politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Downing Street might have just saved Ed Miliband

NickPalmer said:

ZenPagan said:

First?

As an aside I am in london the day of the meeting at Dirty Dicks. If anyone objects to me attending then now is the time to voice it. I know online I can be somewhat blunt and caustic so I would rather not show my face should it not be welcome as I am merely a sporadic poster who is mainly a lurker

Don't be silly, half the people on the forum are blunt and caustic - you'll be very welcome. Can't be there myself, unfortunately.

On topic, Ed never was going anywhere, and tonight's YG won't affect it - it will though be interesting as a measure of the extent to which Labour's current vote is vulnerable to a storm about Ed, and then next week's YGs will be a measure of whether any effect lasts. "A bit" and "no" is my guess, but we'll see.

The Government has clearly lost the spin arguments over the rebate, and I'd think that will slightly reinforce UKIP and slightly weaken Cameron's competence rating. I agree with Audrey that people won't burrow into the details, but the general impression isn't great. UKIP's real chance is that a post-Rochester poll e.g. by Survation shows them ahead of the Tories: the media would think that was a fun thing to go on about.

I too cannot make the drinkies. Did I see a few days ago an idea to have a Broxtowe drinkies at some point? Count me in if so.

Cameron handled this EU bill badly, there was no legal way to not pay and has managed to antagonise both the EU and the Europhobes at home. DICIPM!

The whole EU budget needs reform, but like the welfare state, as long as net recipients can outvote net contributors, it will not do so. Only a real crisis will do that. Paradoxically a Brexit could provoke the sort of reform that we want, though only after leaving!

impartial said:

Actually not on front pages which appear far more interested in possible terrorist plots and the so cslled cannibal!
The BBC is trying hard to keep it going by scrapping around Manachester to find a possibly Spanish political lecturer to cast a negative picture. Although not asked the obvious question regarding why he and others including Balls did not point out the rebate before the deal was done yesterday.
However it does all help to keep the ever increasing pathetic Ed in place which all helps in securing a Con victory next May

Welcome.

On the other hand, if Labour see Tories backing off from their attacks on a lame duck, shouldn't they at least wring its neck?

Scott_P said:

Osborne nails the aftertimers on R4

They all said it couldn't be done. Now it's done they claim it was inevitable.

I want the Conservatives to win the next GE but by defending this EU thing you are just pushing more votes to UKIP. It is not defendable, and it is embarrassing that the government are trying to spin it as a success.

We have just agreed to give money to the EU so that they can give it to France. All because we've made attempts to sort our economy out and others haven't.

It's a vote loser. And defending it will push even more people to UKIP.

Charles said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Charles said:

Swiss_Bob said:

@DavidL

I am also quite glad we don't have a PM who throws good looking journalists off the roof of Westminster. Not so sure about some of the less good looking though...

Probably not a good move for the PM but given the current crop of so called journalists, I would call the vast majority reporters, commentators or press release type setters, you could through the whole sorry lot off the roof with the result that the quality of 'journalism' would increase.

Two egregious examples. Look at the state of the Telegraph and the Spectator. Both have become risible.

You're being a little unfair there

The Spectator articles are still good value. Coffee House and the Telegraph I completely agree with you - never bother with either any more, and I used to be an avid reader of both.

Getting to quite like the Times, though, especially when I get it free at Heathrow...

Yeah, but only a little. There are some good articles in the Speccie, Rod Liddle is always good for a laugh. I wonder if you could get odds on him coming out for UKIP?

Re the Times. I had a subscription but then I found the mods joining in the comments, arguing with subscribers, deleting and editing their comments to make people look stupid.

How do I know, one of the women was posting under her own name and I found her Twitter profile, which said she worked for the Times.

I cancelled my subscription and complained. Response there was none, they never even refunded me.

This is the only site I go "below the line" on...

Charles, they work for Rupert Murdoch. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about their ethical standards?

taffys said:

It'll be interesting to see what effect Ozzie's euro deal has on R&S.

I reckon it will lose the tories a bucketload more votes.

Perhaps it will then dawn finally dawn on Dave and Ozzie that business as usual will no longer do.

Dave and George know that business as usual won't do; that's why they want the renegotiation. However, they can't embark on that now, in coalition, without the support of the Lib Dems which as far as I know hasn't been forthcoming.

Not that this makes the current deal look good - it doesn't - and nor does it help if such deal as Osborne has been able to cut is then overspun, as such spin will inevitably fall apart.

Charles said:

Indigo said:

Charles said:

Where Farage has front is the Cenotaph ceremony is a national act of remembrance. Farage is not a nationally elected leader. He has a party that is doing well in the polls, but that is it. Once he's an MP he'd be welcome.

To be fair to Farage he never said he should go, he said that someone should go to represent the voters that voted for UKIP, so presumeably Carswell.

That's a fair point - but why should the rules (which say you need 6 MPs to be invited) be changed to accommodate UKIP?

He is head of the largest UK delegation at the EP. It would have been good manners to invite him.

Lots of non MP organisations will lay wreaths tommorow, and lest we forget: we got involved in WW1 to defend Belgium and honour our treaty obligations. Issues about Europe are at the heart of why 3 of those Tower poppies are for members of my family.

Scenario #1:

Pay £1.7 billion in Dec '14 and receive £850 million May '16. *

Assumption:

£1.7 billion borrowed,
At 2.5% over the initial eighteen months,**
Whilst prices will rise by a nominal 2% over said period, ***
Adding debt arrangement and prices the cost over eighteen months is between 5.36 and 6.78% up until May 2016. ****
All prices quoted at constant exchange-rates.*****

Scenario #2:

Pay £850 million in CY2015 Q2/Q3:

Assumption:

£850 million borrowed,
2.5% debt arrangement over 9 months (Sept '15 Arrangement),
No price implication as payment and rebate are simultaneous,
Debt arrangement only cost implication (1.99%),

Scenario #1 costs between between £91 and £115 million over eighteen months. Due to the delay scenario #2 costs £17 million. So George may have shaved up to 5% of the bill due to careful management.

It is not a great result but it is better than many credit. My maths and assumption may be checked by others.

*: Not sure when rebate is actually repaid.
**: Ignores likely debt will likely be ~10-years and the later arrangement will have a later tail.
***: Difficult part here: Range based upon both 1 and 2% as the £850 million will be repaid but at nominal and not real value.
****: Simple addition of cost and prices over loan. Cost might be better as accumulative, and prices deductive, but it is a simple model.
*****: Comparative growth is likely to favour Sterling over Euro. Add to which Carney has indicated the interest will be rising over latter period.

Swiss_Bob said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Swiss_Bob said:

isam said:

TGOHF said:

@NickBolesMP: What a surprise: @Nigel_Farage reveals himself to be an egomaniac. Like all demagogues. http://t.co/zSK6YRAjOE

TGOHF said:

@NickBolesMP: What a surprise: @Nigel_Farage reveals himself to be an egomaniac. Like all demagogues. http://t.co/zSK6YRAjOE

Watch the interview, he doesn't demand anything and also says Ukip should be represented by someone, doesn't have to be him

Why am I not surprised. Tories and Labour making political capital out of Rememberance Sunday. I'm shocked.

No you aren't.

Here's a question for you. I gave £2 for a poppy a week ago and now I've lost it. (This happens most years.) Should I get another one, and, if so, how much should I put in the tin?)

More than £2 you cheap . . .

How much more?

Should have been folding, fiver or tenner depending on your pocket, it's only once a year for Gawd's sake.

The Legion publishes its accounts, Last year the Poppy appeal raised £36.1m (in England and Wales) - if every adult had given £2 it would have been about 50% more.

I think you owe me an apology.

I have not a clue why.

If you're in the south of England you gave them the equivalent of a pint of beer.

Watch J Nicholson's clip from a 'Few Good Men'.

It's Hollywood but accepting that, it has some truths, unpalatable truths and one of them is that the character played by J Nicholson would never have started like that, it's what standing on that wall, and knowing what the general public don't know that makes you into that type of person. You see so much death and brutality that you stop caring for the enemy, as a soldier the enemy is there to be killed and you pretty much don't care how, your primary concern is your own.

It's not right, it's not pleasant but that's what soldiers go through. I think that's worth more than £2 a year, especially if you were in London in the eighties, plenty of British Soldiers in NI died or were damaged in that long war keeping you safe(ish).

I probably haven't articulated it very well but it's the best I can do in trying to give you a quick and decent reply.

Well done for giving something and considering giving more, is that OK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

I'll take it.

Charles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Charles, they work for Rupert Murdoch. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about their ethical standards?

No. The sad reality of this world is that most people have to work for a living.

People who want to be journalists rarely have the luxury of not working for a leader in their industry.

For instance, I have more flexibility than most, but I have only once decided not to pursue an attractive (financial and careerwise) position because I don't like the culture of the organisation. I didn't know about the following at the time...but looks like my judgement was correct...

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/investor-husband-pushed-me-into-sex-for-biz-deal-estranged-wife/

All that proves is that the couple concerned had a problem with drink and drugs they don't yet acknowledge. The problem may well by endemic in that industry - does that excuse it?

Charles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Indigo said:

Charles said:

Where Farage has front is the Cenotaph ceremony is a national act of remembrance. Farage is not a nationally elected leader. He has a party that is doing well in the polls, but that is it. Once he's an MP he'd be welcome.

To be fair to Farage he never said he should go, he said that someone should go to represent the voters that voted for UKIP, so presumeably Carswell.

That's a fair point - but why should the rules (which say you need 6 MPs to be invited) be changed to accommodate UKIP?

He is head of the largest UK delegation at the EP. It would have been good manners to invite him.

Lots of non MP organisations will lay wreaths tommorow, and lest we forget: we got involved in WW1 to defend Belgium and honour our treaty obligations. Issues about Europe are at the heart of why 3 of those Tower poppies are for members of my family.

I'm not trying to defend the rules. If they are wrong, change them

Just objecting to the fact he is making political capital out of it.

In some ways he has a point: UKIP is the largest UK party in the EP, and one of the prime reasons for the creation of the organisation that became the EU was to make another European war not just unthinkable but materially impossible (whether that was actually practically achievable is a different point: the evidence of history suggests not but that it not to deny the intention). However, given UKIP's stated desire to leave the EU, basing any claim on an organ of that body, or on the point about the EU's founding purpose, is a touch hypocritical.

There's a general election next year. That should decide the matter one way or the other.

Innocent_Abroad said:

Charles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Charles, they work for Rupert Murdoch. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about their ethical standards?

No. The sad reality of this world is that most people have to work for a living.

People who want to be journalists rarely have the luxury of not working for a leader in their industry.

For instance, I have more flexibility than most, but I have only once decided not to pursue an attractive (financial and careerwise) position because I don't like the culture of the organisation. I didn't know about the following at the time...but looks like my judgement was correct...

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/investor-husband-pushed-me-into-sex-for-biz-deal-estranged-wife/

All that proves is that the couple concerned had a problem with drink and drugs they don't yet acknowledge. The problem may well by endemic in that industry - does that excuse it?

Believe me, this is by no means endemic in the industry.

I was at a meeting in Germany, for instance, where we were all laughing about Sage's latest exploits (he's quite well known in my little world).

But threesomes for deals? That's totally new!

Scott_P said:

Fenster said:

I want the Conservatives to win the next GE but by defending this EU thing you are just pushing more votes to UKIP.

we have just lived through 2 years of every single action in the known Universe being "good for the YeSNP"

Was it only two years?

It felt a lot longer.....

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Indigo said:

Charles said:

Where Farage has front is the Cenotaph ceremony is a national act of remembrance. Farage is not a nationally elected leader. He has a party that is doing well in the polls, but that is it. Once he's an MP he'd be welcome.

To be fair to Farage he never said he should go, he said that someone should go to represent the voters that voted for UKIP, so presumeably Carswell.

That's a fair point - but why should the rules (which say you need 6 MPs to be invited) be changed to accommodate UKIP?

They shouldn't. Farage is wrong on this. That said the claims that he 'demanded' anything are also rubbish.

Are the Greens represented?

Charles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Charles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Charles, they work for Rupert Murdoch. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about their ethical standards?

No. The sad reality of this world is that most people have to work for a living.

People who want to be journalists rarely have the luxury of not working for a leader in their industry.

For instance, I have more flexibility than most, but I have only once decided not to pursue an attractive (financial and careerwise) position because I don't like the culture of the organisation. I didn't know about the following at the time...but looks like my judgement was correct...

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/investor-husband-pushed-me-into-sex-for-biz-deal-estranged-wife/

All that proves is that the couple concerned had a problem with drink and drugs they don't yet acknowledge. The problem may well by endemic in that industry - does that excuse it?

Believe me, this is by no means endemic in the industry.

I was at a meeting in Germany, for instance, where we were all laughing about Sage's latest exploits (he's quite well known in my little world).

But threesomes for deals? That's totally new!

I know someone who recently worked on a deal with a billionaire, the things he had to do, willingly in his case.

Anyone else have money on England in the Rugby.

With all the injuries I'm already losing and the match hasn't even started.

Even boors should have their representation at the Cenotaph. Nigel Farage should have been invited.

On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?

Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.

antifrank said:

On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?

Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.

Morning Positron-Frank.

We should have paid exactly what we owed under the calculations we signed up to.

Of course I would argue that we should not be in there in the first place having to pay. But as long as we are in there we should follow the rules that we agreed to.

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

Fenster said:

I want the Conservatives to win the next GE but by defending this EU thing you are just pushing more votes to UKIP.

we have just lived through 2 years of every single action in the known Universe being "good for the YeSNP"

Was it only two years?

It felt a lot longer.....

Yes, thanks to people who say things like "YeSNP" a trillion times - which apart from being unutterably tedious completely misses one of the most interesting heterogeneities in Scottish politics (and with direct relevance to UKGE now, it seems).

antifrank said:

On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?

Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.

Correct. Its a moot point whether these changes should have been backdated but that was agreed by labour in 2000. The way thye charges were sprung was quite wrong and we have rectified that.
And before the event we did not see any opposition saying ''Dont pay the net £850 million'' They did not say that because a retrospective payment of 850 mil for 12 or 14 years worth of accounting changes does not sound too bad in the context of the UK getting about the same amount over 2 years for backdated rebates.
They did not say it because they themselves had not factored the rebate in.

Socrates said:

I see the Tories are still trying to argue night is day. Little hint guys: it doesn't work when all the other countries are pointing out you're paying in full.

Except we are not. The EU demanded 1.7 billion, not 850 million.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Elections - and yes, @RichardTyndall, I know this isn't the case in theory, but it is currently in reality - are about choosing governments.

Clearly not true since no one ended up with the government they wanted at the last election.

How do you know that no-one wanted a Con-LD coalition? There was much talk beforehand about the possibility of a hung parliament and what would happen thereafter, particularly after the first debate pushed the Lib Dems up to 30% in the polls. Even if there hadn't been such talk, it may well still have been the preferred option for a portion of the electorate. There may well be polls to prove it.

Richard_Tyndall said:

In theory and in practice we vote for individual MPs which is exactly why we are in the situation we are in now.

In theory, we vote for individual MPs. In practice, people vote for all sorts of reasons from preferred party leader to 'to keep out X in their constituency' to registering protests against or support for specific policies.

Well even if they wanted a coalition no one could directly vote for it so the point is moot.

In any event, the fact that it failed in one case doesn't disprove the rule

Except of course it isn't a rule. The rule is you vote for an individual MP. If people are too ill informed to understand this then we need to be doing something to make it more obvious. Of course the parties don't want to do that because it would make life more difficult for them.

The "rule" in a literary sense, you berk.

Most people make their decisions based on which of the parties and/or leaders they prefer. there are always some, but only a few thousand per constituency at most who make a choice based on the individual representative (this is the "personal vote" concept)

Flightpath said:

Socrates said:

I see the Tories are still trying to argue night is day. Little hint guys: it doesn't work when all the other countries are pointing out you're paying in full.

Except we are not. The EU demanded 1.7 billion, not 850 million.

And we will pay £1.7 billion in the end.

You actually have no idea what rebate will be applied when it comes out in the wash because the factors that effect that have not yet been determined since it will be dependent on how much money the UK pays over the next 2 years and how much we get back in grants. So all we can say for sure is that we are paying a gross contribution of £1.7 billion on which there will be some form of rebate.

Not even the EU yet knows how much the eventual net bill will be.

Flightpath said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Anyone else have money on England in the Rugby.

With all the injuries I'm already losing and the match hasn't even started.

The match has finished and England lost 16-14 having hit the post twice with difficult kicks.
A truly great test match played by some great rugby players.

Er, that's League, the Union match is this afternoon.

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Interesting article on Con-home by John Stevens, sometime of this parish, arguing in favour of a movement within Conservatism for closer union with the EU including joining the Euro.

Ignoring for a moment the substance of his argument which of course I disagree with, it is great that the site is providing a home for genuinely diverse views and discussion.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/11/john-stevens-a-last-word-on-the-metropolitan-party-and-a-first-on-a-new-unionist-party.html

Didn't he leave the Tories at some point to form the Pro-European Conservative party?

Very much on the margins

True (thankfully) but I am more interested in the fact that Con-Home has given him a platform. Something to congratulate them on.

Also interested in how much support there is for his position on the centre right. I assume not much.

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Elections - and yes, @RichardTyndall, I know this isn't the case in theory, but it is currently in reality - are about choosing governments.

Clearly not true since no one ended up with the government they wanted at the last election.

How do you know that no-one wanted a Con-LD coalition? There was much talk beforehand about the possibility of a hung parliament and what would happen thereafter, particularly after the first debate pushed the Lib Dems up to 30% in the polls. Even if there hadn't been such talk, it may well still have been the preferred option for a portion of the electorate. There may well be polls to prove it.

Richard_Tyndall said:

In theory and in practice we vote for individual MPs which is exactly why we are in the situation we are in now.

In theory, we vote for individual MPs. In practice, people vote for all sorts of reasons from preferred party leader to 'to keep out X in their constituency' to registering protests against or support for specific policies.

Well even if they wanted a coalition no one could directly vote for it so the point is moot.

In any event, the fact that it failed in one case doesn't disprove the rule

Except of course it isn't a rule. The rule is you vote for an individual MP. If people are too ill informed to understand this then we need to be doing something to make it more obvious. Of course the parties don't want to do that because it would make life more difficult for them.

The "rule" in a literary sense, you berk.

Most people make their decisions based on which of the parties and/or leaders they prefer. there are always some, but only a few thousand per constituency at most who make a choice based on the individual representative (this is the "personal vote" concept)

Which is why they need to be better informed about what they are actually voting for and also why we need to do something to reduce the power of the parties over our democratic system.

Flightpath said:

MikeK said:

logical_song said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Indigo said:

Charles said:

Where Farage has front is the Cenotaph ceremony is a national act of remembrance. Farage is not a nationally elected leader. He has a party that is doing well in the polls, but that is it. Once he's an MP he'd be welcome.

To be fair to Farage he never said he should go, he said that someone should go to represent the voters that voted for UKIP, so presumeably Carswell.

That's a fair point - but why should the rules (which say you need 6 MPs to be invited) be changed to accommodate UKIP?

They shouldn't. Farage is wrong on this. That said the claims that he 'demanded' anything are also rubbish.

Are the Greens represented?

Good Morning.

It would go down well with many people, especially veterans of our armed forces, if Nigel Farage, on behalf of UKIP, could lay a wreath at the Cenotaph tomorrow. However even I can't see how it could be done at such short notice.

Mind you, it would give Cammo's knickers a twist, make the front pages and give UKIP a boost before Rochester.

So laying a wreath is a political event for kippers. Using the dead to garner votes.

You're telling me that the service at the Cenotaph is not political?

Foot, donkey jacket. Plis smug politicians crying crocodile tears, all the while they were sending troops to the Afghan in shitty land rovers knowing they were likely to be blown to bits. That kind of political?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Flightpath said:

Socrates said:

I see the Tories are still trying to argue night is day. Little hint guys: it doesn't work when all the other countries are pointing out you're paying in full.

Except we are not. The EU demanded 1.7 billion, not 850 million.

And we will pay £1.7 billion in the end.

You actually have no idea what rebate will be applied when it comes out in the wash because the factors that effect that have not yet been determined since it will be dependent on how much money the UK pays over the next 2 years and how much we get back in grants. So all we can say for sure is that we are paying a gross contribution of £1.7 billion on which there will be some form of rebate.

Not even the EU yet knows how much the eventual net bill will be.

No: we are paying, net, £850m more than we would have been without this bill.

AIUI, we are rebated about 50% of the net contribution we make (gross contribution less benefits received).

Hence it stands to reason that if the gross contribution goes up, but the benefits are unchanged then the rebate will also increase by 50% of the increase in the gross contribution

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

Elections - and yes, @RichardTyndall, I know this isn't the case in theory, but it is currently in reality - are about choosing governments.

Clearly not true since no one ended up with the government they wanted at the last election.

How do you know that no-one wanted a Con-LD coalition? There was much talk beforehand about the possibility of a hung parliament and what would happen thereafter, particularly after the first debate pushed the Lib Dems up to 30% in the polls. Even if there hadn't been such talk, it may well still have been the preferred option for a portion of the electorate. There may well be polls to prove it.

Richard_Tyndall said:

In theory and in practice we vote for individual MPs which is exactly why we are in the situation we are in now.

In theory, we vote for individual MPs. In practice, people vote for all sorts of reasons from preferred party leader to 'to keep out X in their constituency' to registering protests against or support for specific policies.

Well even if they wanted a coalition no one could directly vote for it so the point is moot.

In any event, the fact that it failed in one case doesn't disprove the rule

Except of course it isn't a rule. The rule is you vote for an individual MP. If people are too ill informed to understand this then we need to be doing something to make it more obvious. Of course the parties don't want to do that because it would make life more difficult for them.

The "rule" in a literary sense, you berk.

Most people make their decisions based on which of the parties and/or leaders they prefer. there are always some, but only a few thousand per constituency at most who make a choice based on the individual representative (this is the "personal vote" concept)

Which is why they need to be better informed about what they are actually voting for and also why we need to do something to reduce the power of the parties over our democratic system.

Sure. Personally, I'd extract the executive from the legislature.

But we are where we are, not where you wish we were.

Morning, my fellow PB Fruitcakes!

"Tory Europhiles = Pig-dog Traitors" - discuss

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

antifrank said:

On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?

Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.

The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.

What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future

It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.

But it's Jena not Austerlitz

I don't think he has corrected any error. The rebate is not something that is calculated in advance and no one can know exactly how much it will be. If for some reason there is a substantial; increase in grants to the UK over the next couple of years then the rebate will be much lower. The bottom line is that we pay £1.7 billion more than expected and there is some hope that overall this will be reduced over the next couple of years.

It seems - from the reports - that there was some uncertainty about whether the rebate was due to be applied.

In any event, the rebate related *specifically to this extra payment* has been brought forward and netted off, so we will only pay £850m more.

Indigo said:

Flightpath said:

Socrates said:

I see the Tories are still trying to argue night is day. Little hint guys: it doesn't work when all the other countries are pointing out you're paying in full.

Except we are not. The EU demanded 1.7 billion, not 850 million.

and it got 1.7bn not 850m

850m in cash, and the return of 850m of rebate we otherwise would have got = 1.7bn

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who chairs meetings of eurozone finance ministers, said: “No discount has been awarded” explaining this is merely a reshuffling of what Britain owes so it gets earlier access to a rebate London was due to receive next year.

No, you are factually incorrect.

Without the £1.7bn extra payments we would not have got the extra £850m rebate.

Tomorrow's Sunil on Sunday ELBOW should be "interesting"

Swiss_Bob said:

Charles said:

antifrank said:

On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?

Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.

The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.

What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future

It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.

But it's Jena not Austerlitz

But he didn't get the payments deferred, the French did, for their own budgetary reasons they wanted the money next year.

Who knows who achieved what - I'm sure that everyone will claim the credit for it. The fact that the French benefit as well is a good reason why they would have supported the proposal.

Mr Bob,

England's defeat by Australia last week was inevitable. An Australian referee to ensure the right result and an Australia vs NZ final. Basically a fix that was predicted in these (NW) parts for weeks.

NZ may well win the Union World Cup next year but it will be fair.

TGOHF said:

Sean_F said:

TGOHF said:

Sean_F said:

Indigo said:

I mentioned this before, but it happens so regularly now I will say it again. I think the biggest problem the "liberal elite" and their followers have is an inability to keep their mouths shut and no parade their liberal credentials for all to see.

Farage is turning into a master of using this against them, with almost monotonous regularity Farage manages to choose an issue which simultaneously enrages the metropolitan liberals, and has many shire Tories and WWC voters thinking to themselves that there might be something in what he says.

This week we had the "Soldier shooting hostages/enemy combatants" which enrages centrist Tories and lefties, but probably has WWC voters and shire tories thinking that they might have done the same thing in the same position, and probably being damn sure they wouldn't be dragging someone that is fighting for his country through the courts. The Ebaying poppies is probably the same, twitterati aflutter, WWC wonder what was wrong with it, after all we let people ebay Lady Di memorabilia.

His pronouncements on immigration are this to a T, every time he hits on an issue which lots of UKIP wavers probably secretly agree with him on, and the metropolitan elite play right into his hands by parading their disgust on the TV and social media, and demonstrating to Farage's target constituency how he understands them, and the main parties dont.

It's true that Farage plays them like a flute.

Not really - like fellow Nat Salmond his powers are overstated by his unquestioning followers - the media will catch up soon.

@DPJHodges: Given Ukip's deal with a party led by a Holocaust denier, Farage has some front demanding a place at the Cenotaph this Sunday.

The SNP aren't doing badly, last time I looked.

Their poll ratings have soared since Eck stood down.

You are not very bright are you

Charles said:

Indigo said:

Flightpath said:

Socrates said:

I see the Tories are still trying to argue night is day. Little hint guys: it doesn't work when all the other countries are pointing out you're paying in full.

Except we are not. The EU demanded 1.7 billion, not 850 million.

and it got 1.7bn not 850m

850m in cash, and the return of 850m of rebate we otherwise would have got = 1.7bn

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who chairs meetings of eurozone finance ministers, said: “No discount has been awarded” explaining this is merely a reshuffling of what Britain owes so it gets earlier access to a rebate London was due to receive next year.

No, you are factually incorrect.

Without the £1.7bn extra payments we would not have got the extra £850m rebate.

No, you are incorrect. The rebate was in the background all the time.

Problem was the hapless Bullingdon duo had already leaked the charge to their press buddies and the hysteria was already well in train before anyone with some sense could get a word in.

You really need to understand that in terms of charges and net P&L nothing has changed since the EU published their calculations.

bigjohnowls said:

Charles said:

antifrank said:

On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?

Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.

The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.

What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future

It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.

But it's Jena not Austerlitz

Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).

Achieving b) and c) is in my view worth some credit and the best outcome he could have hoped for.

As for this halving the bill bollox. Well lets see what the voters think.

I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.

But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.

Easterross said:

Morning all and on thread, it was essential that Ed Bland, the Michael Foot Mark II remains in office so he can achieve a nationwide vote share in May of 25-28% helping David Cameron achieve an overall majority.

Strange that until last night neither Ed Balls nor any other Tory hater claimed the EU rebate would apply to the £1.7 billion and certainly no-one speaking from within the EU said so.

Bottom line is it is time we Tories pushed for a 2-tier EU and let all the chummies play at happy families with their own money instead of ours.

I think this is what Cameron has in effect said - he does not believe in an ever closer Union. Osborne as well has said that the EU is turning into a Euro-union.
this is what negotiations are all about. The EU is not going to go away. We will still have to deal with it if we were to leave.

You are right about the rebate and lack of comment.

Flightpath said:

Fluffy thoughts - this was a special extra surcharge and there is no real confirmation that the UK rebate would have applied. Only with pressure was it applied. The payment as well is delayed considerably which saves the UK money and costs the other EU countries money.

Quite:

I cannot understand why some of our more astute posters are talking about "adjustments" to a retrospective tax. We can not consume more EU-funds from the past whilst we may be required to provide retrospective funds because of our greater economic performance over the same time-frame!

The settlement looks just from where we started a few weeks ago. It really is sad that people cannot realise this.

:posted-from-a-true-BOO: *

* Includes Union with Europe and also Scotland, Wales and the Ulster-Scots.

Indigo said:

MarkHopkins said:

Indigo said:

Flightpath said:

Socrates said:

I see the Tories are still trying to argue night is day. Little hint guys: it doesn't work when all the other countries are pointing out you're paying in full.

Except we are not. The EU demanded 1.7 billion, not 850 million.

and it got 1.7bn not 850m

850m in cash, and the return of 850m of rebate we otherwise would have got = 1.7bn

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who chairs meetings of eurozone finance ministers, said: “No discount has been awarded” explaining this is merely a reshuffling of what Britain owes so it gets earlier access to a rebate London was due to receive next year.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29956289

"Under the initial plan, the UK was due to get a 1bn euros rebate in 2015-6 but it will be allowed to bring that forward to the second half of 2015 to reduce the surcharge.

But its 2016 rebate will be 1bn euros smaller as a result."

The 850m rebate is only a rebate on the additional payment, it does not affect any rebate due on the normal amounts. Therefore you cannot add the "850m of rebate we otherwise would have got", as we would not have had it without this payment.

If that is the case, why is the rebate for the following year being reduced by the same amount ?

It is only reduced from where it would be with this payment, not reduced from where it would be without the extra payment.

BenM said:

Charles said:

Indigo said:

Flightpath said:

Socrates said:

I see the Tories are still trying to argue night is day. Little hint guys: it doesn't work when all the other countries are pointing out you're paying in full.

Except we are not. The EU demanded 1.7 billion, not 850 million.

and it got 1.7bn not 850m

850m in cash, and the return of 850m of rebate we otherwise would have got = 1.7bn

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who chairs meetings of eurozone finance ministers, said: “No discount has been awarded” explaining this is merely a reshuffling of what Britain owes so it gets earlier access to a rebate London was due to receive next year.

No, you are factually incorrect.

Without the £1.7bn extra payments we would not have got the extra £850m rebate.

No, you are incorrect. The rebate was in the background all the time.

Problem was the hapless Bullingdon duo had already leaked the charge to their press buddies and the hysteria was already well in train before anyone with some sense could get a word in.

You really need to understand that in terms of charges and net P&L nothing has changed since the EU published their calculations.

That's the key point:

The rebate was never mentioned - by anyone - before the announcement. There are articles, by the Guardian, for instance that explicitly say the £1.7bn already factors in the rebate

Now people who don't like George Osborne are saying "but it was always there"

May be it was, may be it wasn't. I tend to believe that the position was unclear and that if the EU had thought they could have got away without paying the rebate they would have. But once the government called them out on it they had to hand over the money.

However, you are wrong that in terms of "net P&L" there have been no changes. Deferring the payments on a zero interest basis is a real saving that has real value. I think @fluffythoughts calculated that it was worth around £85m. Not huge, but worth having.

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

Charles said:

antifrank said:

On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?

Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.

The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.

What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future

It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.

But it's Jena not Austerlitz

Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).

Achieving b) and c) is in my view worth some credit and the best outcome he could have hoped for.

As for this halving the bill bollox. Well lets see what the voters think.

I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.

But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:

Lt Saavik: "You lied!"
Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!"

for now....

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

Charles said:

antifrank said:

On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?

Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.

The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.

What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future

It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.

But it's Jena not Austerlitz

Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).

Achieving b) and c) is in my view worth some credit and the best outcome he could have hoped for.

As for this halving the bill bollox. Well lets see what the voters think.

I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.

But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:

Lt Saavik: "You lied!"
Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!"

That's Undiscovered Country, I think Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??

No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home