrupt as hell. They know it in Australia, in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, in Canada, in the US, in the Middle East, in eastern and central Europe, in southern Europe, in Spain, in France, Italy, Germany and Ireland.Richard_Tyndall said:(I)t is possible [that these revelations] could bring down governments in some fairly unstable countries, not least Pakistan
It's no "revelation" in Pakistan that senior figures salt their money away in the British Virgin Islands or in Switzerland or wherever. Nobody thinks ministers live on their salaries. Nobody is quite that stupid.
Where naive trust in "Sir's" propriety is concerned, Britain is very much an exception.
About the only other countries I'm aware of where people are so naive as not to realise that the state is corrupt, and where the middle political classes proceed in their chitchat as though it isn't, are Norway and Sweden. And even in Sweden, people will nod if you mention that the country is owned by one family, the Wallenbergs, although they wouldn't have brought the matter up if you hadn't brought it up first.
0 -
If only she would do the same to Amber Rudd.TCPoliticalBetting said:
LEAVE need to make more of her in the media. She thinks quick and has real experience outside politics. (Also has cojones in telling Osborne to eff off once - a braver move than casting aspertions on Farage's finger habits).rcs1000 said:
I like Andrea, and that's a good one to get. Of course, I doubt it would have any long-term impact on real wages. After all, we can only earn what our skills command on the world market.TCPoliticalBetting said:One coming through to make a positive impact for LEAVE.
"Britain 'will thrive after Brexit': Leaving will boost pay and jobs says Tory high-flier
Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom said wages would rise if UK left EU
She also claimed unemployment would fall with 'best stays still ahead'"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3521977/Britain-thrive-Brexit-Leaving-boost-pay-jobs-says-Tory-high-flier.html#ixzz44rlaLFTu0 -
Just opened google's news page to see this line from an unlikely source,
"The pro-Brexit campaign has the most convincing arguments about Britain's EU membership. The more people hear from both sides of the campaign, the more likely they are to vote to leave."
Courtesy of the FT!0 -
"EU referendum: Migrant job data to be published"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-359586890 -
I think it'll come down to whether or not the unbound PA delegates follow the "advisory" to vote with the state winner.LondonBob said:North Dakota GOP delegates result.
The media seems to be declaring Ted Cruz the winner, whilst Corey Lewandowski and John Weaver are declaring their candidates the winner.
If you care to check out delegate Gary Emineth's twitter he says 15 delegates absolute tops for Cruz. Emineth being a Trump supporter and the former ND GOP chairman. Of course all delegates from ND are unbound but ND should be weighing in with more than a couple of Trump votes by the looks of it.
Ignore the Cruz spin.0 -
TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is a dilemma for them. So far the Guardian have gone for maximum smears. But no sign of facts that would prove difficult to explain.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nah the Guardian/BBC will not want to damage Cameron in the run up the EURefFrancisUrquhart said:If the full extent of this in terms of British elite is just a few Lords & donors I will in a way be pleasantly surprised...however I am guessing there will be much more juicy stuff that guardian / bbc are going to drag out of course of next few weeks to keep their big scoop in the news (at least that is what I would do)
For me, hypothetically speaking, its completely unacceptable that any First Lord of Her Majesty's Treasury should either hold onto or benefit from offshore investments of any kind.0 -
Paul Ryan talk picking up.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-2215220 -
Well quite. It all reminds me a bit of the hoo hah over Miliband's Dad.MaxPB said:
So what should the PM do? It sounds like you are saying he should go back in time and stop his dad from moving his business off shore.
The amount of influence either Dave or Ed had over their Dad's business and opinions whilst in short trousers would be the square root of FA. Non story.0 -
It seems to me that a lot of discussion on here and the leaning of posters to leave is premature to the actual debate and the campaign proper starting in the next fortnight or so. Airbus has written today to it's 15,000 employees extolling the virtue of being in the EU. Airbus is a huge employer in North Wales where the wings for ALL airbus planes are made and the warning from such an important employer to their employees, families, communities and supply chain will have an impact. This is only the start of a campaign from large business in the UK and together with the inevitable warnings from the Bank of England and the City almost certainly backed up by pressure on exchange rates and investment, it would be extraordinary if the undecided voted for leave when push comes to shove0
-
I don't know what law firm they use, but the Guardian Media Group do some of their fiddles through the Cayman Islands. (Click).FrancisUrquhart said:I am presuming the guardian used a different law firm when they did their tax dodging.
0 -
Can you explain how much if anything the David Cameron is benefiting from his late Father's former offshore investment and also confirm that any such investment was to your knowledge illegaltaffys said:TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is a dilemma for them. So far the Guardian have gone for maximum smears. But no sign of facts that would prove difficult to explain.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nah the Guardian/BBC will not want to damage Cameron in the run up the EURefFrancisUrquhart said:If the full extent of this in terms of British elite is just a few Lords & donors I will in a way be pleasantly surprised...however I am guessing there will be much more juicy stuff that guardian / bbc are going to drag out of course of next few weeks to keep their big scoop in the news (at least that is what I would do)
For me, hypothetically speaking, its completely unacceptable that any First Lord of Her Majesty's Treasury should either hold onto or benefit from offshore investments of any kind.0 -
I've covered him, but I think if Trump doesn't make it on the first ballot and is clearly losing delegates after the second - alot of his delegates will switch to Cruz.Pong said:Paul Ryan talk picking up.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-221522
Cruz has played an excellent shadow game. I think the talk of Ryan at 54% chance is fanciful.
Cruz is my best result, the Donald second and Kasich or Ryan 3rd or 4th from memory. I daren't look at Betfair these days !0 -
I have seen no claim that David Cameron has chosen to keep any money offshore.taffys said:
The father's activity is totally irrelevant.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am no fan of Dave but I agree with Richard and Max that this bit of the Panama revelations really is scraping the barrel.taffys said:
No. My point is that anybody who has the ultimate power to set UK tax rates should be completely subject to those tax rates, and arrange their affairs so that they are completely subject to them.MaxPB said:
So Dave the 3 year old should have told his dad, please don't avoid the tax because I'm going to be PM one day and this will look bad?taffys said:
I'm still not sure that is good enough.MaxPB said:
Tbh, what Dave's dad did or didn't do with his own company has nothing to do with the government or Dave's ability to be PM. It's a cheap shot by a desperate bunch and to be fair to the PM he has done more for clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive avoidance than 50 years of previous government action.taffys said:Is anybody else a bit disturbed by number 10s 'private matter' comment on Panama...??
I'm not sure that will do for voters, to be honest.
Hypothetically, I wouldn't want to have my tax rates decided by somebody who did not have all of their skin in the same game, so to speak.
I do think anyone saying these revelations are unimportant or uninteresting is being short sighted. They still have the potential to embarrass the Government - particularly the Ashcroft stuff and potentially some of the Tory Lords and former MPs - but more importantly it is possible they could bring down governments in some fairly unstable countries, not least Pakistan. As such I think this is all a matter of both interest and concern. But the stuff about Cameron's dad seems really desperate to me.
If person A jointly inherited a bucket of offshore family money from his or her parents, and chooses to keep that money offshore, fine. Good luck to person A.
But if person A at the same time has the power to set MY onshore tax rates???? No way. Because person A has skin in another game.0 -
It's not clear who "One of the nation's best-wired Republicans" actually is - 54% is crazy, but he has a reasonable chance as the default NOTA candidate. I wouldn't go above 10% personally - and probably 5% is more realistic.Pulpstar said:
I've covered him, but I think if Trump doesn't make it on the first ballot and is clearly losing delegates after the second - alot of his delegates will switch to Cruz.Pong said:Paul Ryan talk picking up.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-221522
Cruz has played an excellent shadow game. I think the talk of Ryan at 54% chance is fanciful.
Cruz is my best result, the Donald second and Kasich or Ryan 3rd or 4th from memory. I daren't look at Betfair these days !
From a betting POV, expect this speculation to continue. There's no way it can be shut down before the convention - at least not unless Trump looks set for 1237.0 -
Mike's going to be unbearable if Ryan gets the nomination. He got on him at 150/1Pong said:
It's not clear who "One of the nation's best-wired Republicans" actually is - 54% is crazy, but he has a reasonable chance as the default NOTA candidate. I wouldn't go above 10% personally - and probably 5% is more realistic.Pulpstar said:
I've covered him, but I think if Trump doesn't make it on the first ballot and is clearly losing delegates after the second - alot of his delegates will switch to Cruz.Pong said:Paul Ryan talk picking up.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-221522
Cruz has played an excellent shadow game. I think the talk of Ryan at 54% chance is fanciful.
Cruz is my best result, the Donald second and Kasich or Ryan 3rd or 4th from memory. I daren't look at Betfair these days !
From a betting POV, expect this speculation to continue. There's no way it can be shut down before the convention - at least not unless Trump looks set for 1237.0 -
Christ on a bike, that Sanders price.0
-
Yes benefiting from the proceeds of crime was a unique action.watford30 said:
It's hard to see why. The Lib Dems set a precedent when they failed to return a single penny that the convicted fraudster Michael Brown gave them.TheScreamingEagles said:
snipRichard_Tyndall said:
I am no fan of Dave but I agree with Richard and Max that this bit of the Panama revelations really is scraping the barrel.taffys said:
No. My point is that anybody who has the ultimate power to set UK tax rates should be completely subject to those tax rates, and arrange their affairs so that they are completely subject to them.MaxPB said:
So Dave the 3 year old should have told his dad, please don't avoid the tax because I'm going to be PM one day and this will look bad?taffys said:
I'm still not sure that is good enough.MaxPB said:
Tbh, what Dave's dad did or didn't do with his own company has nothing to do with the government or Dave's ability to be PM. It's a cheap shot by a desperate bunch and to be fair to the PM he has done more for clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive avoidance than 50 years of previous government action.taffys said:Is anybody else a bit disturbed by number 10s 'private matter' comment on Panama...??
I'm not sure that will do for voters, to be honest.
Hypothetically, I wouldn't want to have my tax rates decided by somebody who did not have all of their skin in the same game, so to speak.
I do think anyone saying these revelations are unimportant or uninteresting is being short sighted. They still have the potential to embarrass the Government - particularly the Ashcroft stuff and potentially some of the Tory Lords and former MPs - but more importantly it is possible they could bring down governments in some fairly unstable countries, not least Pakistan. As such I think this is all a matter of both interest and concern. But the stuff about Cameron's dad seems really desperate to me.
There might be pressure on the political parties to return these donations.
0 -
-
Or indeed his father, if I've understood the Guardian's account correctly.Richard_Tyndall said:I have seen no claim that David Cameron has chosen to keep any money offshore.
More generally, one thing which is interesting is that most of the dodgy stuff seems to be quite old. For example, the Guardian has an article on how the British Virgin Islands 'failed to crack down' on Mossack Fonseca not identifying the beneficial owners of companies, but the article actually shows that they have done exactly that:
Even after laws were strengthened in 2008, it was still unable to name its companies’ beneficial owners in more than 70 of about 500 official requests for information.
Performance improved in 2015. A name was given in response to all but one of about 90 requests in the Panama Papers leak.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/british-virgin-islands-failed-to-crack-down-on-mossack-fonseca-panama-papers
0 -
She is more able than Rudd but not one of Osborne's supporters so Rudd is in the cabinet...MaxPB said:
If only she would do the same to Amber Rudd.TCPoliticalBetting said:
LEAVE need to make more of her in the media. She thinks quick and has real experience outside politics. (Also has cojones in telling Osborne to eff off once - a braver move than casting aspertions on Farage's finger habits).rcs1000 said:
I like Andrea, and that's a good one to get. Of course, I doubt it would have any long-term impact on real wages. After all, we can only earn what our skills command on the world market.TCPoliticalBetting said:One coming through to make a positive impact for LEAVE.
"Britain 'will thrive after Brexit': Leaving will boost pay and jobs says Tory high-flier
Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom said wages would rise if UK left EU
She also claimed unemployment would fall with 'best stays still ahead'"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3521977/Britain-thrive-Brexit-Leaving-boost-pay-jobs-says-Tory-high-flier.html#ixzz44rlaLFTu
0 -
Me either. But number 10 today would not comment when asked if the Cameron family still uses the fund, saying its a private matter.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have seen no claim that David Cameron has chosen to keep any money offshore.taffys said:
The father's activity is totally irrelevant.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am no fan of Dave but I agree with Richard and Max that this bit of the Panama revelations really is scraping the barrel.taffys said:
No. My point is that anybody who has the ultimate power to set UK tax rates should be completely subject to those tax rates, and arrange their affairs so that they are completely subject to them.MaxPB said:
So Dave the 3 year old should have told his dad, please don't avoid the tax because I'm going to be PM one day and this will look bad?taffys said:
I'm still not sure that is good enough.MaxPB said:
Tbh, what Dave's dad did or didn't do with his own company has nothing to do with the government or Dave's ability to be PM. It's a cheap shot by a desperate bunch and to be fair to the PM he has done more for clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive avoidance than 50 years of previous government action.taffys said:Is anybody else a bit disturbed by number 10s 'private matter' comment on Panama...??
I'm not sure that will do for voters, to be honest.
Hypothetically, I wouldn't want to have my tax rates decided by somebody who did not have all of their skin in the same game, so to speak.
I do think anyone saying these revelations are unimportant or uninteresting is being short sighted. They still have the potential to embarrass the Government - particularly the Ashcroft stuff and potentially some of the Tory Lords and former MPs - but more importantly it is possible they could bring down governments in some fairly unstable countries, not least Pakistan. As such I think this is all a matter of both interest and concern. But the stuff about Cameron's dad seems really desperate to me.
If person A jointly inherited a bucket of offshore family money from his or her parents, and chooses to keep that money offshore, fine. Good luck to person A.
But if person A at the same time has the power to set MY onshore tax rates???? No way. Because person A has skin in another game.
And that goes back to my original point. That is not good enough.0 -
BBC News England
Fake passport seizures at UK borders reach five-year high, with nearly 1,100 confiscated https://t.co/qJvFWD0egL https://t.co/cgnPahB0U00 -
Favourite Guardinista hand wringing article today?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/02/does-climate-change-make-it-immoral-to-have-kids0 -
I have no such information of any kind, but I would suggest its a point that needs to be cleared up, and not called 'a private matter', as Number 10 did today.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Can you explain how much if anything the David Cameron is benefiting from his late Father's former offshore investment and also confirm that any such investment was to your knowledge illegaltaffys said:TCPoliticalBetting said:
It is a dilemma for them. So far the Guardian have gone for maximum smears. But no sign of facts that would prove difficult to explain.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nah the Guardian/BBC will not want to damage Cameron in the run up the EURefFrancisUrquhart said:If the full extent of this in terms of British elite is just a few Lords & donors I will in a way be pleasantly surprised...however I am guessing there will be much more juicy stuff that guardian / bbc are going to drag out of course of next few weeks to keep their big scoop in the news (at least that is what I would do)
For me, hypothetically speaking, its completely unacceptable that any First Lord of Her Majesty's Treasury should either hold onto or benefit from offshore investments of any kind.0 -
Why isn't it good enough? Anyone can perfectly legally and properly use an offshore fund. Of course they generally need to declare any income from it to the UK taxman.taffys said:Me either. But number 10 today would not comment when asked if the Cameron family still uses the fund, saying its a private matter.
And that goes back to my original point. That is not good enough.0 -
My intrigue is why Cruz wants a straight Trump v Cruz run-off at the convention. A forced run-off, even on the first ballot, can only benefit Trump. On subsequent ballots it may favour Cruz, but at the same time we shouldn't need them.0
-
No that just about sums it up.MaxPB said:Had a long chat over the weekend with someone who is in the UK steel industry, these are the main points:
Government are not interested in saving heavy industry in this country
Doing business here is expensive because of Climate Change Act 2008
We have more onerous health and safety regulations than any other major developed country
The direction of travel is bad, Hinkley Point C shows that the government doesn't understand heavy industry
The DoE is infected with climate change bulls who wouldn't "give a fuck" if all heavy industry in the UK ceased operating as it would help them meet their quota
If we lose steel it will have knock on effects for construction, car making and capital goods production, all of which become less competitive
The EU want to impose US style tariffs on Chinese steel, Osborne blocked it from doing so, the EU thinks that he did so to curry favour with the Chinese in order to get investment for HPC and possibly HS2. They are in no mood to help UK steel and are saying the government have walked into its own trap.
I'm sure some of what was said was out of anger, but overall he seemed pretty pessimistic about heavy industry in the UK and manufacturing in general.
I had a meeting Friday with one of the local bods from a development agency, his views on Osborne's backing oif UK industry make me seem a supporter.
In the manufacturing sector there are 3 million people looking at steel and thinking there but for the grace of God go I. And HMG doesn't give a shit.0 -
Erm.....Number ten has said the cameron family investments are a 'private matter'Richard_Nabavi said:
Why isn't it good enough? Anyone can perfectly legally and properly use an offshore fund. Of course they generally need to declare any income from it to the UK taxman.taffys said:Me either. But number 10 today would not comment when asked if the Cameron family still uses the fund, saying its a private matter.
And that goes back to my original point. That is not good enough.0 -
"Trusts work by having beneficial owners who are different from the legal owners."John_N said:
I disagree. The filthy rich use trusts and go offshore to dodge inheritance tax, to hide who the beneficial owners of interests actually are, whilst ensuring that the money gets passed down in the family. Trusts work by having beneficial owners who are different from the legal owners. David Cameron has questions to answer. Not that any mainstream editor will ask him any of them.MaxPB said:Tbh, what Dave's dad did or didn't do with his own company has nothing to do with the government or Dave's ability to be PM.
The whole idea of the trust (which developed out of the "use", as any decent lawyer should know) came from the English jurisdiction, by the way. The Chancery Division of the High Court advertises the services it can provide in this area in a very big way. And not just to mafia bosses with connections to Russia, although of course they are very highly valued clients.
Britain stinks to high heaven where corruption and money laundering are concerned.
Yeah - as in property in this country. The concept of legal and beneficial ownership is standard in property ownership in this country. When you exchange contracts but before completion, the buyer is the beneficial owner whereas the seller is the legal but not the beneficial owner. That is why you should insure the property from the moment of exchange.
Trusts are perfectly legitimate. And their origin was from the time of the Crusades when departing knights passed property to others but for the benefit of their wives and children who could not own property in their own name. They are used now when parents die before their children are of age, for instance.
They are widely used in pensions as well and their existence there does not mean that tax is evaded, either.
Tax evasion is illegal but you cannot simply say that the existence of a trust means that tax has been evaded.
0 -
GOP f v 1004.04
DEM f v 35.09
POTUS f v 292.9
Overall f v 1332.03
Sanders -5.68 Dem
Sanders -842.14 POTUS
0 -
Indeed but all onshore trusts are subject to UK law and UK juristiction - aren;t they?Cyclefree said:
"Trusts work by having beneficial owners who are different from the legal owners."John_N said:
I disagree. The filthy rich use trusts and go offshore to dodge inheritance tax, to hide who the beneficial owners of interests actually are, whilst ensuring that the money gets passed down in the family. Trusts work by having beneficial owners who are different from the legal owners. David Cameron has questions to answer. Not that any mainstream editor will ask him any of them.MaxPB said:Tbh, what Dave's dad did or didn't do with his own company has nothing to do with the government or Dave's ability to be PM.
The whole idea of the trust (which developed out of the "use", as any decent lawyer should know) came from the English jurisdiction, by the way. The Chancery Division of the High Court advertises the services it can provide in this area in a very big way. And not just to mafia bosses with connections to Russia, although of course they are very highly valued clients.
Britain stinks to high heaven where corruption and money laundering are concerned.
Yeah - as in property in this country. The concept of legal and beneficial ownership is standard in property ownership in this country. When you exchange contracts but before completion, the buyer is the beneficial owner whereas the seller is the legal but not the beneficial owner. That is why you should insure the property from the moment of exchange.
Trusts are perfectly legitimate. And their origin was from the time of the Crusades when departing knights passed property to others but for the benefit of their wives and children who could not own property in their own name. They are used now when parents die before their children are of age, for instance.
They are widely used in pensions as well and their existence there does not mean that tax is evaded, either.
Tax evasion is illegal but you cannot simply say that the existence of a trust means that tax has been evaded.
Offshore trusts are not, right?0 -
I wonder what the split looks like betweenAlanbrooke said:
No that just about sums it up.MaxPB said:Had a long chat over the weekend with someone who is in the UK steel industry, these are the main points:
Government are not interested in saving heavy industry in this country
Doing business here is expensive because of Climate Change Act 2008
We have more onerous health and safety regulations than any other major developed country
The direction of travel is bad, Hinkley Point C shows that the government doesn't understand heavy industry
The DoE is infected with climate change bulls who wouldn't "give a fuck" if all heavy industry in the UK ceased operating as it would help them meet their quota
If we lose steel it will have knock on effects for construction, car making and capital goods production, all of which become less competitive
The EU want to impose US style tariffs on Chinese steel, Osborne blocked it from doing so, the EU thinks that he did so to curry favour with the Chinese in order to get investment for HPC and possibly HS2. They are in no mood to help UK steel and are saying the government have walked into its own trap.
I'm sure some of what was said was out of anger, but overall he seemed pretty pessimistic about heavy industry in the UK and manufacturing in general.
I had a meeting Friday with one of the local bods from a development agency, his views on Osborne's backing oif UK industry make me seem a supporter.
In the manufacturing sector there are 3 million people looking at steel and thinking there but for the grace of God go I. And HMG doesn't give a shit.
1) government time being spent on trying to shore up the steel industry and look at ways to genuinely improve its future
2) government time being spent on seeing how the crisis at Port Talbot can best be spun to help the 'Remain' side in the referendum0 -
On a related note, I'm extremely unconvinced by this 'Exporting is GREAT' campaign and its glossy exhortations to British companies to launch themselves on an unsuspecting world. It's every bit as good, and far easier, to displace a foreign import than it is to start trying your hand at exporting, and that should be the primary aim.Alanbrooke said:
No that just about sums it up.MaxPB said:Had a long chat over the weekend with someone who is in the UK steel industry, these are the main points:
Government are not interested in saving heavy industry in this country
Doing business here is expensive because of Climate Change Act 2008
We have more onerous health and safety regulations than any other major developed country
The direction of travel is bad, Hinkley Point C shows that the government doesn't understand heavy industry
The DoE is infected with climate change bulls who wouldn't "give a fuck" if all heavy industry in the UK ceased operating as it would help them meet their quota
If we lose steel it will have knock on effects for construction, car making and capital goods production, all of which become less competitive
The EU want to impose US style tariffs on Chinese steel, Osborne blocked it from doing so, the EU thinks that he did so to curry favour with the Chinese in order to get investment for HPC and possibly HS2. They are in no mood to help UK steel and are saying the government have walked into its own trap.
I'm sure some of what was said was out of anger, but overall he seemed pretty pessimistic about heavy industry in the UK and manufacturing in general.
I had a meeting Friday with one of the local bods from a development agency, his views on Osborne's backing oif UK industry make me seem a supporter.
In the manufacturing sector there are 3 million people looking at steel and thinking there but for the grace of God go I. And HMG doesn't give a shit.0 -
Airbus have joined project fear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693
"Vote Leave - Fly Boeing!"0 -
There are other members of the family other than Dave - his mother, for instance, his brother and sister and their children. Or even Cameron's children, for whom his father might have made provision? After all, you might well want to make provision for a severely disabled grandchild. Are these people not entitled to financial privacy?taffys said:
Me either. But number 10 today would not comment when asked if the Cameron family still uses the fund, saying its a private matter.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have seen no claim that David Cameron has chosen to keep any money offshore.taffys said:
The father's activity is totally irrelevant.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am no fan of Dave but I agree with Richard and Max that this bit of the Panama revelations really is scraping the barrel.taffys said:
No. My point is that anybody who has the ultimate power to set UK tax rates should be completely subject to those tax rates, and arrange their affairs so that they are completely subject to them.MaxPB said:
So Dave the 3 year old should have told his dad, please don't avoid the tax because I'm going to be PM one day and this will look bad?taffys said:MaxPB said:
Tbh, what Dave's dad did or didn't do with his own company has nothing to do with the government or Dave's ability to be PM. It's a cheap shot by a desperate bunch and to be fair to the PM he has done more for clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive avoidance than 50 years of previous government action.taffys said:Is anybody else a bit disturbed by number 10s 'private matter' comment on Panama...??
I'm not sure that will do for voters, to be honest.
I do think anyone saying these revelations are unimportant or uninteresting is being short sighted. They still have the potential to embarrass the Government - particularly the Ashcroft stuff and potentially some of the Tory Lords and former MPs - but more importantly it is possible they could bring down governments in some fairly unstable countries, not least Pakistan. As such I think this is all a matter of both interest and concern. But the stuff about Cameron's dad seems really desperate to me.
If person A jointly inherited a bucket of offshore family money from his or her parents, and chooses to keep that money offshore, fine. Good luck to person A.
But if person A at the same time has the power to set MY onshore tax rates???? No way. Because person A has skin in another game.
And that goes back to my original point. That is not good enough.
0 -
Vote Leave and be reduced to something like the Wright Brothers would have built.SandyRentool said:Airbus have joined project fear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693
"Vote Leave - Fly Boeing!"0 -
it's total bollocks and I said as much 5 years ago. The UK's BOP problem is structural a result of pushing manufacturing overseas. We need to reshore some of the displaced activity to get our accounts looking vaguely acceptable.Luckyguy1983 said:
On a related note, I'm extremely unconvinced by this 'Exporting is GREAT' campaign and its glossy exhortations to British companies to launch themselves on an unsuspecting world. It's every bit as good, and far easier, to displace a foreign import than it is to start trying your hand at exporting, and that should be the primary aim.Alanbrooke said:
No that just about sums it up.MaxPB said:Had a long chat over the weekend with someone who is in the UK steel industry, these are the main points:
Government are not interested in saving heavy industry in this country
Doing business here is expensive because of Climate Change Act 2008
We have more onerous health and safety regulations than any other major developed country
The direction of travel is bad, Hinkley Point C shows that the government doesn't understand heavy industry
The DoE is infected with climate change bulls who wouldn't "give a fuck" if all heavy industry in the UK ceased operating as it would help them meet their quota
If we lose steel it will have knock on effects for construction, car making and capital goods production, all of which become less competitive
The EU want to impose US style tariffs on Chinese steel, Osborne blocked it from doing so, the EU thinks that he did so to curry favour with the Chinese in order to get investment for HPC and possibly HS2. They are in no mood to help UK steel and are saying the government have walked into its own trap.
I'm sure some of what was said was out of anger, but overall he seemed pretty pessimistic about heavy industry in the UK and manufacturing in general.
I had a meeting Friday with one of the local bods from a development agency, his views on Osborne's backing oif UK industry make me seem a supporter.
In the manufacturing sector there are 3 million people looking at steel and thinking there but for the grace of God go I. And HMG doesn't give a shit.
The champions of "services" ignore the fact that services don't cover the bills for what we import and that expansion of services is hampered by staying in the EU which studiously fails to open the wider markt.0 -
-
Well on point two, it could have been a positive for Remain, if Osborne hadn't blocked higher tariffs on Chinese steel then I'm told the EU would have been willing to help and turn a blind eye to state-aid rules or even redirect development funds, but because they feel like Osborne has stabbed them in the back in order to try and curry favour with China they aren't bothered either way.runnymede said:
I wonder what the split looks like betweenAlanbrooke said:
No that just about sums it up.MaxPB said:Had a long chat over the weekend with someone who is in the UK steel industry, these are the main points:
Government are not interested in saving heavy industry in this country
Doing business here is expensive because of Climate Change Act 2008
We have more onerous health and safety regulations than any other major developed country
The direction of travel is bad, Hinkley Point C shows that the government doesn't understand heavy industry
The DoE is infected with climate change bulls who wouldn't "give a fuck" if all heavy industry in the UK ceased operating as it would help them meet their quota
If we lose steel it will have knock on effects for construction, car making and capital goods production, all of which become less competitive
The EU want to impose US style tariffs on Chinese steel, Osborne blocked it from doing so, the EU thinks that he did so to curry favour with the Chinese in order to get investment for HPC and possibly HS2. They are in no mood to help UK steel and are saying the government have walked into its own trap.
I'm sure some of what was said was out of anger, but overall he seemed pretty pessimistic about heavy industry in the UK and manufacturing in general.
I had a meeting Friday with one of the local bods from a development agency, his views on Osborne's backing oif UK industry make me seem a supporter.
In the manufacturing sector there are 3 million people looking at steel and thinking there but for the grace of God go I. And HMG doesn't give a shit.
1) government time being spent on trying to shore up the steel industry and look at ways to genuinely improve its future
2) government time being spent on seeing how the crisis at Port Talbot can best be spun to help the 'Remain' side in the referendum
I'm not sure Leave or Remain will do well out of this, it's just another example of Osborne's startling incompetence.0 -
Very fair summary by Alastair.
But I do wonder if Cameron may be in trouble no matter what happens, for similar reasons to those he cites.0 -
My son in law works for airbus and leave need to provide a better narrative than 'vote fear' as their future employment needs to be reassured, not dismissed as a sound biteSandyRentool said:Airbus have joined project fear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693
"Vote Leave - Fly Boeing!"0 -
A British taxpayer is obliged to declare any money held abroad, whether in a trust or not, subject to any double taxation treaties. The issue is whether someone is properly declaring all their income not whether they use trusts. Conflating the two confuses the issues, probably deliberately - though I'm not levelling that accusation at you, to be clear.taffys said:
Indeed but all onshore trusts are subject to UK law and UK juristiction - aren;t they?Cyclefree said:
"Trusts work by having beneficial owners who are different from the legal owners."John_N said:
I disagree. The filthy rich use trusts and go offshore to dodge inheritance tax, to hide who the beneficial owners of interests actually are, whilst ensuring that the money gets passed down in the family. Trusts work by having beneficial owners who are different from the legal owners. David Cameron has questions to answer. Not that any mainstream editor will ask him any of them.MaxPB said:Tbh, what Dave's dad did or didn't do with his own company has nothing to do with the government or Dave's ability to be PM.
The whole idea of the trust (which developed out of the "use", as any decent lawyer should know) came from the English jurisdiction, by the way. The Chancery Division of the High Court advertises the services it can provide in this area in a very big way. And not just to mafia bosses with connections to Russia, although of course they are very highly valued clients.
Britain stinks to high heaven where corruption and money laundering are concerned.
Yeah - as in property in this country. The concept of legal and beneficial ownership is standard in property ownership in this country. When you exchange contracts but before completion, the buyer is the beneficial owner whereas the seller is the legal but not the beneficial owner. That is why you should insure the property from the moment of exchange.
Trusts are perfectly legitimate. And their origin was from the time of the Crusades when departing knights passed property to others but for the benefit of their wives and children who could not own property in their own name. They are used now when parents die before their children are of age, for instance.
They are widely used in pensions as well and their existence there does not mean that tax is evaded, either.
Tax evasion is illegal but you cannot simply say that the existence of a trust means that tax has been evaded.
Offshore trusts are not, right?
I do not like the very rich using illegal means to evade tax. That places a greater burden on the rest of us. They should be prosecuted if they do this. I also dislike people making accusations of illegality against people without any evidence. Being rich is not a crime. Nor is being the child of a rich person.
0 -
Been out most of the day, so just catching up with the news. The BBC are making sure the PM and his father are well and truly up front and centre of this Panama Leaks! I see John McDonnell is all over the media as well, has Jeremy Corbyn resigned yet?
I predict the next Tory Leadership contest will be between Michael Gove and Theresa May.
"One to watch" for the future - Dominic Raab!0 -
The papers need to start digging into whether HMG really have already bought the steel for HS2 off the Chinese. Cat meet pigeons.MaxPB said:
Well on point two, it could have been a positive for Remain, if Osborne hadn't blocked higher tariffs on Chinese steel then I'm told the EU would have been willing to help and turn a blind eye to state-aid rules or even redirect development funds, but because they feel like Osborne has stabbed them in the back in order to try and curry favour with China they aren't bothered either way.runnymede said:
I wonder what the split looks like betweenAlanbrooke said:
No that just about sums it up.MaxPB said:Had a long chat over the weekend with someone who is in the UK steel industry, these are the main points:
Government are not interested in saving heavy industry in this country
Doing business here is expensive because of Climate Change Act 2008
We have more onerous health and safety regulations than any other major developed country
The direction of travel is bad, Hinkley Point C shows that the government doesn't understand heavy industry
The DoE is infected with climate change bulls who wouldn't "give a fuck" if all heavy industry in the UK ceased operating as it would help them meet their quota
If we lose steel it will have knock on effects for construction, car making and capital goods production, all of which become less competitive
The EU want to impose US style tariffs on Chinese steel, Osborne blocked it from doing so, the EU thinks that he did so to curry favour with the Chinese in order to get investment for HPC and possibly HS2. They are in no mood to help UK steel and are saying the government have walked into its own trap.
I'm sure some of what was said was out of anger, but overall he seemed pretty pessimistic about heavy industry in the UK and manufacturing in general.
I had a meeting Friday with one of the local bods from a development agency, his views on Osborne's backing oif UK industry make me seem a supporter.
In the manufacturing sector there are 3 million people looking at steel and thinking there but for the grace of God go I. And HMG doesn't give a shit.
1) government time being spent on trying to shore up the steel industry and look at ways to genuinely improve its future
2) government time being spent on seeing how the crisis at Port Talbot can best be spun to help the 'Remain' side in the referendum
I'm not sure Leave or Remain will do well out of this, it's just another example of Osborne's startling incompetence.0 -
I think the crisis in our heavy industries poses a much larger threat to his future employment than Brexit and we can't blame the EU for it, if anything the EU can point the finger of blame at us when German and French steelworks start coming under pressure from the Chinese like ours.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My son in law works for airbus and leave need to provide a better narrative than 'vote fear' as their future employment needs to be reassured, not dismissed as a sound biteSandyRentool said:Airbus have joined project fear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693
"Vote Leave - Fly Boeing!"0 -
Nice vintage edition of Project Fear here...SandyRentool said:Airbus have joined project fear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693
"Vote Leave - Fly Boeing!"
UP to a million jobs could be lost if Britain stays out of the Euro, a union chief warned yesterday.
Engineers' leader Ken Jackson said: "Being outside the single currency puts our exporters at a huge disadvantage.
"If we were part of it, they'd have the stability they need to increase trade and create jobs," he told a London conference on the Euro.
Mr Jackson was backed by Vauxhall boss Nick Reilly who said firms thinking of investing in the UK needed to see it as a mainstream member of the European Union.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Euro+jobs+warning.-a0603992140 -
There's nothing new in what Airbus have said. They have claimed they might scale back investment but have said they won't withdraw. Which is about the same as every other multinat has said.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My son in law works for airbus and leave need to provide a better narrative than 'vote fear' as their future employment needs to be reassured, not dismissed as a sound biteSandyRentool said:Airbus have joined project fear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693
"Vote Leave - Fly Boeing!"0 -
Given that contracts for the design, let alone the construction, have not yet been awarded, and that 'the government' won't be doing the buying of materials, I doubt if any newspapers will be wasting their time on any such digging.Luckyguy1983 said:The papers need to start digging into whether HMG really have already bought the steel for HS2 off the Chinese. Cat meet pigeons.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hs2-to-create-jobs-and-boost-skills-as-companies-shortlisted-for-major-engineering-contracts
0 -
Or perhaps Concorde.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Vote Leave and be reduced to something like the Wright Brothers would have built.SandyRentool said:Airbus have joined project fear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693
"Vote Leave - Fly Boeing!"
0 -
I don't think HS2 procurement has started yet, it is set to begin in 2018, by then there won't be much choice but to buy Chinese with the way European heavy industry is collapsing.Luckyguy1983 said:
The papers need to start digging into whether HMG really have already bought the steel for HS2 off the Chinese. Cat meet pigeons.MaxPB said:
Well on point two, it could have been a positive for Remain, if Osborne hadn't blocked higher tariffs on Chinese steel then I'm told the EU would have been willing to help and turn a blind eye to state-aid rules or even redirect development funds, but because they feel like Osborne has stabbed them in the back in order to try and curry favour with China they aren't bothered either way.runnymede said:
I wonder what the split looks like betweenAlanbrooke said:
No that just about sums it up.MaxPB said:Had a long chat over the weekend with someone who is in the UK steel industry, these are the main points:
Government are not interested in saving heavy industry in this country
Doing business here is expensive because of Climate Change Act 2008
We have more onerous health and safety regulations than any other major developed country
The direction of travel is bad, Hinkley Point C shows that the government doesn't understand heavy industry
The DoE is infected with climate change bulls who wouldn't "give a fuck" if all heavy industry in the UK ceased operating as it would help them meet their quota
If we lose steel it will have knock on effects for construction, car making and capital goods production, all of which become less competitive
The EU want to impose US style tariffs on Chinese steel, Osborne blocked it from doing so, the EU thinks that he did so to curry favour with the Chinese in order to get investment for HPC and possibly HS2. They are in no mood to help UK steel and are saying the government have walked into its own trap.
I'm sure some of what was said was out of anger, but overall he seemed pretty pessimistic about heavy industry in the UK and manufacturing in general.
I had a meeting Friday with one of the local bods from a development agency, his views on Osborne's backing oif UK industry make me seem a supporter.
In the manufacturing sector there are 3 million people looking at steel and thinking there but for the grace of God go I. And HMG doesn't give a shit.
1) government time being spent on trying to shore up the steel industry and look at ways to genuinely improve its future
2) government time being spent on seeing how the crisis at Port Talbot can best be spun to help the 'Remain' side in the referendum
I'm not sure Leave or Remain will do well out of this, it's just another example of Osborne's startling incompetence.0 -
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.0 -
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372767/CS086_Supplier_Guide_Web_-_Interactive_V2_FINAL.pdfRichard_Nabavi said:
Given that contracts for the design, let alone the construction, have not yet been awarded, and that 'the government' won't be doing the buying of materials, I doubt if any newspapers will be wasting their time on any such digging.Luckyguy1983 said:The papers need to start digging into whether HMG really have already bought the steel for HS2 off the Chinese. Cat meet pigeons.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hs2-to-create-jobs-and-boost-skills-as-companies-shortlisted-for-major-engineering-contracts
The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.0 -
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.0 -
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).0 -
Wisconsin - Emerson
Cruz 40 .. Trump 35 .. Kasich 21
Sanders 51 .. Clinton 43
Clinton 47 .. Trump 37
Clinton 46 .. Cruz 43
Clinton 38 .. Kasich 52
Sanders 51 .. Trump 37
Sanders 50 .. Cruz 41
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_d697f4238943476f89e7cdfc710c309f.pdf0 -
O/T
"Test cricket must not be callously swept aside for faddish appeal of Twenty20 — SImon Heffer"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/04/04/test-cricket-must-not-be-callously-swept-aside-for-faddish-appea/0 -
Is that the sound of someone whistling to keep themselves cheerful I hearBig_G_NorthWales said:It seems to me that a lot of discussion on here and the leaning of posters to leave is premature to the actual debate and the campaign proper starting in the next fortnight or so. Airbus has written today to it's 15,000 employees extolling the virtue of being in the EU. Airbus is a huge employer in North Wales where the wings for ALL airbus planes are made and the warning from such an important employer to their employees, families, communities and supply chain will have an impact. This is only the start of a campaign from large business in the UK and together with the inevitable warnings from the Bank of England and the City almost certainly backed up by pressure on exchange rates and investment, it would be extraordinary if the undecided voted for leave when push comes to shove
0 -
I think someone mentioned a few threads ago that the steel works in the UK are not designed to make the kind of rails needed for HS2. Can't remember who that was or if it is a correct recollection of what they said.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).0 -
That's pretty wishful thinking. If anything the EU will force ultra-discipline on the rest of the EU if we do vote to leave. They can't have Sweden and Denmark follow us out, which will put pressure on Finland as the only Scandinavian country in the EU. Ireland aren't going to find it easy if we leave. That's why the EU will try and introduce "you can never leave" rules in the event of Brexit.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.0 -
Thank God New York is a closed primaryJackW said:Wisconsin - Emerson
Cruz 40 .. Trump 35 .. Kasich 21
Sanders 51 .. Clinton 43
Clinton 47 .. Trump 37
Clinton 46 .. Cruz 43
Clinton 38 .. Kasich 52
Sanders 51 .. Trump 37
Sanders 50 .. Cruz 41
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_d697f4238943476f89e7cdfc710c309f.pdf 0 -
Really?Estobar said:
Wow really? I hear people talking about it the whole time: from nurses to school mums.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm yet to hear anyone in real life bring the EU referendum up yet.rcs1000 said:
The truly inconvenient truth is that - off boards like this - people don't really care.TCPoliticalBetting said:
An inconvenient truth.Plato_Says said:Let me repost the Red Box polling - since its not getting much attention.
We tested the messaging from campaigns on both sides, and found that on issue after issue, the Leave campaigns had more compelling arguments. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/topic/the-europe-question/only-fear-can-keep-us-in-the-eu
How jolly inconvenient, eh?
The doctor's strike is far more topical it seems to me from what I hear people talk about.
I bring it up regularly in conversation, because I'm deeply engaged. But no one has ever (and I mean ever) brought it up unprompted with me.
Let me give you an example. A Hampstead dinner party, lots of members of the metropolitan elite. I ask the guy opposite, who's just sold his business for £130m, what he thinks. Verbatim quote:
"Not really sure, never thought about it to be honest."0 -
No it won't. The people running the EU don't see any need for 'reform' as we would understand it. Quite the opposite - 'reform' as we would understand it would mean 'catastrophe' for them.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.
That is why we need to leave.0 -
There will be plenty more to come.SandyRentool said:Airbus have joined project fear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35958693
"Vote Leave - Fly Boeing!"
Incidentally, these lines are very similar to those that would have been propagated had a referendum to join the Euro ever been declared.
As an alternate history it is interesting to spectulate just how close that might have been, with full establishment sponsorship for Join.0 -
I honestly have no idea whether we produce tracks or overhead cables for high speed rail, I know it uses a different standard to conventional rail. It wouldn't surprise me if we were sourcing it from the French given that our HSR is going to be based on TGV's existing standard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).0 -
That depends on how fearful they become of their empire crumbling.runnymede said:
No it won't. The people running the EU don't see any need for 'reform' as we would understand it. Quite the opposite - 'reform' as we would understand it would mean 'catastrophe' for them.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.0 -
MaxPB said:
I honestly have no idea whether we produce tracks or overhead cables for high speed rail, I know it uses a different standard to conventional rail. It wouldn't surprise me if we were sourcing it from the French given that our HSR is going to be based on TGV's existing standard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).
Uk rail product is from Scunthorpe, who are fairly capable.
0 -
Looks like Tata make some at least:MaxPB said:
I honestly have no idea whether we produce tracks or overhead cables for high speed rail, I know it uses a different standard to conventional rail. It wouldn't surprise me if we were sourcing it from the French given that our HSR is going to be based on TGV's existing standard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/markets/transport/rail
Not immediately clear where it's manufactured, though.
Edit: Maybe NE France, but also Scunthorpe:
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/about-us/operations
0 -
The Hotel California rule.MaxPB said:
That's why the EU will try and introduce "you can never leave" rules in the event of Brexit.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.
0 -
'I don't think HS2 procurement has started yet, it is set to begin in 2018, by then there won't be much choice but to buy Chinese with the way European heavy industry is collapsing.'
Someone here 'in the know' hinted as much. I don't think procurement would have to have started for Osberon to have signed something stupid. Not saying it's true. But it would be the glacé cherry on the whole thing.0 -
You are missing the point - 'reform' as we understand it would mean the 'empire crumbling' for them.chestnut said:
That depends on how fearful they become of their empire crumbling.runnymede said:
No it won't. The people running the EU don't see any need for 'reform' as we would understand it. Quite the opposite - 'reform' as we would understand it would mean 'catastrophe' for them.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.
Far better in their view to let the UK go than loosen up the whole system.0 -
As I said the other day, HSR like long strings of rails - hundreds of metres rather than the traditional 60 foot lengths bolted or welded together on or near site. They might also require special alloys, or head-hardened rails. I don't know whether Scunthorpe can do all these requirements currently, but if they cannot it would be very expensive to make a plant just for HS2.MaxPB said:
I honestly have no idea whether we produce tracks or overhead cables for high speed rail, I know it uses a different standard to conventional rail. It wouldn't surprise me if we were sourcing it from the French given that our HSR is going to be based on TGV's existing standard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).
Edit: aha! This is useful:
http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/10/25/new-tata-steel-site-to-produce-longer-super-hardened-rail/0 -
Yes, but that is for conventional rail, hopefully they are able to integrate the HSR standard into their product pipeline.JonathanD said:MaxPB said:
I honestly have no idea whether we produce tracks or overhead cables for high speed rail, I know it uses a different standard to conventional rail. It wouldn't surprise me if we were sourcing it from the French given that our HSR is going to be based on TGV's existing standard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).
Uk rail product is from Scunthorpe, who are fairly capable.0 -
Brilliant.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
The Hotel California rule.MaxPB said:
That's why the EU will try and introduce "you can never leave" rules in the event of Brexit.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.
0 -
I'm pretty sure the person who hinted was not 'in the know'.Luckyguy1983 said:
'I don't think HS2 procurement has started yet, it is set to begin in 2018, by then there won't be much choice but to buy Chinese with the way European heavy industry is collapsing.'
Someone here 'in the know' hinted as much. I don't think procurement would have to have started for Osberon to have signed something stupid. Not saying it's true. But it would be the glacé cherry on the whole thing.0 -
-
I agree. Reform driven by the shock to them of us leaving is the best chance for the EU.runnymede said:
No it won't. The people running the EU don't see any need for 'reform' as we would understand it. Quite the opposite - 'reform' as we would understand it would mean 'catastrophe' for them.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.
That is why we need to leave.
0 -
Yes I just read on the Telegraph that Tata are investing in Scunthorpe to produce HSR compatible products. Excellent news.Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like Tata make some at least:MaxPB said:
I honestly have no idea whether we produce tracks or overhead cables for high speed rail, I know it uses a different standard to conventional rail. It wouldn't surprise me if we were sourcing it from the French given that our HSR is going to be based on TGV's existing standard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/markets/transport/rail
Not immediately clear where it's manufactured, though.
Edit: Maybe NE France, but also Scunthorpe:
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/about-us/operations0 -
That's an interesting work in progress Mr. Meeks although
for me Michael Gove is just another semi-numerate player in the "tighten up education" game.0 -
Steel makes compete on prices, but also on quality and lead times etc in certain circumstances. Some jobs (for example pipelines with very corrosive oil or gas running through them) require very high quality steel, and price is not the only consideration.MaxPB said:
Yes I just read on the Telegraph that Tata are investing in Scunthorpe to produce HSR compatible products. Excellent news.Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like Tata make some at least:MaxPB said:
I honestly have no idea whether we produce tracks or overhead cables for high speed rail, I know it uses a different standard to conventional rail. It wouldn't surprise me if we were sourcing it from the French given that our HSR is going to be based on TGV's existing standard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/markets/transport/rail
Not immediately clear where it's manufactured, though.
Edit: Maybe NE France, but also Scunthorpe:
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/about-us/operations0 -
Ah, thanks.MaxPB said:
Yes I just read on the Telegraph that Tata are investing in Scunthorpe to produce HSR compatible products. Excellent news.Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like Tata make some at least:MaxPB said:
I honestly have no idea whether we produce tracks or overhead cables for high speed rail, I know it uses a different standard to conventional rail. It wouldn't surprise me if we were sourcing it from the French given that our HSR is going to be based on TGV's existing standard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah.MaxPB said:The full timetable is in this document, Richard. I would also add a 2-3 year delay to all of that.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the specification of the steel for high-speed rail lines must be rather stringent, given the safety issues and the forces it has to withstand. It's not going to be bog-standard cheap stuff (I hope!).
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/markets/transport/rail
Not immediately clear where it's manufactured, though.
Edit: Maybe NE France, but also Scunthorpe:
http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/en/about-us/operations
Edit: and thanks also to Mr Navabi.0 -
I understand your point.runnymede said:
You are missing the point - 'reform' as we understand it would mean the 'empire crumbling' for them.chestnut said:
That depends on how fearful they become of their empire crumbling.runnymede said:
No it won't. The people running the EU don't see any need for 'reform' as we would understand it. Quite the opposite - 'reform' as we would understand it would mean 'catastrophe' for them.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.
Far better in their view to let the UK go than loosen up the whole system.
Their problem would be that the initial dilemma of Brexit will grow when they realise that letting us go might mean that X country and then Y country will also want out.
How far will they bend to cling on to something? How many will wager that some form of EU would be better than no EU at all?
We have had two dummy runs with the iScot referendum and the Eurozone crisis.0 -
I really don't see a rush of countries bolting for the door if we go. Most of them are far happier with EU membership than we are. Even the southern European countries which have had awful economic depressions in recent years retain a touching faith in EU membership as a badge of civilisation and provider of largesse.chestnut said:
I understand your point.runnymede said:
You are missing the point - 'reform' as we understand it would mean the 'empire crumbling' for them.chestnut said:
That depends on how fearful they become of their empire crumbling.runnymede said:
No it won't. The people running the EU don't see any need for 'reform' as we would understand it. Quite the opposite - 'reform' as we would understand it would mean 'catastrophe' for them.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.
Far better in their view to let the UK go than loosen up the whole system.
Their problem would be that the initial dilemma of Brexit will grow when they realise that letting us go might mean that X country and then Y country will also want out.
How far will they bend to cling on to something? How many will wager that some form of EU would be better than no EU at all?
We have had two dummy runs with the iScot referendum and the Eurozone crisis.
The only other country I could see leaving in the next few years is Hungary.0 -
I'm not one to pry but I understand the media may be refusing to report a sex scandal involving a prominent figure for political reasons. Whether or not these things are reported it shouldn't come down to politics.0
-
The look on all of their faces is hilarious.
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/7170256504822865930 -
Mr. Runnymede, just on grumpy southern countries, it's worth noting that sometimes unpleasant experiences actually encourage staying.
An example of something very similar is the high price of a gang-joining ritual. The theory is that it must really be worth joining if they can exact a high price. Similarly, southern countries that have gone through a lot of economic pain in the eurozone may not want to quit as the pain will then be seen as having been suffered for nothing.0 -
I think depending on the kind of Brexit deal we could end up with Sweden and Denmark may follow us out as the only two other nations not obliged to join the Eurozone.runnymede said:
I really don't see a rush of countries bolting for the door if we go. Most of them are far happier with EU membership than we are. Even the southern European countries which have had awful economic depressions in recent years retain a touching faith in EU membership as a badge of civilisation and provider of largesse.chestnut said:
I understand your point.runnymede said:
You are missing the point - 'reform' as we understand it would mean the 'empire crumbling' for them.chestnut said:
That depends on how fearful they become of their empire crumbling.runnymede said:
No it won't. The people running the EU don't see any need for 'reform' as we would understand it. Quite the opposite - 'reform' as we would understand it would mean 'catastrophe' for them.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Alternatively it could force fundamental reform within the EU and the eurozone to bring about more economic growth and prosperity.chestnut said:
I have some sympathy for this perspective. We are not the only disgruntled members.TCPoliticalBetting said:Best "End of Days" forecast today?
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
The one argument I can see for them to be very awkward on trade is that they will be scared of contagion and collapse.
They won't want anybody else making a break for it, especially if their currency is the euro.
Time for the barbed wire and machine gun posts along the Brussels Wall.
Up until now there is just no impetus for fundamental reform.
Far better in their view to let the UK go than loosen up the whole system.
Their problem would be that the initial dilemma of Brexit will grow when they realise that letting us go might mean that X country and then Y country will also want out.
How far will they bend to cling on to something? How many will wager that some form of EU would be better than no EU at all?
We have had two dummy runs with the iScot referendum and the Eurozone crisis.
The only other country I could see leaving in the next few years is Hungary.0 -
No i am undecidedIndigo said:
Is that the sound of someone whistling to keep themselves cheerful I hearBig_G_NorthWales said:It seems to me that a lot of discussion on here and the leaning of posters to leave is premature to the actual debate and the campaign proper starting in the next fortnight or so. Airbus has written today to it's 15,000 employees extolling the virtue of being in the EU. Airbus is a huge employer in North Wales where the wings for ALL airbus planes are made and the warning from such an important employer to their employees, families, communities and supply chain will have an impact. This is only the start of a campaign from large business in the UK and together with the inevitable warnings from the Bank of England and the City almost certainly backed up by pressure on exchange rates and investment, it would be extraordinary if the undecided voted for leave when push comes to shove
0 -
I think there are quite a few PB'ers who would be very happy if Ryan gets the nomination.TheScreamingEagles said:
Mike's going to be unbearable if Ryan gets the nomination. He got on him at 150/1Pong said:
It's not clear who "One of the nation's best-wired Republicans" actually is - 54% is crazy, but he has a reasonable chance as the default NOTA candidate. I wouldn't go above 10% personally - and probably 5% is more realistic.Pulpstar said:
I've covered him, but I think if Trump doesn't make it on the first ballot and is clearly losing delegates after the second - alot of his delegates will switch to Cruz.Pong said:Paul Ryan talk picking up.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-221522
Cruz has played an excellent shadow game. I think the talk of Ryan at 54% chance is fanciful.
Cruz is my best result, the Donald second and Kasich or Ryan 3rd or 4th from memory. I daren't look at Betfair these days !
From a betting POV, expect this speculation to continue. There's no way it can be shut down before the convention - at least not unless Trump looks set for 1237.
Personally, I'm on him for POTUS @ 999/1 for more than just a few quid.0 -
Which is a reason for the EU not to give us a very good deal - it might encourage others to leave. This will be offset by other factors, but will be in their minds.MaxPB said:
I think depending on the kind of Brexit deal we could end up with Sweden and Denmark may follow us out as the only two other nations not obliged to join the Eurozone.runnymede said:I really don't see a rush of countries bolting for the door if we go. Most of them are far happier with EU membership than we are. Even the southern European countries which have had awful economic depressions in recent years retain a touching faith in EU membership as a badge of civilisation and provider of largesse.
The only other country I could see leaving in the next few years is Hungary.
As it is, the EU bosses will be concerned about Cameron's renegotiation setting a trend. It'll be easy for another country - say Ireland - to throw a strop and say they want to leave unless they get a better deal. You cannot have too many exceptions before the whole thing fails.0 -
Just to pass on a contrary view, isam tells me that he thinks I'm mad in my assessment of Nigel Farage. With UKIP's and his popularity on the rise and Leave closing the gap, isam thinks he's doing well.0
