politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters podcast featuring Margaret That
Comments
-
@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
0 -
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.0 -
Brisk, surely.FrancisUrquhart said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Have we also had the normal reports of voting being swift?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
I've seen many similar comments - the Two Minute Hate mob are alienating soft lefties
Michael Rectenwald
A commentary on last night's viral Twitter attack on me. Goodbye to the Left, goodbye. https://t.co/OgpdRA9EAU0 -
What is this broadband of which you speakOldKingCole said:
Interesting, thanks. I suspect that’s the way we’ll go. Our problem is that BT says they WILL soon supply Infinity to part of our community, but not to the majority.Sandpit said:
Projects like this are a great example of community spirit stepping in to deal with the lack of supply, and I've seen it totally change small communities for the better. A village down the road from my parents was the first in the country to do it.OldKingCole said:
There’s a public meeting in our small town next week on the subject of fibre broadband. A local-ish supplier is talking about offering it to all, but, AFAIK, insists on most of us signing up. BT, which I se at the moment, gets me up to download speed of about 17.Rexel56 said:A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/7586651/First-village-to-get-superfast-broadband.html
The problem has always been that it's bloody expensive to dig up roads and lay fibre, so unless there's a lot of support within the village then it's not financially viable. Good luck!
0 -
The Prince of Wales as Regent is a perfectly acceptable solution should the Queen become incapacitated. Such arrangements were in place for George VI/Princess Elizabeth, Queen Victoria/Prince Albert Edward and William IV/ Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent.not_on_fire said:
LIke all institutions the Monarchy needs to move with the times and recognise what is best for the country. If QE2 hangs on then then at some point a regent will need to deputise. That's not doing the reputation of the Monarchy or the country any favours.JackW said:
We are not a continental monarchy where abdication seems to becoming the norm. The Queen gave her Coronation Oath to serve the nation all the days of her life. It is a responsibility she will not break and neither will her son.FF43 said:
The argument, as I see it, for the hereditary system, is that you accept the occasional imbecile as a price worth paying for having absolutely clear cut succession rules and therefore avoiding civil wars. It's not a very fashionable principle these days where meritocracy, at least nominally, holds sway. (I admit to being cynical about meritocracy, which seems like a post-fact justification: I am top dog - therefore it must have been on merit).JackW said:A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Charles is far from an imbecile. I think he will do OK. The big problem is Queen Elizabeth hanging on for too long. She should retire and the principle of retirement, having been established, means Charles reigns for just a few years until he retires in turn, leaving the way clear for William0 -
What last point?RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
0 -
Yes, his testimony yesterday was very interesting indeed - a must-read IMOSouthamObserver said:twitter.com/andrewsparrow/status/834452406507339778
Of course, it's worth adding that what he says works both ways. If our EU friends want to banish UK airlines to the outer reaches of the airport accessible only by bus, then they could hardly complain if we give preference to UK airlines at our airports. We should always remember that what we propose is reciprocal access: it's not just 'will the UK have good access to the single market?', it's equally 'will the EU27 have good access to the UK market?'
The danger, as Sir Ivan pointed out very clearly, is that we all fall into a deal which damages both sides, because of EU politics and the huge difficulty they will have in coming to an agreement amongst themselves.0 -
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules0 -
The point about Scotch.SouthamObserver said:
What last point?RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products.0 -
It's the same Ivan Rogers that was actually OK, when you think about it on PB a couple of weeks back when he gave testimony that Leave supporters liked.ThreeQuidder said:
This is the same Ivan "screwed up the renegotiation before the referendum" Rogers, no?David_Evershed said:
Not very civil servant like.SouthamObserver said:0 -
Given UKIP's competence with numbers I'd take any reports of optimism from them with a huge pinch of salt.
At this time of day it probably means they've seen a number of their (very enthusiastic) voter base (prob older voters) come and tell them they are very excited and motivated, and so are all their mates.0 -
Whereas they probably think giving absolute power to a party that wins 30+% of the votes is bonkers.AlsoIndigo said:
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to themrcs1000 said:You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
0 -
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.rcs1000 said:
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules0 -
Those are exceptions that prove the rule.david_herdson said:
Like Tatton, Blaenau Gwent, or all of Scotland? When the will to change is there, the result changes. The reason why the result doesn't change is because there is no such will.logical_song said:
That's disingenuous.david_herdson said:
Nowhere is voting pointless. Every party starts on zero. If seats remain safe for one party, it's because that's what the voters there want (or, at least, because they can't agree on a better alternative).IanB2 said:
We would however have a better democracy if fewer votes were wasted, and if there were fewer places where voting is effectively pointless.ThreeQuidder said:
Unfortunately, in a democracy there is no right to vote for a winner.foxinsoxuk said:
No, it isn't what I voted for. Over the 35 years since I reached voting age, I have had a government that I voted for for 10 years, the rest one I opposed.Alanbrooke said:
but isnt that the culture you have voted for ?foxinsoxuk said:rcs1000 said:
I find it staggering that Italy has generated more jobs since 1999 (percentage-wise!) than the US.Sandpit said:
Some of those statistics are quite shocking. 11% of Ohioans are prescribed opiates, one in eight American men has a felony conviction, the actual unemployment rate is four times the official rate and half of those missing are on some sort of disability benefit etc etc.
More Americans die from opiate addiction (majority prescription) than from either guns or vehicles. America is a very sick society, with social and geographic mobility declining, drugged up on prescription, obese and staring at screens all day. Or at least part of it is, while the other part works multiple jobs to make ends meet.
Many parts of Britain are similar. I see a bit too much of it in my clinics. As individual patients, I sympathise and treat, but as a culture it worries me.
It's not as if this happened overnight, it's the cumulation of pretty much the same policies for the last 20 years or so, irrespective of which party was in government.
Which 10 years, incidentally? 1997-2007?
There are many constituencies where the outcome is a foregone conclusion under FPTP.
I'm not saying that conditions cannot arise whereby safe seats can change hands, but you know that there are hundreds of seats where a vote for the non incumbent is pretty futile. You'll also know that many of those seats are held on percentages lower than 50.0 -
Hmm - "like domestic products".RobD said:
The point about Scotch.SouthamObserver said:
What last point?RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products.
0 -
I would have thought the EU migration numbers should be reasonably accurate because the first thing that people do when they arrive is apply for a Residence Card (https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-a-uk-residence-card/overview).AlsoIndigo said:
The whole thing has a 90% chance of being complete nonsense because its based on an optional survey given at major ports of entry. People here on visitors visas and planning to take the piss are hardly likely to complete a survey form!david_herdson said:
Even if they are, it'd still be a 90%+ (off the top of my head) likelihood of being statistically significant.RobD said:
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.tlg86 said:Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
Does anyone know how many Residence Cards are issued each year?0 -
It is. Other electoral systems are available.OllyT said:
Whereas they probably think giving absolute power to a party that wins 30+% of the votes is bonkers.AlsoIndigo said:
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to themrcs1000 said:You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
0 -
I think "comparable" is a reasonable synonym for "like".SouthamObserver said:
Hmm - "like domestic products".RobD said:
The point about Scotch.SouthamObserver said:
What last point?RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products.0 -
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?RobD said:
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.rcs1000 said:
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules0 -
Well this would have been the best book I ever had on a political market
Stoke
Labour 4.48
UKIP 2.52
LD 67.88
Con 66.83
65%
Except the stakes are wildly out of sync, and I am 1% underwater!0 -
And almost every one more representative of voters opinions than airer than our "illiterate X"AlsoIndigo said:
It is. Other electoral systems are available.OllyT said:
Whereas they probably think giving absolute power to a party that wins 30+% of the votes is bonkers.AlsoIndigo said:
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to themrcs1000 said:You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
0 -
The problem on reciprocity is that we are one country - albeit an important one. So, Lufthansa has issues with flights in and out of the UK (ie, London); BA has issues with flights in and out of Paris, Munich, Frankfurt, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam etc etc.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, his testimony yesterday was very interesting indeed - a must-read IMOSouthamObserver said:twitter.com/andrewsparrow/status/834452406507339778
Of course, it's worth adding that what he says works both ways. If our EU friends want to banish UK airlines to the outer reaches of the airport accessible only by bus, then they could hardly complain if we give preference to UK airlines at our airports. We should always remember that what we propose is reciprocal access: it's not just 'will the UK have good access to the single market?', it's equally 'will the EU27 have good access to the UK market?'
The danger, as Sir Ivan pointed out very clearly, is that we all fall into a deal which damages both sides, because of EU politics and the huge difficulty they will have in coming to an agreement amongst themselves.
0 -
And, really bad for those whose savings in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar are a leveraged play.rcs1000 said:
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
0 -
Yes, but since you can't guarantee that there will ever be a majority (well, except with the Bhutan system), what options do you have?OllyT said:
Whereas they probably think giving absolute power to a party that wins 30+% of the votes is bonkers.AlsoIndigo said:
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to themrcs1000 said:You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
0 -
Aren't countries free to do that inside the single market? We seem to be able to change the rate of duty on different kinds of alcohol independently of other countries inside the single market.rcs1000 said:
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?RobD said:
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.rcs1000 said:
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules0 -
Fortunately I don't have a massive mortgage on a property bought in prime London at the top of the market.Animal_pb said:
And, really bad for those whose savings in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar are a leveraged play.rcs1000 said:
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
Oh wait...0 -
Well so long as you can afford the mortgage and enjoy living there, what does the value really matterrcs1000 said:
Fortunately I don't have a massive mortgage on a property bought in prime London at the top of the market.Animal_pb said:
And, really bad for those whose savings in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar are a leveraged play.rcs1000 said:
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
Oh wait... 0 -
One imagines that the Irish and Japanese would be pretty unhappy about that as well.rcs1000 said:
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?RobD said:
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.rcs1000 said:
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules0 -
Any idea of declaration times....I am thinking it could be late for Copeland (getting ballot boxes in across a scattered constituency after a storm) so 4-5am declaration, while Stoke between 2&3? thats before any recount and jiggery pokery of that sort.0
-
I am curious about what the Government's negotiating strategy actually is for Brexit. They claim they can get a comprehensive trade agreement sorted (minus some dotted i's and crossed t's) within two years. It's possible - as long as they give in into every demand the other side makes, bar a bit of cosmetic haggling. Time is not on their side. They also presumably expect a transition arrangement because they don't seem to be moving forward on alternative arrangements. If we are going to have customs controls, certification of civil aviation etc, they need to be recruiting now, developing systems and so on. Looking at this overview of the UK and EU negotiating teams it's clear the focus of the UK team is more on shoring up factional support for Brexit than getting a good deal. They may not actually be that interested in negotiating.RobD said:He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.
0 -
I thought the EU weren't going to negotiate any trade deal until after we left? But maybe that was just posturing.FF43 said:
I am curious about what the Government's negotiating strategy actually is for Brexit. They claim they can get a comprehensive trade agreement sorted (minus some dotted i's and crossed t's) within two years. It's possible - as long as they give in into every demand the other side makes, bar a bit of cosmetic haggling. Time is not on their side. They also presumably expect a transition arrangement because they don't seem to be moving forward on alternative arrangements. If we are going to have customs controls, certification of civil aviation etc, they need to be recruiting now, developing systems and so on. Looking at this overview of the UK and EU negotiating teams it's clear the focus of the UK team is more on shoring up factional support for Brexit than getting a good deal. They may not actually be that interested in negotiating.RobD said:He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.0 -
We can always go the ECJ and say - "it may not mention us by name, but this is clearly meant to benefit French cognac makers at the expense of Scottish whisky." And the ECJ is quite active at slapping down countries that it thinks act in this way.RobD said:
Aren't countries free to do that inside the single market? We seem to be able to change the rate of duty on different kinds of alcohol independently of other countries inside the single market.rcs1000 said:
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?RobD said:
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.rcs1000 said:
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Of course, this is both the benefit and the curse of the EU. It does (largely) prevent British firms from being discriminated against by other countries. But it does so by preventing politicians (and voters) from being able to enact the taxes they wish.
This isn't just an EU issue. In Quebec, the provincial government passed a law requiring all GM foods to be labelled as such. Monsanto took this to an ISDS tribunal (that sat in secret in the US), which ruled that the law was a non-tariff barrier aimed at US seed makers, and the law was struck down.
Free trade agreements, especially those that deal with NTBs, are inherently denuding of sovereignty. We need to decide where on the scale we want to be.0 -
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
0 -
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own rightJackW said:
There is no acceptance of a lesser title as formally Camilla is Princess of Wales and thus no precedent. She uses the title of Duchess of Cornwall as a courtesy to the memory of Diana. No such courtesy is required when she becomes Queen Consort as it is a title never held by Diana.david_herdson said:
As the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess. She has already accepted a lesser title; the precedent is in place.JackW said:
Hardly practical.david_herdson said:
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.JackW said:A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
Practical is as practical does and convention is largely whatever is acceptable at the time. Best to start low and let her grow into the role rather than kick off the reign with a crisis.0 -
If the ECJ is able to make that determination, that it is in effect a tariff, why doesn't the WTO?rcs1000 said:
We can always go the ECJ and say - "it may not mention us by name, but this is clearly meant to benefit French cognac makers at the expense of Scottish whisky." And the ECJ is quite active at slapping down countries that it thinks act in this way.RobD said:
Aren't countries free to do that inside the single market? We seem to be able to change the rate of duty on different kinds of alcohol independently of other countries inside the single market.rcs1000 said:
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?RobD said:
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.rcs1000 said:
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Of course, this is both the benefit and the curse of the EU. It does (largely) prevent British firms from being discriminated against by other countries. But it does so by preventing politicians (and voters) from being able to enact the taxes they wish.
This isn't just an EU issue. In Quebec, the provincial government passed a law requiring all GM foods to be labelled as such. Monsanto took this to an ISDS tribunal (that sat in secret in the US), which ruled that the law was a non-tariff barrier aimed at US seed makers, and the law was struck down.
Free trade agreements, especially those that deal with NTBs, are inherently denuding of sovereignty. We need to decide where on the scale we want to be.0 -
bravado! UKIP don't have the data. If Libs or Tories said that I would consider it.David_Evershed said:0 -
I believe it depends how bad Tornado Mavis is.swing_voter said:Any idea of declaration times....I am thinking it could be late for Copeland (getting ballot boxes in across a scattered constituency after a storm) so 4-5am declaration, while Stoke between 2&3? thats before any recount and jiggery pokery of that sort.
0 -
You know what else is guaranteed never to need charge... wired headphones..Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
0 -
No landlines here at all, so its mobile or nothing, and LTE internet or nothing. Mind you the first time I came here 20 years ago there was no mobiles, no television and one landline on the whole island - mind you people came out and talked to each other then, rather than sitting in their houses watching TV!Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
0 -
That is definitely just posturing! And, indeed the terms of Article 50 explicitly refer to the negotiation including the post exit relationship.RobD said:
I thought the EU weren't going to negotiate any trade deal until after we left? But maybe that was just posturing.FF43 said:
I am curious about what the Government's negotiating strategy actually is for Brexit. They claim they can get a comprehensive trade agreement sorted (minus some dotted i's and crossed t's) within two years. It's possible - as long as they give in into every demand the other side makes, bar a bit of cosmetic haggling. Time is not on their side. They also presumably expect a transition arrangement because they don't seem to be moving forward on alternative arrangements. If we are going to have customs controls, certification of civil aviation etc, they need to be recruiting now, developing systems and so on. Looking at this overview of the UK and EU negotiating teams it's clear the focus of the UK team is more on shoring up factional support for Brexit than getting a good deal. They may not actually be that interested in negotiating.RobD said:He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.
From what I understand, the biggest area of disagreement is around a transitional arrangement. The UK government wants none of the costs of EU membership and all the benefits for five years, while the EU wants us to bear all of the costs, with as few benefits as possible.
We will, eventually (and painfully), come to a deal that's halfway between Canada and Switzerland.0 -
Mid-Atlantic ridge? Oh dear!rcs1000 said:
That is definitely just posturing! And, indeed the terms of Article 50 explicitly refer to the negotiation including the post exit relationship.RobD said:
I thought the EU weren't going to negotiate any trade deal until after we left? But maybe that was just posturing.FF43 said:
I am curious about what the Government's negotiating strategy actually is for Brexit. They claim they can get a comprehensive trade agreement sorted (minus some dotted i's and crossed t's) within two years. It's possible - as long as they give in into every demand the other side makes, bar a bit of cosmetic haggling. Time is not on their side. They also presumably expect a transition arrangement because they don't seem to be moving forward on alternative arrangements. If we are going to have customs controls, certification of civil aviation etc, they need to be recruiting now, developing systems and so on. Looking at this overview of the UK and EU negotiating teams it's clear the focus of the UK team is more on shoring up factional support for Brexit than getting a good deal. They may not actually be that interested in negotiating.RobD said:He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.
From what I understand, the biggest area of disagreement is around a transitional arrangement. The UK government wants none of the costs of EU membership and all the benefits for five years, while the EU wants us to bear all of the costs, with as few benefits as possible.
We will, eventually (and painfully), come to a deal that's halfway between Canada and Switzerland. 0 -
Because countries aren't prepared to cede that much sovereignty to unelected Swiss bureaucrats!RobD said:
If the ECJ is able to make that determination, that it is in effect a tariff, why doesn't the WTO?rcs1000 said:
We can always go the ECJ and say - "it may not mention us by name, but this is clearly meant to benefit French cognac makers at the expense of Scottish whisky." And the ECJ is quite active at slapping down countries that it thinks act in this way.RobD said:
Aren't countries free to do that inside the single market? We seem to be able to change the rate of duty on different kinds of alcohol independently of other countries inside the single market.rcs1000 said:
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?RobD said:
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.rcs1000 said:
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)RobD said:@SouthamObserve
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Of course, this is both the benefit and the curse of the EU. It does (largely) prevent British firms from being discriminated against by other countries. But it does so by preventing politicians (and voters) from being able to enact the taxes they wish.
This isn't just an EU issue. In Quebec, the provincial government passed a law requiring all GM foods to be labelled as such. Monsanto took this to an ISDS tribunal (that sat in secret in the US), which ruled that the law was a non-tariff barrier aimed at US seed makers, and the law was struck down.
Free trade agreements, especially those that deal with NTBs, are inherently denuding of sovereignty. We need to decide where on the scale we want to be.0 -
Why would net migration turn negative when we are and will remain an economically successful first world developed nation.rcs1000 said:
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.0 -
That's true, but it's still the case that disruption to trade hurts them as well as us, and in some sectors more than us. So it's basically up to them - how much do they want to shoot at their own feet? Sir Ivan's testimony was quite chilling on that point:SouthamObserver said:The problem on reciprocity is that we are one country - albeit an important one. So, Lufthansa has issues with flights in and out of the UK (ie, London); BA has issues with flights in and out of Paris, Munich, Frankfurt, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam etc etc.
"If you had an abrupt cliff edge with real world consequences, you’ve seen what Mark Carney has said about the financial stability risks to the Eurozone of an abrupt cliff edge. There are other consequences in other sectors which would make it an insane thing to do. All I was pointing out was that this is a very legalistic body that we are dealing with and they will say you have transformed yourselves overnight from having been a member of this body to a third country outside the body and in the absence of a new legal agreement everything falls away. We all know that that’s nuts in the real world, because why would you want to stop UK planes flying into European airports on day [one]. We know that this is insanity, but that doesn’t mean - we know that stopping carcasses and consignments and saying ‘your slaughterhouses are no longer approved’, we may know that that is a nonsense in the real world. Sadly, that does not stop it necessarily happening."
As I've said many times recently, I think the financial markets and business are heavily under-estimating both the risk of a chaotic Brexit and the consequences. If I was Theresa May, I'd be rehiring Sir Ivan PDQ - his grasp of the issues, the complexity, and the EU politics looks second to none.0 -
WHat are these numbers and how do you calculate them?isam said:Well this would have been the best book I ever had on a political market
Stoke
Labour 4.48
UKIP 2.52
LD 67.88
Con 66.83
65%
Except the stakes are wildly out of sync, and I am 1% underwater!
I'm
£60
£60
£200
£600
Ish on the stoke book.
0 -
Three reasons:Philip_Thompson said:
Why would net migration turn negative when we are and will remain an economically successful first world developed nation.rcs1000 said:
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
1. There are a lot of younger EU migrants who are only here temporarily. (Yes, I know a lot will stay, but if even one-in-three goes home after five years, that's a lot of people going who aren't going to be replaced to the same degree.)
2. We're going to tighten non-EU migration rules too, especially in areas such as education.
3. London is not going to be such a hub for multinationals as it was.
Don't forget that the UK had negative net migration in the early 1980s, despite a prosperous and growing economy.0 -
ironically the better the Libs do, the more chance UKIP an win.midwinter said:
Cheers. I'm struggling to see them polling that highly but also loath to ignore anything Andy thinks. If much of that has come from Labour it really will be close at least 3 ways, possibly 4.Pulpstar said:
@AndyJS prediction of 25-30% for UKIP in Stoke was put quite confidently, it's a small band imo and his standing will increase yet further with the site if it holds up.midwinter said:
Not at the current prices...did I notice you saying you were positive UKIP would get at least 25 percent in Stoke?AndyJS said:Is anyone backing the Tories in Stoke?
Going for POTY 2 years in a row ?0 -
I thought negative net migration was what the Brexiteers wanted.Philip_Thompson said:
Why would net migration turn negative when we are and will remain an economically successful first world developed nation.rcs1000 said:
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.0 -
Where are you? Sorry if I missed it earlier.AlsoIndigo said:
No landlines here at all, so its mobile or nothing, and LTE internet or nothing. Mind you the first time I came here 20 years ago there was no mobiles, no television and one landline on the whole island - mind you people came out and talked to each other then, rather than sitting in their houses watching TV!Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
Yep - it was very dishonest of some on the Leave side to claim that the negotiations would be simple and we would essentially get what we want. That said, I also think that in the real world national governments inside the EU will have the final say on what kind of deal gets done. That's why I expect we'll end up with something that delivers blue passports and other symbolic signs of sovereignty, but which in practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided. To do otherwise would be very damaging, not only economically but also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's true, but it's still the case that disruption to trade hurts them as well as us, and in some sectors more than us. So it's basically up to them - how much do they want to shoot at their own feet? Sir Ivan's testimony was quite chilling on that point:SouthamObserver said:The etc.
"If you had an abrupt cliff edge with real world consequences, you’ve seen what Mark Carney has said about the financial stability risks to the Eurozone of an abrupt cliff edge. There are other consequences in other sectors which would make it an insane thing to do. All I was pointing out was that this is a very legalistic body that we are dealing with and they will say you have transformed yourselves overnight from having been a member of this body to a third country outside the body and in the absence of a new legal agreement everything falls away. We all know that that’s nuts in the real world, because why would you want to stop UK planes flying into European airports on day [one]. We know that this is insanity, but that doesn’t mean - we know that stopping carcasses and consignments and saying ‘your slaughterhouses are no longer approved’, we may know that that is a nonsense in the real world. Sadly, that does not stop it necessarily happening."
As I've said many times recently, I think the financial markets and business are heavily under-estimating both the risk of a chaotic Brexit and the consequences. If I was Theresa May, I'd be rehiring Sir Ivan PDQ - his grasp of the issues, the complexity, and the EU politics looks second to none.
0 -
Interesting conversation with Polish electrician, who was changing our electric meter yesterday. He wants to stay here, but his wife whose optometrist qualification apparently (why?) can’t be used here wants to go back to Poland after Brexit. He’s worried about his qualifications here being unacceptable there then.rcs1000 said:
Three reasons:Philip_Thompson said:
Why would net migration turn negative when we are and will remain an economically successful first world developed nation.rcs1000 said:
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
1. There are a lot of younger EU migrants who are only here temporarily. (Yes, I know a lot will stay, but if even one-in-three goes home after five years, that's a lot of people going who aren't going to be replaced to the same degree.)
2. We're going to tighten non-EU migration rules too, especially in areas such as education.
3. London is not going to be such a hub for multinationals as it was.
Don't forget that the UK had negative net migration in the early 1980s, despite a prosperous and growing economy.0 -
Princess Consort might be an option, although King and Queen is just much more natural and less contrived.GarethoftheVale2 said:
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own rightJackW said:
There is no acceptance of a lesser title as formally Camilla is Princess of Wales and thus no precedent. She uses the title of Duchess of Cornwall as a courtesy to the memory of Diana. No such courtesy is required when she becomes Queen Consort as it is a title never held by Diana.david_herdson said:
As the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess. She has already accepted a lesser title; the precedent is in place.JackW said:
Hardly practical.david_herdson said:
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.JackW said:A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
Practical is as practical does and convention is largely whatever is acceptable at the time. Best to start low and let her grow into the role rather than kick off the reign with a crisis.0 -
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
0 -
I listen to the radio on my phone in bed as I fall asleep, and as I'm drifting off, I take the earphone out and drop it on the floor. And it stays tethered to the phone so I can find it in the morning! I can also listen and charge my phone at the same time. Ain't modern technology great?Fysics_Teacher said:
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required.0 -
Talking of dishonesty... No ECJ influence on any matters covered by the TFEU and associated treaties other than to do with trade, no ECJ influence on immigration, labour relations, social policy, data retention, foreign policy, security, environmental law, criminal law, consumer protection, public services. So not at all pretty much were we are now.SouthamObserver said:practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided.
0 -
The easiest solution is to maintain the status from down the ages - the wife of the King is the Queen.GarethoftheVale2 said:The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
0 -
They are the prices I have backed the parties atdanielmawbs said:
WHat are these numbers and how do you calculate them?isam said:Well this would have been the best book I ever had on a political market
Stoke
Labour 4.48
UKIP 2.52
LD 67.88
Con 66.83
65%
Except the stakes are wildly out of sync, and I am 1% underwater!
I'm
£60
£60
£200
£600
Ish on the stoke book.0 -
I thought "take control" was what Brexiteers wanted.OldKingCole said:
I thought negative net migration was what the Brexiteers wanted.Philip_Thompson said:
Why would net migration turn negative when we are and will remain an economically successful first world developed nation.rcs1000 said:
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.tlg86 said:
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.TheScreamingEagles said:@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU:
+165,000 EU citizens
+164,000 non-EU citizens
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SiargaoAndyJS said:
Where are you? Sorry if I missed it earlier.AlsoIndigo said:
No landlines here at all, so its mobile or nothing, and LTE internet or nothing. Mind you the first time I came here 20 years ago there was no mobiles, no television and one landline on the whole island - mind you people came out and talked to each other then, rather than sitting in their houses watching TV!Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
0 -
I think the question of the UK political fallout from a messy and damaging Brexit is extremely hard to gauge, especially since Labour are effectively now tied to it. The one 100% certainty is that voters won't blame themselves.SouthamObserver said:...also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.
0 -
Reference Stoke Central: the Lib Dem agent has said in writing this morning:
"So we clear the office, bundle the good morning leaflets and prepare for a full-on count where no party really knows what will happen"
Is that the reality or what?0 -
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yep - it was very dishonest of some on the Leave side to claim that the negotiations would be simple and we would essentially get what we want. That said, I also think that in the real world national governments inside the EU will have the final say on what kind of deal gets done. That's why I expect we'll end up with something that delivers blue passports and other symbolic signs of sovereignty, but which in practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided. To do otherwise would be very damaging, not only economically but also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.SouthamObserver said:
That's true, but it's still the case that disruption to trade hurts them as well as us, and in some sectors more than us. So it's basically up to them - how much do they want to shoot at their own feet? Sir Ivan's testimony was quite chilling on that point:
"If you had an abrupt cliff edge with real world consequences, you’ve seen what Mark Carney has said about the financial stability risks to the Eurozone of an abrupt cliff edge. There are other consequences in other sectors which would make it an insane thing to do. All I was pointing out was that this is a very legalistic body that we are dealing with and they will say you have transformed yourselves overnight from having been a member of this body to a third country outside the body and in the absence of a new legal agreement everything falls away. We all know that that’s nuts in the real world, because why would you want to stop UK planes flying into European airports on day [one]. We know that this is insanity, but that doesn’t mean - we know that stopping carcasses and consignments and saying ‘your slaughterhouses are no longer approved’, we may know that that is a nonsense in the real world. Sadly, that does not stop it necessarily happening."
As I've said many times recently, I think the financial markets and business are heavily under-estimating both the risk of a chaotic Brexit and the consequences. If I was Theresa May, I'd be rehiring Sir Ivan PDQ - his grasp of the issues, the complexity, and the EU politics looks second to none.0 -
-
-
Labour's campaign chief Jack Dromey describes Stoke Central as "a tough, tough, tough marginal":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/weather-in-copeland-tories-in-stoke-labour-voices-fears-of-failure-byelections0 -
Are these Bluetooth 'phones then? Or do you mean physicaly tethered?ThreeQuidder said:
I listen to the radio on my phone in bed as I fall asleep, and as I'm drifting off, I take the earphone out and drop it on the floor. And it stays tethered to the phone so I can find it in the morning! I can also listen and charge my phone at the same time. Ain't modern technology great?Fysics_Teacher said:
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required.
Edit to say: at night my phone sits on a speaker that acts as a charging dock so if I want to listen to something I can.0 -
Absolutely. I think the Lib Dem price is ridiculously high. Although watching Anywhere But Westminster made me wonder where they or the Tories were going to get votes from!!Dixie said:
ironically the better the Libs do, the more chance UKIP an win.midwinter said:
Cheers. I'm struggling to see them polling that highly but also loath to ignore anything Andy thinks. If much of that has come from Labour it really will be close at least 3 ways, possibly 4.Pulpstar said:
@AndyJS prediction of 25-30% for UKIP in Stoke was put quite confidently, it's a small band imo and his standing will increase yet further with the site if it holds up.midwinter said:
Not at the current prices...did I notice you saying you were positive UKIP would get at least 25 percent in Stoke?AndyJS said:Is anyone backing the Tories in Stoke?
Going for POTY 2 years in a row ?0 -
1. I see little evidence or reason to suggest either that 1/3 will go home, or that replacement rates for new migrants won't be high either.rcs1000 said:Three reasons:
1. There are a lot of younger EU migrants who are only here temporarily. (Yes, I know a lot will stay, but if even one-in-three goes home after five years, that's a lot of people going who aren't going to be replaced to the same degree.)
2. We're going to tighten non-EU migration rules too, especially in areas such as education.
3. London is not going to be such a hub for multinationals as it was.
Don't forget that the UK had negative net migration in the early 1980s, despite a prosperous and growing economy.
2. Non-EU migration rules have been tightened for years, I simply don't see them realistically getting significantly tighter.
3. What evidence do we have for that? There's been lots of positive news in recent months for major multinationals either saying they're staying in London or expanding/moving into London.
In the early 1980s the UK was still recovering from being the "sick man of Europe" with over 3 million unemployed. It was also before the fall of the iron curtain started massive migration from Eastern Europe and at a time that there was much less migration from the third world. We're in a completely different era now and the iron curtain is not coming back.0 -
Physically tethered. Attached. Through the headphone jack!Fysics_Teacher said:
Are these Bluetooth 'phones then? Or do you mean physicaly tethered?ThreeQuidder said:
I listen to the radio on my phone in bed as I fall asleep, and as I'm drifting off, I take the earphone out and drop it on the floor. And it stays tethered to the phone so I can find it in the morning! I can also listen and charge my phone at the same time. Ain't modern technology great?Fysics_Teacher said:
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required. 0 -
Majority 16.7%.AndyJS said:Labour's campaign chief Jack Dromey describes Stoke Central as "a tough, tough, tough marginal":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/weather-in-copeland-tories-in-stoke-labour-voices-fears-of-failure-byelections
Although I guess Labour have to treat such seats as marginals, since on UNS they need to overturn majorities in that range to get to 326.0 -
Lab/Con/UKIP seems good value at 7/2 given how much a donkey in a red rosette should win this and the struggles of Nuttall.Scott_P said:0 -
Scott_P said:
If anyone backs Con-Lab-UKIP at 10/1, when the Tories are 20 to win it on Betfair they should be tarred and feathered!0 -
LOL - How is this ever a marginal?AndyJS said:Labour's campaign chief Jack Dromey describes Stoke Central as "a tough, tough, tough marginal":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/weather-in-copeland-tories-in-stoke-labour-voices-fears-of-failure-byelections
https://twitter.com/CompletePol/status/8344856281757941760 -
Not sure how expressing an opinion can be described as "dishonest". Of course, things like environmental protection, consumer standards, data protection etc can well have a trade element to them. In fact, most things can. It will all depend on the trade deal we do and what areas it stipulates are covered by the ECJ's jurisdiction. I happen to think that the deal we end up with will be pretty all encompassing, so I see a big ongoing role for the ECJ.AlsoIndigo said:
Talking of dishonesty... No ECJ influence on any matters covered by the TFEU and associated treaties other than to do with trade, no ECJ influence on immigration, labour relations, social policy, data retention, foreign policy, security, environmental law, criminal law, consumer protection, public services. So not at all pretty much were we are now.SouthamObserver said:practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided.
0 -
In the picture, Corbyn seems to hiding his face from the voter behind a 'Vote Gareth Snell' poster. Sensible enough, I guess.AndyJS said:Labour's campaign chief Jack Dromey describes Stoke Central as "a tough, tough, tough marginal":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/weather-in-copeland-tories-in-stoke-labour-voices-fears-of-failure-byelections0 -
Trains between B'ham and Stoke have been cancelled due to adverse weather conditions.0
-
Sandpit said:OldKingCole said:
Interesting, thanks. I suspect that’s the way we’ll go. Our problem is that BT says they WILL soon supply Infinity to part of our community, but not to the majority.Sandpit said:
Projects like this are a great example of community spirit stepping in to deal with the lack of supply, and I've seen it totally change small communities for the better. A village down the road from my parents was the first in the country to do it.OldKingCole said:
There’s a public meeting in our small town next week on the subject of fibre broadband. A local-ish supplier is talking about offering it to all, but, AFAIK, insists on most of us signing up. BT, which I se at the moment, gets me up to download speed of about 17.Rexel56 said:A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/7586651/First-village-to-get-superfast-broadband.html
The problem has always been that it's bloody expensive to dig up roads and lay fibre, so unless there's a lot of support within the village then it's not financially viable. Good luck!
I understand there is a limit on how many Infinity users BT can connect to each local cabinet.
I was told a maximum of 50% in our village would be able to sign up to infinity because of the practical limit. However, we have a private communications company, GigaClear, who have installed optical fibre to the village so you can sign up to superfast broadband at a price.0 -
Thousands of doctors trained in Europe 'may quit UK after Brexit'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/thousands-eea-doctors-may-leave-uk-after-brexit-survey-bma?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard0 -
On the contrary, they should be offered VIP access to the PB betting forum.isam said:If anyone backs Con-Lab-UKIP at 10/1, when the Tories are 20 to win it on Betfair they should be tarred and feathered!
0 -
The government's conundrum is that paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ are necessary conditions for people thinking, Brexit wasn't so bad, was it? I think this is the issue that is exercising them right now.Sandpit said:
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yep - it was very dishonest of some on the Leave side to claim that the negotiations would be simple and we would essentially get what we want. That said, I also think that in the real world national governments inside the EU will have the final say on what kind of deal gets done. That's why I expect we'll end up with something that delivers blue passports and other symbolic signs of sovereignty, but which in practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided. To do otherwise would be very damaging, not only economically but also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.
0 -
But the husband of the Queen is not the King. Perhaps we could restrict the title queen to that of the monarch, rather than the monarch's female consort.JackW said:
The easiest solution is to maintain the status from down the ages - the wife of the King is the Queen.GarethoftheVale2 said:The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?
That explains why you can find them in the morning! Sorry, not thinking straight at the moment.ThreeQuidder said:
Physically tethered. Attached. Through the headphone jack!Fysics_Teacher said:
Are these Bluetooth 'phones then? Or do you mean physicaly tethered?ThreeQuidder said:
I listen to the radio on my phone in bed as I fall asleep, and as I'm drifting off, I take the earphone out and drop it on the floor. And it stays tethered to the phone so I can find it in the morning! I can also listen and charge my phone at the same time. Ain't modern technology great?Fysics_Teacher said:
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.Scott_P said:
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need chargedFysics_Teacher said:iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required.0 -
isam said:danielmawbs said:
WHat are these numbers and how do you calculate them?isam said:Well this would have been the best book I ever had on a political market
Stoke
Labour 4.48
UKIP 2.52
LD 67.88
Con 66.83
65%
Except the stakes are wildly out of sync, and I am 1% underwater!
I'm
£60
£60
£200
£600
Ish on the stoke book.
They are the prices I have backed the parties at
Thanks, I'm all over the place as I both back and lay as my trading position dictates0 -
and probably would have done anyway as they have been for years.YellowSubmarine said:Thousands of doctors trained in Europe 'may quit UK after Brexit'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/thousands-eea-doctors-may-leave-uk-after-brexit-survey-bma?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard0 -
Yeah me too, those are the net backs ie I have backed Conservatives £148@37.14 and laid them £90@17.78 which gives a net £58.71@66.83danielmawbs said:isam said:danielmawbs said:
WHat are these numbers and how do you calculate them?isam said:Well this would have been the best book I ever had on a political market
Stoke
Labour 4.48
UKIP 2.52
LD 67.88
Con 66.83
65%
Except the stakes are wildly out of sync, and I am 1% underwater!
I'm
£60
£60
£200
£600
Ish on the stoke book.
They are the prices I have backed the parties at
Thanks, I'm all over the place as I both back and lay as my trading position dictates0 -
We were told to expect 60-70 mph winds in Leamington this morning, so far we have had a slight breeze.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
So they are going to love the idea of a transition period, leave in 2019, election in 2020 with people thinking, Brexit wasn't so bad, was it? Con landslide. Material hits the rotating blades a year or two later, if they haven't go any other big deals in place.FF43 said:
The government's conundrum is that paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ are necessary conditions for people thinking, Brexit wasn't so bad, was it? I think this is the issue that is exercising them right now.Sandpit said:
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yep - it was very dishonest of some on the Leave side to claim that the negotiations would be simple and we would essentially get what we want. That said, I also think that in the real world national governments inside the EU will have the final say on what kind of deal gets done. That's why I expect we'll end up with something that delivers blue passports and other symbolic signs of sovereignty, but which in practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided. To do otherwise would be very damaging, not only economically but also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.0 -
@Fysics_Teacher wrote : "What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?"
If Harry marries a chap (not looking likely) the husband might already be a right old queen ....
0 -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/map/gctqq67q7#?zoom=9&map=Wind&lon=-3.37&lat=54.58&fcTime=1487840400TheScreamingEagles said:
for present and forecast winds in near real time. It looks a bit unexciting and the summary says "Winds will be less severe in Cumbria but snow is likely on hills there later." But perhaps fear of amber warnings is as effective as the actual weather in keeping folks at home.0 -
-
Very windy in N Essex. No idea of actual speed.SouthamObserver said:
We were told to expect 60-70 mph winds in Leamington this morning, so far we have had a slight breeze.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
O/T, while lesser F1 teams unveil their new car by taking the cover off it at an exhibition, Mercedes unveil theirs by sending Lewis Hamilton around Silverstone in it!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2017/02/23/mercedes-f1-launch-new-w08-car-soon-unveiled-2017-season-live/0 -
I have to say, that headline (I did not see any point reading the story) almost made me laugh out loud.AlsoIndigo said:
and probably would have done anyway as they have been for years.YellowSubmarine said:Thousands of doctors trained in Europe 'may quit UK after Brexit'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/thousands-eea-doctors-may-leave-uk-after-brexit-survey-bma?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Apocryphally, I think Trump offers the UK another opportunity obscured by the shadow of the prospect of a bigger trade deal. I was in Granada this week for a strategy retreat for a major very high tech global NGO. Its annual get together involved thousands of participants from nearly 50 countries last year. It is very rapidly growing, so in a normal year, one would expect even larger numbers this year.
The organizers are very concerned that international participants will either not get visas for the get together in the US, or won't even bother signing up to the NGO at all because of the prevailing climate in the Trump Administration. So they are looking to relocate, lock stock and barrel to London.
The three biggest attractions to the are:
1. the UK is the next most advanced in this field after the US
2. ability to host a conference of this size and nature, particularly international transport links
3. language.
It strikes my that scientific research institutions that are bewailing the potential loss of European integration are missing - at least to date - the opportunity posed by what's going on in the US. We are the natural location for US researchers seeking another home.0 -
Southend airport currently 33 knots, around 40mph or 60kphOldKingCole said:
Very windy in N Essex. No idea of actual speed.SouthamObserver said:
We were told to expect 60-70 mph winds in Leamington this morning, so far we have had a slight breeze.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/sen/arrivals0 -
Someone fancies Labour in Stoke.
1.21 / 1.5 spread now.0 -
Fysics_Teacher said:
But the husband of the Queen is not the King. Perhaps we could restrict the title queen to that of the monarch, rather than the monarch's female consort.JackW said:
The easiest solution is to maintain the status from down the ages - the wife of the King is the Queen.GarethoftheVale2 said:The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?ThreeQuidder said:Fysics_Teacher said:ThreeQuidder said:Fysics_Teacher said:
It'll be nothing compared to what Prince Philip calls Harry.....0
