politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Downing Street might have just saved Ed Miliband
Comments
-
Why didn't Cameron stand up on 17th October and tell everyone that we had a 850m bill which we would unfortunately have to pay then if he knew about the rebate, why did he thump the table and say were were not paying the 1.7bn bill. Either he didn't know, or he was lying to parliament.chestnut said:
The story broke on 17 October. The deal was concluded on 7 November.Indigo said:
Hell, if Cameron didnt know about it until a week or two ago when GO told him, how the hell are Miliband and Carswell supposed to find out!
They've had three weeks to question whether the UK rebate would reduce the bill.0 -
It's not.Indigo said:
If that is the case, why is the rebate for the following year being reduced by the same amount ?MarkHopkins said:Indigo said:
and it got 1.7bn not 850mFlightpath 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.
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.
Original position:
2014 Contribution = A
2015 Contribution = B
2016 Rebate on 2014 Contribution = C
EU demand:
2014 Contribution = A + £1.7bn
2015 Contribution = B
2016 Rebate = C + zero or £850m (depending on who you believe)
Negotiated Settlement:
2014 Contribution = A
2015 Contribution = B + £1.7bn - (rebate) £850m = B + £850m
2016 Rebate = C
Does that make it clearer?
In summary:
Worst case: GO has achieved a saving of c. £85m from delaying the payment/bringing forward the rebate
Best case" GO has achieved the worst case + £850m by ensuring that the rebate was properly applied, which appears to have been in doubt0 -
I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?0 -
Exactly right (apart from the original demand being 2014 not 2015).RobD said:
So is it something like this:Charles said:
Weasel words.Indigo said:It seems the rebate isnt "free" either.
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."
Yes, moving the £850m from 2016 to the 2015 means that the 2016 rebate will be lower.
But the 2015+2016 rebate is £850m higher than it would have been if we were not making this extra contribution.
Before bill was presented:
2015 - £1bn rebate (say)
2016 - £1bn rebate
After bill was presented:
2015 - £1bn rebate, £1.7bn bill
2016 - £1bn rebate
After yesterday:
2015 - £1bn rebate, £1.7bn bill
2016 - £1.85bn rebate
So the rebate in 2016 becomes smaller when it is moved from 2016 to 2015. What's all the fuss about??
The fuss is because people want to try and muddy the water about Osborne's achievement.0 -
nigel4england said:
I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
0 -
Could it be that no one knew if it was with or without rebate discount.Indigo said:
Why didn't Cameron stand up on 17th October and tell everyone that we had a 850m bill which we would unfortunately have to pay then if he knew about the rebate, why did he thump the table and say were were not paying the 1.7bn bill. Either he didn't know, or he was lying to parliament.chestnut said:
The story broke on 17 October. The deal was concluded on 7 November.Indigo said:
Hell, if Cameron didnt know about it until a week or two ago when GO told him, how the hell are Miliband and Carswell supposed to find out!
They've had three weeks to question whether the UK rebate would reduce the bill.
Throughout this discussion I'm still at a lose as to what the exact amount we are paying is:-
is it £1.7bn made up of £850m of new payments and £850m of rebate (we would otherwise have received back but will now not receive)
or is it £850m made up of £850m of new payments due to an additional £850m in rebate...\
If its the former than Osbourne is playing smoke and mirrors badly. If its the latter then yes he is playing with smoke and mirrors but at least he could claim to have achieved something (ensuring that our rebate was applied to the bill)..
The utter lack of clarity within the reporting makes it impossible to work out exactly what to complain about..0 -
It seems that Alex Salmond may stand against Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825717/Battle-Highlands-Alex-Salmond-poised-launch-audacious-bid-Danny-Alexander-s-seat-2015.html#ixzz3ITHchP1W
He'd previously been expected to stand in Gordon, but this looks more like his style to me.
You can get 1/2 on the SNP in this seat. I'm on.0 -
Yes there is a cashflow advantage in the new deal. Later payments and accelerated associated rebate receipt. A reasonable position that any finance minister worth his salt ought to be able to negotiate.Charles said:
That's the key point:BenM said:
No, you are incorrect. The rebate was in the background all the time.Charles said:
No, you are factually incorrect.Indigo said:
and it got 1.7bn not 850mFlightpath 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.
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.
Without the £1.7bn extra payments we would not have got the extra £850m rebate.
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.
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.
The P&L though is unchanged.
The interest penalty risk was brought about by Cameron's embarrassing pudgy red faced bluster. Osborne can hardly claim credit for alleviating a risk his buddy had basically created.0 -
As a rule, I doubt that Cameron deliberately lied to parliament. Most PMs are careful about that sort of thing.Indigo said:
Why didn't Cameron stand up on 17th October and tell everyone that we had a 850m bill which we would unfortunately have to pay then if he knew about the rebate, why did he thump the table and say were were not paying the 1.7bn bill. Either he didn't know, or he was lying to parliament.chestnut said:
The story broke on 17 October. The deal was concluded on 7 November.Indigo said:
Hell, if Cameron didnt know about it until a week or two ago when GO told him, how the hell are Miliband and Carswell supposed to find out!
They've had three weeks to question whether the UK rebate would reduce the bill.
The logical conclusion is that the £850m rebate was uncertain. And that getting it applied is Osborne's big achievement.0 -
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking ofRobD said:
I bow to your superior knowledgeSunil_Prasannan said:
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeRobD said:
That's Undiscovered Country, I thinkSunil_Prasannan said:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:Charles said:
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.bigjohnowls said:
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).Charles said:
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.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.
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
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.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Lt Saavik: "You lied!"
Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!"
Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!"
Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!"
Mr Spock: "A lie?"
Lt Valeris: "A choice!"0 -
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"Sunil_Prasannan said:
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking ofRobD said:
I bow to your superior knowledgeSunil_Prasannan said:
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeRobD said:
That's Undiscovered Country, I thinkSunil_Prasannan said:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:Charles said:
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.bigjohnowls said:
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).Charles said:
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.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.
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
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.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Lt Saavik: "You lied!"
Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!" Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!"
Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!"
Mr Spock: "A lie?"
Lt Valeris: "A choice!"0 -
I don't know about you, but in my world interest costs are part of the P&L...BenM said:
Yes there is a cashflow advantage in the new deal. Later payments and accelerated associated rebate receipt. A reasonable position that any finance minister worth his salt ought to be able to negotiate.Charles said:
That's the key point:BenM said:
No, you are incorrect. The rebate was in the background all the time.Charles said:
No, you are factually incorrect.Indigo said:
and it got 1.7bn not 850mFlightpath 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.
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.
Without the £1.7bn extra payments we would not have got the extra £850m rebate.
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.
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.
The P&L though is unchanged.
The interest penalty risk was brought about by Cameron's embarrassing pudgy red faced bluster. Osborne can hardly claim credit for alleviating a risk his buddy had basically created.
You're an accountant, right?0 -
If you get a UKIP MP instead of a CON one presumably you will still get a referendum, there is no way Nige is going to tell his people to vote against an EU referendum if Dave puts down the motion, his party would implode over night.MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
0 -
There is going to be an even bigger demand next year because the UK economy seems likely to continue to grow next year, and the EU economies continue to contract. The year after as our economy cycle turns down, probably less so.Charles said:
EU demand:
2014 Contribution = A + £1.7bn
2015 Contribution = B + X bn
2016 Rebate = C + zero or £850m (depending on who you believe)
0 -
You mean vote Conservative and get a corrupt and twisted referendum with the threat that if you don't vote to stay in you will destroy the country.MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.0 -
Unless the Eurozone collapses (entirely possible, but let's set that aside for a moment) the 2-tier concept will happen: the EU will collapse into an inner Eurozone core, an outer satellite ring of non-EU countries, and a borderzone of countries in the EU but not EZ (currently just UK and Sweden). The UK's dilemma is whether to stay in this borderzone or not and, if it stays, what does it do?Easterross said: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.
0 -
Indigo said:
If you get a UKIP MP instead of a CON one presumably you will still get a referendum, there is no way Nige is going to tell his people to vote against an EU referendum if Dave puts down the motion, his party would implode over night.MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
That's true but only makes sense in a constituency where the Tories were unlikely to win anyway.
Otherwise the risk is that neither the Tory nor the UKIP MP gets in, and both Cameron and the chance of a referendum are out.
0 -
The last demand was because of a ~20 year correction. It is very unlikely the GDP growth is going to be that enormous that we would have to pay an additional 1bn euros!!Indigo said:
There is going to be an even bigger demand next year because the UK economy seems likely to continue to grow next year, and the EU economies continue to contract. The year after as our economy cycle turns down, probably less so.Charles said:
EU demand:
2014 Contribution = A + £1.7bn
2015 Contribution = B + X bn
2016 Rebate = C + zero or £850m (depending on who you believe)0 -
This rebate...I may be a bear of very little brain, but here's what I don't figure. This demand for £1.7 billion was basically a demand for contributions underpaid in previous years. Now we have an annual rebate of x billion, which I presume we use in full every year. If so, then there was no surplus rebate to draw against for those years. So there was no reason to expect we could pull a fast one and get more rebate against this demand for £1.7 billion.
What am I missing?0 -
I can't remember expressing an opinion about it? Did I?Charles said:
According to the Daily Mail there is a rule that the leader (or representative) of any party with 6 MPs is invited to lay a wreath.isam said: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 himTGOHF said:@NickBolesMP: What a surprise: @Nigel_Farage reveals himself to be an egomaniac. Like all demagogues. http://t.co/zSK6YRAjOE
Why do you think the rules should be changed to accommodate your party?0 -
MarqueeMark said:
This rebate...I may be a bear of very little brain, but here's what I don't figure. This demand for £1.7 billion was basically a demand for contributions underpaid in previous years. Now we have an annual rebate of x billion, which I presume we use in full every year. If so, then there was no surplus rebate to draw against for those years. So there was no reason to expect we could pull a fast one and get more rebate against this demand for £1.7 billion.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
This bit is wrong...
"we have an annual rebate of x billion"
There's a lot of explanation down thread.
0 -
On topic masterful strategy by George Osborne to take the heat off Ed. No wonder he's the most popular GB wide politician in the county with ICM
I think the Guardian/ICM phone poll went into the field yesterday and the fieldwork will continue today and tomorrow.
Should be interesting to see what that shows.
The opinium out tonight should be good for Labour. The last poll was a bit of an outlier for them and most of the fieldwork was conducted before the New Statesman and the Labour Party realised Ed was worse than crap.0 -
Ed could seek to proscribe the Bilderberg cult behind the failed coup and promote Andy Burnham to shadow chancellor to fend off further challenges and move Balls to health.0
-
Some of the maths examples below miss the point.
You need to view EU contributions like a cashback deal. In the case of the UK the cashback deal is circa 50% (ok for some nations the deal is >100%!)
So if we make a payment to the EU we can expect to get 50% back on that at some point. The rebate is the best example of this.
So when the announcement of the EU's £1.7bn charge to cover 15 years worth of underpayments was announced, it wasn't much of a stretch to understand that the UK would get a lot of this back at some point thanks to increased rebate plus other funding.
The timing of cashflow would have been the issue, with the payment out in Dec 2014 and much of the rebate and funding receipt being around 2016. But make no mistake, the net cost of the adjustment exercise would have been £850m.
So, the EU was right and the cosseted Bullingdon poshos are left looking utterly friendless and naive.
This would have been well understood in Whitehall I can assure you.
0 -
You have to admire Alex Salmond's balls.antifrank said:It seems that Alex Salmond may stand against Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825717/Battle-Highlands-Alex-Salmond-poised-launch-audacious-bid-Danny-Alexander-s-seat-2015.html#ixzz3ITHchP1W
He'd previously been expected to stand in Gordon, but this looks more like his style to me.
You can get 1/2 on the SNP in this seat. I'm on.
OGH's wearing against him standing in Gordon must have done the trick.0 -
Paranoia aplenty I see. What is corrupt about voting In or Out?MikeK said:
You mean vote Conservative and get a corrupt and twisted referendum with the threat that if you don't vote to stay in you will destroy the country.MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
Or do you want to corrupt and twist the referendum yourself to guarantee Out?
0 -
MikeK said:
You mean vote Conservative and get a corrupt and twisted referendum with the threat that if you don't vote to stay in you will destroy the country.MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
Well I wouldn't yield to a threat like that, would you?
The reality (as we have seen over the last 24hours) is that any renegotiation by Cameron will be picked apart by everyone.
If it really isn't good enough, then the vote will be for OUT.
0 -
I think Danny is sure to lose if Salmond does decide to stand in Inverness.antifrank said:It seems that Alex Salmond may stand against Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825717/Battle-Highlands-Alex-Salmond-poised-launch-audacious-bid-Danny-Alexander-s-seat-2015.html#ixzz3ITHchP1W
He'd previously been expected to stand in Gordon, but this looks more like his style to me.
You can get 1/2 on the SNP in this seat. I'm on.0 -
I'm intrigued by the fact that not a single poster on here made any mention of the UK's rebate in relation to the £1.7bn, either to say it should be reduced or not, when the extra bill first came up, but every poster seems to be quite certain now about whether or not it should have applied (apart from those curious chaps who seem to think that it hasn't in fact been deducted and that we're still paying £1.7bn).
Why did not one of the people saying that the rebate was always, obviously going to reduce the balance not manage expectations better by pointing out prior to yesterday that only a net £850m would be due, so as to prevent the Tories claiming it a victory.
Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back.0 -
Dig Dig DigCharles said:
As a rule, I doubt that Cameron deliberately lied to parliament. Most PMs are careful about that sort of thing.Indigo said:
Why didn't Cameron stand up on 17th October and tell everyone that we had a 850m bill which we would unfortunately have to pay then if he knew about the rebate, why did he thump the table and say were were not paying the 1.7bn bill. Either he didn't know, or he was lying to parliament.chestnut said:
The story broke on 17 October. The deal was concluded on 7 November.Indigo said:
Hell, if Cameron didnt know about it until a week or two ago when GO told him, how the hell are Miliband and Carswell supposed to find out!
They've had three weeks to question whether the UK rebate would reduce the bill.
The logical conclusion is that the £850m rebate was uncertain. And that getting it applied is Osborne's big achievement.0 -
That's true, but the "X" is independent of the matter at hand.Indigo said:
There is going to be an even bigger demand next year because the UK economy seems likely to continue to grow next year, and the EU economies continue to contract. The year after as our economy cycle turns down, probably less so.Charles said:
EU demand:
2014 Contribution = A + £1.7bn
2015 Contribution = B + X bn
2016 Rebate = C + zero or £850m (depending on who you believe)0 -
Off topic.
Anyone expecting anything but a comprehensive All Blacks victory today?
I'm backing the Irish to kick Proteas bottom today though.0 -
As a Tory you did not know Mrs T hanbagged a rebate on UKs EU contributions.JonnyJimmy said:I'm intrigued by the fact that not a single poster on here made any mention of the UK's rebate in relation to the £1.7bn, either to say it should be reduced or not, when the extra bill first came up, but every poster seems to be quite certain now about whether or not it should have applied (apart from those curious chaps who seem to think that it hasn't in fact been deducted and that we're still paying £1.7bn).
Why did not one of the people saying that the rebate was always, obviously going to reduce the balance not manage expectations better by pointing out prior to yesterday that only a net £850m would be due, so as to prevent the Tories claiming it a victory.
Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back.
Incredible like weve halved the bill claim
0 -
@MikeK
'You mean vote Conservative and get a corrupt and twisted referendum with the threat that if you don't vote to stay in you will destroy the country'
But as you and your chums tell us daily,Cameron is crap at negotiating, won't get any concessions and the EU won't in any case play ball.
So why are you so frit ?0 -
No idea about the accuracy of this article, but the author clearly has no idea about Scottish geography:AndyJS said:
I think Danny is sure to lose if Salmond does decide to stand in Inverness.antifrank said:It seems that Alex Salmond may stand against Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825717/Battle-Highlands-Alex-Salmond-poised-launch-audacious-bid-Danny-Alexander-s-seat-2015.html#ixzz3ITHchP1W
He'd previously been expected to stand in Gordon, but this looks more like his style to me.
You can get 1/2 on the SNP in this seat. I'm on.
"Mr Salmond lives on the other side of the country in Strichen in Aberdeenshire"
The other side of the country? Inverness and Aberdeenshire?0 -
Mr Eagles,
"Anyone expecting anything but a comprehensive All Blacks victory today?"
No.
But as the Welsh say ..."I was there" when we last beat them at Twickenham, and I was caught by surprise that day..0 -
Of course I knew about it. But I forgot about it. I honestly did not think about it until Osborne brought it up.bigjohnowls said:
As a Tory you did not know Mrs T hanbagged a rebate on UKs EU contributions.JonnyJimmy said:I'm intrigued by the fact that not a single poster on here made any mention of the UK's rebate in relation to the £1.7bn, either to say it should be reduced or not, when the extra bill first came up, but every poster seems to be quite certain now about whether or not it should have applied (apart from those curious chaps who seem to think that it hasn't in fact been deducted and that we're still paying £1.7bn).
Why did not one of the people saying that the rebate was always, obviously going to reduce the balance not manage expectations better by pointing out prior to yesterday that only a net £850m would be due, so as to prevent the Tories claiming it a victory.
Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back.
Incredible like weve halved the bill claim
If others were honest they'd admit the same.0 -
As a Tory I expect he knows that she handbagged a two-thirds rebate, before Tony thought it might do his chance of becoming president of the EU some good if he gave 20% of it away basically for nothing.bigjohnowls said:
As a Tory you did not know Mrs T hanbagged a rebate on UKs EU contributions.JonnyJimmy said:I'm intrigued by the fact that not a single poster on here made any mention of the UK's rebate in relation to the £1.7bn, either to say it should be reduced or not, when the extra bill first came up, but every poster seems to be quite certain now about whether or not it should have applied (apart from those curious chaps who seem to think that it hasn't in fact been deducted and that we're still paying £1.7bn).
Why did not one of the people saying that the rebate was always, obviously going to reduce the balance not manage expectations better by pointing out prior to yesterday that only a net £850m would be due, so as to prevent the Tories claiming it a victory.
Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back.
Incredible like weve halved the bill claim
0 -
I don't trust Cameron and after yesterday why would I be expected to?MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
Voting UKIP is about three things for me:
1. Leaving the appalling EU
2. Bringing back grammar schools to give bright working class kids a chance.
3. Common Sense v Common Purpose
Dave doesn't want any of those things so why should I vote for him?0 -
All Kippers are scared of losing.john_zims said:@MikeK
'You mean vote Conservative and get a corrupt and twisted referendum with the threat that if you don't vote to stay in you will destroy the country'
But as you and your chums tell us daily,Cameron is crap at negotiating, won't get any concessions and the EU won't in any case play ball.
So why are you so frit ?
In two plebiscites Dave's won both of them.
We all know he'd make it a hat-trick.0 -
Green selection: Anna Widdup, Epping Forest.
twitter.com/eefnews/status/5306225639581573120 -
On topic, this is a story but it's not a huge story. If it's enough to take the pressure off Ed, there was never any pressure on Ed.0
-
Ed's safe whatever happens. There's no mechanism for getting rid of him. When you look at the pressure and plots Gordon Brown was under on an almost daily basis from 2008 to early 2010 and still they couldn't get rid of him...0
-
I imagine he thinks Cameron will come back from the EU with a figleaf, and will then use that as a basis to campaign for IN, backed by all his friends in big business. All the big players in the EU will be happy to dress it up in any frock Cameron wants because they want us in as well, because someone has to pay the bills.john_zims said:@MikeK
'You mean vote Conservative and get a corrupt and twisted referendum with the threat that if you don't vote to stay in you will destroy the country'
But as you and your chums tell us daily,Cameron is crap at negotiating, won't get any concessions and the EU won't in any case play ball.
So why are you so frit ?
0 -
It was part of a general conversation, but the implication of you refuting @TOGHF's position is that you are supportive of Farage. If not, then fine.isam said:
I can't remember expressing an opinion about it? Did I?Charles said:
According to the Daily Mail there is a rule that the leader (or representative) of any party with 6 MPs is invited to lay a wreath.isam said: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 himTGOHF said:@NickBolesMP: What a surprise: @Nigel_Farage reveals himself to be an egomaniac. Like all demagogues. http://t.co/zSK6YRAjOE
Why do you think the rules should be changed to accommodate your party?0 -
UKIP and common sense are strangers.nigel4england said:
I don't trust Cameron and after yesterday why would I be expected to?MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
Voting UKIP is about three things for me:
1. Leaving the appalling EU
2. Bringing back grammar schools to give bright working class kids a chance.
3. Common Sense v Common Purpose
Dave doesn't want any of those things so why should I vote for him?
As your desire for Grammar Schools demonstrates.
A loud No! to division at 11 and much lower standards overall.0 -
Oh dear,BenM said:Some of the maths examples below miss the point.
...
The timing of cashflow would have been the issue, with the payment out in Dec 2014 and much of the rebate and funding receipt being around 2016. But make no mistake, the net cost of the adjustment exercise would have been £850m.
So, the EU was right and the cosseted Bullingdon poshos are left looking utterly friendless and naive.
This would have been well understood in Whitehall I can assure you.
Have you been looking at your T-SQL database again? How can I explain this is simple terms....
Assignment (= / :=) and equality ( =* / == / equals / instanceof ) are different: Do you understand context? Assignment tends to be true (due to parser and compiler semantics) whilst equality can only be measured in real-time.
* Peculiar SQL anomaly.0 -
Well, that's exactly the point at issue.BenM said:Some of the maths examples below miss the point.
You need to view EU contributions like a cashback deal. In the case of the UK the cashback deal is circa 50% (ok for some nations the deal is >100%!)
So if we make a payment to the EU we can expect to get 50% back on that at some point. The rebate is the best example of this.
So when the announcement of the EU's £1.7bn charge to cover 15 years worth of underpayments was announced, it wasn't much of a stretch to understand that the UK would get a lot of this back at some point thanks to increased rebate plus other funding.
The timing of cashflow would have been the issue, with the payment out in Dec 2014 and much of the rebate and funding receipt being around 2016. But make no mistake, the net cost of the adjustment exercise would have been £850m.
So, the EU was right and the cosseted Bullingdon poshos are left looking utterly friendless and naive.
This would have been well understood in Whitehall I can assure you.
It wasn't included in the initial adjustments.
Now that *may* have been the EU just dealing with one thing at a time. Or it may have been the EU trying it on.
I'm inclined to the latter, especially as this is a one-off payment rather than part of the normal flow that the rebate is calculated on.
I strong suspect if Osborne hadn't called foul then we would never have got the £850m back. Because that's the way the world works.0 -
I'm sure you are right that Salmond could win this seat against Alexander if so and would be a quite a blow for the Lib Dems - Would be a great shame imho as the ginger rodent is one of the few decent members from the yellow team.antifrank said:It seems that Alex Salmond may stand against Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825717/Battle-Highlands-Alex-Salmond-poised-launch-audacious-bid-Danny-Alexander-s-seat-2015.html#ixzz3ITHchP1W
He'd previously been expected to stand in Gordon, but this looks more like his style to me.0 -
Do you believe that Cameron deliberately lied to Parliament?bigjohnowls said:
Dig Dig DigCharles said:
As a rule, I doubt that Cameron deliberately lied to parliament. Most PMs are careful about that sort of thing.Indigo said:
Why didn't Cameron stand up on 17th October and tell everyone that we had a 850m bill which we would unfortunately have to pay then if he knew about the rebate, why did he thump the table and say were were not paying the 1.7bn bill. Either he didn't know, or he was lying to parliament.chestnut said:
The story broke on 17 October. The deal was concluded on 7 November.Indigo said:
Hell, if Cameron didnt know about it until a week or two ago when GO told him, how the hell are Miliband and Carswell supposed to find out!
They've had three weeks to question whether the UK rebate would reduce the bill.
The logical conclusion is that the £850m rebate was uncertain. And that getting it applied is Osborne's big achievement.0 -
O/T:
I've backed Crystal Palace at 10 with Betfair exchange (vs Man Utd). Obviously hoping they go ahead at some stage during the match.0 -
Mainly because David Miliband did not want to wield the knife.GIN1138 said:Ed's safe whatever happens. There's no mechanism for getting rid of him. When you look at the pressure and plots Gordon Brown was under on an almost daily basis from 2008 to early 2010 and still they couldn't get rid of him...
0 -
You know as well as I do that the full weight of the Establishment, (Cons, Labour, L/Dems, MSM, BBC, etcetera, etcetera) will be mobilised for a NO vote. The poor voter will be grilled day and night for months before the actual referendum takes place.MarqueeMark said:
Paranoia aplenty I see. What is corrupt about voting In or Out?MikeK said:
You mean vote Conservative and get a corrupt and twisted referendum with the threat that if you don't vote to stay in you will destroy the country.MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
Or do you want to corrupt and twist the referendum yourself to guarantee Out?
It'll be a one sided propaganda campaign: Goebbels Redux. I trust a fair vote as far as I can throw it.0 -
Article looking at polls of the recent USA elections.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/07/examining_the_polls_and_the_election_results_.html
YouGov skewed 4 points towards the Dems.0 -
That's one of my bets for today.AndyJS said:O/T:
I've backed Crystal Palace at 10 with Betfair exchange (vs Man Utd). Obviously hoping they go ahead at some stage during the match.
Have also backed QPR and Liverpool.
Note. I seldom win when I back Liverpool.
When the teams are announced in a bit I'll be backing Skrtel, Toure and Lovren to be FGS.
Depends on whom Brendan selects.0 -
@Indigo
'I imagine he thinks Cameron will come back from the EU with a figleaf, and will then use that as a basis to campaign for IN, backed by all his friends in big business.'
That excuse is getting very thin.
UKIP like the rest of our politicians are enjoying the gravy train and after an EU referendum,whatever the result, UKIP are redundant.0 -
Because he knew we would not?Indigo said:why did he thump the table and say were were not paying the 1.7bn bill.
The bill is £1.7bn. He probably had some idea that it would be entitled to an offset that would reduce it (which may explain why he was so forthright), though he may not have known the amount.
The fact that no one in opposition saw how this was being gamed is a glaring oversight.
Complacency and lazy rhetoric has crept in where people just recite "you can't change anything, you can't negotiate". Now it is obvious that you can they are unsurprisingly perturbed because their message is undermined.
0 -
In which net?TheScreamingEagles said:
That's one of my bets for today.AndyJS said:O/T:
I've backed Crystal Palace at 10 with Betfair exchange (vs Man Utd). Obviously hoping they go ahead at some stage during the match.
Have also backed QPR and Liverpool.
Note. I seldom win when I back Liverpool.
When the teams are announced in a bit I'll be backing Skrtel, Toure and Lovren to be FGS.
Depends on whom Brendan selects.
0 -
Of course, the logic of this extends beyond this blog to every current critic of the government of the government on this.JonnyJimmy said:I'm intrigued by the fact that not a single poster on here made any mention of the UK's rebate in relation to the £1.7bn, either to say it should be reduced or not, when the extra bill first came up, but every poster seems to be quite certain now about whether or not it should have applied (apart from those curious chaps who seem to think that it hasn't in fact been deducted and that we're still paying £1.7bn).
Why did not one of the people saying that the rebate was always, obviously going to reduce the balance not manage expectations better by pointing out prior to yesterday that only a net £850m would be due, so as to prevent the Tories claiming it a victory.
Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back.
Why did not one of them try to better manage expectations on this and point out that the £1.7bn wouldn't cost £1.7bn because our rebate would be due, and preempt the chancellor claiming it as a victory?
The only logical reason I can see that people would have considered this and then not preempted Osborne is because they knew that he would claim it as a victory and they could make him look bad afterwards. I don't think anyone believes that happened.
To me that leaves the explanation that everyone forgot the UK rebate. Except Osborne.0 -
Thanks, I'll place a few more bets using this advice.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's one of my bets for today.AndyJS said:O/T:
I've backed Crystal Palace at 10 with Betfair exchange (vs Man Utd). Obviously hoping they go ahead at some stage during the match.
Have also backed QPR and Liverpool.
Note. I seldom win when I back Liverpool.
When the teams are announced in a bit I'll be backing Skrtel, Toure and Lovren to be FGS.
Depends on whom Brendan selects.0 -
No opinion really, just that I watched that interview yesterday and Farage didn't demand to be invitedCharles said:
It was part of a general conversation, but the implication of you refuting @TOGHF's position is that you are supportive of Farage. If not, then fine.isam said:
I can't remember expressing an opinion about it? Did I?Charles said:
According to the Daily Mail there is a rule that the leader (or representative) of any party with 6 MPs is invited to lay a wreath.isam said: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 himTGOHF said:@NickBolesMP: What a surprise: @Nigel_Farage reveals himself to be an egomaniac. Like all demagogues. http://t.co/zSK6YRAjOE
Why do you think the rules should be changed to accommodate your party?0 -
Is anyone in a position to do something similar for PB?anotherDave said:Article looking at polls of the recent USA elections.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/07/examining_the_polls_and_the_election_results_.html
YouGov skewed 4 points towards the Dems.0 -
That's always a worry.Grandiose said:
In which net?TheScreamingEagles said:
That's one of my bets for today.AndyJS said:O/T:
I've backed Crystal Palace at 10 with Betfair exchange (vs Man Utd). Obviously hoping they go ahead at some stage during the match.
Have also backed QPR and Liverpool.
Note. I seldom win when I back Liverpool.
When the teams are announced in a bit I'll be backing Skrtel, Toure and Lovren to be FGS.
Depends on whom Brendan selects.
But Skrtel did win me quite a lot as FGS last season. As high as 40/1 at one point.0 -
In 1975, the full weight of the media and establishment was all in favour of a Yes vote for Europe. No attempt at balance, I was in favour too, but I was mightily embarrassed by the whole charade.
Why will it be different this time?0 -
Good morning, everyone.
P3 is 1-2pm, so the pre-qualifying piece will be up later than usual.0 -
I agree with you that Osborne was asleep at the wheel when the initial bill was announced and so didn't make the right connections.Charles said:
Well, that's exactly the point at issue.BenM said:Some of the maths examples below miss the point.
You need to view EU contributions like a cashback deal. In the case of the UK the cashback deal is circa 50% (ok for some nations the deal is >100%!)
So if we make a payment to the EU we can expect to get 50% back on that at some point. The rebate is the best example of this.
So when the announcement of the EU's £1.7bn charge to cover 15 years worth of underpayments was announced, it wasn't much of a stretch to understand that the UK would get a lot of this back at some point thanks to increased rebate plus other funding.
The timing of cashflow would have been the issue, with the payment out in Dec 2014 and much of the rebate and funding receipt being around 2016. But make no mistake, the net cost of the adjustment exercise would have been £850m.
So, the EU was right and the cosseted Bullingdon poshos are left looking utterly friendless and naive.
This would have been well understood in Whitehall I can assure you.
It wasn't included in the initial adjustments.
Now that *may* have been the EU just dealing with one thing at a time. Or it may have been the EU trying it on.
I'm inclined to the latter, especially as this is a one-off payment rather than part of the normal flow that the rebate is calculated on.
I strong suspect if Osborne hadn't called foul then we would never have got the £850m back. Because that's the way the world works.
The £850m rebate/funding receipt would have been a legal obligation like the £1.7bn contribution is. The EU works within a substantial legal framework.
British eurosceptic paranoia blinkers its victims to this fact.0 -
Possibly - I may need to re-watch it to confirm!RobD said:
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"Sunil_Prasannan said:
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking ofRobD said:
I bow to your superior knowledgeSunil_Prasannan said:
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeRobD said:
That's Undiscovered Country, I thinkSunil_Prasannan said:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:Charles said:
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.bigjohnowls said:
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).Charles said:
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.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.
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
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.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Lt Saavik: "You lied!"
Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!" Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!"
Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!"
Mr Spock: "A lie?"
Lt Valeris: "A choice!"0 -
Can't decide if Pelle or Aguero has the better chance of scoring (I do fantasy football). Man City not good after midweek fixtures but QPRs defence almost nonexistent.0
-
£1.7bn would be enough for 6 years' worth of FDI to India, or ten years' worth of FDI to PakistanJonnyJimmy said:
Of course, the logic of this extends beyond this blog to every current critic of the government of the government on this.JonnyJimmy said:I'm intrigued by the fact that not a single poster on here made any mention of the UK's rebate in relation to the £1.7bn, either to say it should be reduced or not, when the extra bill first came up, but every poster seems to be quite certain now about whether or not it should have applied (apart from those curious chaps who seem to think that it hasn't in fact been deducted and that we're still paying £1.7bn).
Why did not one of the people saying that the rebate was always, obviously going to reduce the balance not manage expectations better by pointing out prior to yesterday that only a net £850m would be due, so as to prevent the Tories claiming it a victory.
Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back.
Why did not one of them try to better manage expectations on this and point out that the £1.7bn wouldn't cost £1.7bn because our rebate would be due, and preempt the chancellor claiming it as a victory?
The only logical reason I can see that people would have considered this and then not preempted Osborne is because they knew that he would claim it as a victory and they could make him look bad afterwards. I don't think anyone believes that happened.
To me that leaves the explanation that everyone forgot the UK rebate. Except Osborne. 0 -
Portillo has an interesting piece in today's FT, arguing that a 'Yes' to staying in will make the UK closer to the EU project. He argues that it is better not to have the referendum at all and stay as we are on the edge of the project and out of the Euro, than risk getting a 'Yes' with all its consequences.john_zims said:@Indigo
'I imagine he thinks Cameron will come back from the EU with a figleaf, and will then use that as a basis to campaign for IN, backed by all his friends in big business.'
That excuse is getting very thin.
UKIP like the rest of our politicians are enjoying the gravy train and after an EU referendum,whatever the result, UKIP are redundant.0 -
I think Farage has a legitimate grievance.TGOHF said:@NickBolesMP: What a surprise: @Nigel_Farage reveals himself to be an egomaniac. Like all demagogues. http://t.co/zSK6YRAjOE
0 -
What did Rosie Winterton, Vernon Coaker, Ivan Lewis, John Trickett, Chris Leslie and Janet Royall have in common, not to mention Wilson and Callaghan ? Thats right, a lot of the shadow cabinet went to Grammar school, most of the rest were privately educated.BenM said:
UKIP and common sense are strangers.nigel4england said:
I don't trust Cameron and after yesterday why would I be expected to?MarkHopkins said:nigel4england said:I can't be arsed with this rebate/surcharge bollocks, because that is what it is.
Surely the argument must be what on earth are we doing in this corrupt, anti-democratic institution that costs us £11.3 BILLION per year?
Then vote Conservative in 2015 to get a referendum, and vote to leave.
Voting UKIP is about three things for me:
1. Leaving the appalling EU
2. Bringing back grammar schools to give bright working class kids a chance.
3. Common Sense v Common Purpose
Dave doesn't want any of those things so why should I vote for him?
As your desire for Grammar Schools demonstrates.
A loud No! to division at 11 and much lower standards overall.
0 -
What was that about governments not holding referendums that they would lose?TheScreamingEagles said:
All Kippers are scared of losing.john_zims said:@MikeK
'You mean vote Conservative and get a corrupt and twisted referendum with the threat that if you don't vote to stay in you will destroy the country'
But as you and your chums tell us daily,Cameron is crap at negotiating, won't get any concessions and the EU won't in any case play ball.
So why are you so frit ?
In two plebiscites Dave's won both of them.
We all know he'd make it a hat-trick.
The only reason the SNP came so close in the Indyref was that they controlled the Scottish Government.
I do however note that referenda in NI, UK, Quebec and Scotland haven't settled the issue at hand.
Neverendum, as they say.0 -
rottenborough said:
No idea about the accuracy of this article, but the author clearly has no idea about Scottish geography:AndyJS said:
I think Danny is sure to lose if Salmond does decide to stand in Inverness.antifrank said:It seems that Alex Salmond may stand against Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825717/Battle-Highlands-Alex-Salmond-poised-launch-audacious-bid-Danny-Alexander-s-seat-2015.html#ixzz3ITHchP1W
He'd previously been expected to stand in Gordon, but this looks more like his style to me.
You can get 1/2 on the SNP in this seat. I'm on.
"Mr Salmond lives on the other side of the country in Strichen in Aberdeenshire"
The other side of the country? Inverness and Aberdeenshire?
It's the Daily Mail, they do hyperbolic inaccuracy without even thinking about it.
The DM aren't noted for having the inside track with the SNP, but Alexander's seat would have the advantage of being a likely SNP win and taking a big ginger scalp. I think Salmond would want to start a return to Westminster with a splash; standing in Gordon wouldn't really qualify.0 -
I see Gideon is gracing the cover of today's Times magazine: "Mr Nice or Mr Nasty? Up close with George Osborne, by Janice Turner"0
-
Why will it be different this time?CD13 said:In 1975, the full weight of the media and establishment was all in favour of a Yes vote for Europe. No attempt at balance, I was in favour too, but I was mightily embarrassed by the whole charade.
Why will it be different this time?
The Internet?
0 -
@RobD You are indeed correct!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Possibly - I may need to re-watch it to confirm!RobD said:
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"Sunil_Prasannan said:
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking ofRobD said:
I bow to your superior knowledgeSunil_Prasannan said:
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeRobD said:
That's Undiscovered Country, I thinkSunil_Prasannan said:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:Charles said:
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.bigjohnowls said:
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).Charles said:
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.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.
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
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.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Lt Saavik: "You lied!"
Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!" Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!"
Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!"
Mr Spock: "A lie?"
Lt Valeris: "A choice!"
Lt Valeris: "A lie?"
Mr Spock: "An error!"0 -
Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?0 -
I've got to go out and can't wait for team news, however Stevie Me is sure to be playing and i have backed him to be carded at 5/2.AndyJS said:
Thanks, I'll place a few more bets using this advice.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's one of my bets for today.AndyJS said:O/T:
I've backed Crystal Palace at 10 with Betfair exchange (vs Man Utd). Obviously hoping they go ahead at some stage during the match.
Have also backed QPR and Liverpool.
Note. I seldom win when I back Liverpool.
When the teams are announced in a bit I'll be backing Skrtel, Toure and Lovren to be FGS.
Depends on whom Brendan selects.
He will be desperate to make amends for last year when he cost Liverpool the title, he will get dogs abuse from the Chelsea fans, Mourinho has mocked him in the media and all in all he will be busting a gut, I can see him him overdoing it and getting a card.
If Ramires starts then back him as well.0 -
Mince more likeCharles said:
Exactly right (apart from the original demand being 2014 not 2015).RobD said:
So is it something like this:Charles said:
Weasel words.Indigo said:It seems the rebate isnt "free" either.
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."
Yes, moving the £850m from 2016 to the 2015 means that the 2016 rebate will be lower.
But the 2015+2016 rebate is £850m higher than it would have been if we were not making this extra contribution.
Before bill was presented:
2015 - £1bn rebate (say)
2016 - £1bn rebate
After bill was presented:
2015 - £1bn rebate, £1.7bn bill
2016 - £1bn rebate
After yesterday:
2015 - £1bn rebate, £1.7bn bill
2016 - £1.85bn rebate
So the rebate in 2016 becomes smaller when it is moved from 2016 to 2015. What's all the fuss about??
The fuss is because people want to try and muddy the water about Osborne's achievement.
2015 £1.85B rebate £1.7B bill
2016 £0.15B rebate0 -
Seeing that you're a trekker perhaps you know where this comes from?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Possibly - I may need to re-watch it to confirm!RobD said:
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"Sunil_Prasannan said:
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking ofRobD said:
I bow to your superior knowledgeSunil_Prasannan said:
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeRobD said:
That's Undiscovered Country, I thinkSunil_Prasannan said:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:Charles said:
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.bigjohnowls said:
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).Charles said:
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.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.
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
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.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Lt Saavik: "You lied!"
Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!" Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!"
Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!"
Mr Spock: "A lie?"
Lt Valeris: "A choice!"
Someone: You lied!
Spock: I...exaggerated.0 -
"I'm sure you are right that Salmond could win this seat against Alexander if so and would be a quite a blow for the Lib Dems"
But, it is not in Tory, Labour or LibDem interests for Alex to win. Which suggests an obvious possibility in this 4 way marginal.
Of course, a straight fight between Salmond and Alexander might still result in a Salmond victory, but it is a dodgier prospect.
0 -
Me.JonnyJimmy said:Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid
0 -
Tower Poppy Display Sections To Stay On View
The popularity of the artwork prompts the Prime Minister to intervene and send some parts on a tour of the UK after November.
http://news.sky.com/story/1369417/tower-poppy-display-sections-to-stay-on-view
0 -
I think the public has a right to expect that any figures they are given will be complete, after any adjustments, rebates or whatever, it isn't their job to keep track of thousands of pages of EU legislation and know what the country should be paying. Its just like when you go into the supermarket for a bottle of wine, or fill up with petrol, you expect the price you are given to be what you pay, not for the sales assistant to come up to you and tell you that you need to add more for this duty or that tax.JonnyJimmy said:Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?0 -
He is toast, deserves to be out on his erchie big time.SimonStClare said:
I'm sure you are right that Salmond could win this seat against Alexander if so and would be a quite a blow for the Lib Dems - Would be a great shame imho as the ginger rodent is one of the few decent members from the yellow team.antifrank said:It seems that Alex Salmond may stand against Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825717/Battle-Highlands-Alex-Salmond-poised-launch-audacious-bid-Danny-Alexander-s-seat-2015.html#ixzz3ITHchP1W
He'd previously been expected to stand in Gordon, but this looks more like his style to me.0 -
Why didn't you preempt Osborne's announcement of it?BenM said:
Me.JonnyJimmy said:Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid
0 -
And satellite and international media. I recently read something very interesting in Der Spiegel despite not knowing any German.MarkHopkins said:
Why will it be different this time?CD13 said:In 1975, the full weight of the media and establishment was all in favour of a Yes vote for Europe. No attempt at balance, I was in favour too, but I was mightily embarrassed by the whole charade.
Why will it be different this time?
The Internet?
I wonder if our elites really know the effects of changes in the media landscape.
Judging by the Osborne debacle yesterday, no.0 -
I think they did that 'gag' a few times in that particular film.Sunil_Prasannan said:
@RobD You are indeed correct!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Possibly - I may need to re-watch it to confirm!RobD said:
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"Sunil_Prasannan said:
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking ofRobD said:
I bow to your superior knowledgeSunil_Prasannan said:
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeRobD said:
That's Undiscovered Country, I thinkSunil_Prasannan said:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:Charles said:
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.bigjohnowls said:
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).Charles said:
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.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.
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
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.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Lt Saavik: "You lied!"
Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!" Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!"
Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!"
Mr Spock: "A lie?"
Lt Valeris: "A choice!"
Lt Valeris: "A lie?"
Mr Spock: "An error!"0 -
LOLJonnyJimmy said:
Of course, the logic of this extends beyond this blog to every current critic of the government of the government on this.JonnyJimmy said:I'm intrigued by the fact that not a single poster on here made any mention of the UK's rebate in relation to the £1.7bn, either to say it should be reduced or not, when the extra bill first came up, but every poster seems to be quite certain now about whether or not it should have applied (apart from those curious chaps who seem to think that it hasn't in fact been deducted and that we're still paying £1.7bn).
Why did not one of the people saying that the rebate was always, obviously going to reduce the balance not manage expectations better by pointing out prior to yesterday that only a net £850m would be due, so as to prevent the Tories claiming it a victory.
Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back.
Why did not one of them try to better manage expectations on this and point out that the £1.7bn wouldn't cost £1.7bn because our rebate would be due, and preempt the chancellor claiming it as a victory?
The only logical reason I can see that people would have considered this and then not preempted Osborne is because they knew that he would claim it as a victory and they could make him look bad afterwards. I don't think anyone believes that happened.
To me that leaves the explanation that everyone forgot the UK rebate. Except Osborne.0 -
Ygritte says: You know nothing!john_zims said:@Indigo
'I imagine he thinks Cameron will come back from the EU with a figleaf, and will then use that as a basis to campaign for IN, backed by all his friends in big business.'
That excuse is getting very thin.
UKIP like the rest of our politicians are enjoying the gravy train and after an EU referendum,whatever the result, UKIP are redundant.
0 -
It should not be necessary on a sophisiticated site like PB.com explain to the tories why the promise that 'only dave will give you the referendum you claim to want' doesn't attract UKIP supporters. "If you don't vote tory, you must be frit of losing it".
Of course we're frightened of losing it. If we weren't, we'd be daft. We'll get one, and only one, vote. Why wouldn't we want to get our ducks in a row?
A win for out in referendum organised by Cameron, recommending we stay in, would be very unlikely.
Do we think socialism and Miliband is the answer? Of course not. But a weak Miliband govt (both in number and capability) is not unimaginable. There will be a referendum, at some stage. What we need is different circumstances, when campaigning for 'out' is separately led by a resurgent tory party. They would be explaining in their words why quitting the EU is right and different reasons, but the same answer from UKIP---then we'd be on our way out.0 -
Did you think that the actual bill was £3.4bn, and the rebate had been applied to it?Indigo said:
I think the public has a right to expect that any figures they are given will be complete, after any adjustments, rebates or whatever, it isn't their job to keep track of thousands of pages of EU legislation and know what the country should be paying. Its just like when you go into the supermarket for a bottle of wine, or fill up with petrol, you expect the price you are given to be what you pay, not for the sales assistant to come up to you and tell you that you need to add more for this duty or that tax.JonnyJimmy said:Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?0 -
I pointed that out below. The question is are we paying £850m due to a discount of £850m or paying £1.7bn with £850m coming from the discount we would otherwise have received...malcolmg said:
Mince more likeCharles said:
Exactly right (apart from the original demand being 2014 not 2015).RobD said:
So is it something like this:Charles said:
Weasel words.Indigo said:It seems the rebate isnt "free" either.
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."
Yes, moving the £850m from 2016 to the 2015 means that the 2016 rebate will be lower.
But the 2015+2016 rebate is £850m higher than it would have been if we were not making this extra contribution.
Before bill was presented:
2015 - £1bn rebate (say)
2016 - £1bn rebate
After bill was presented:
2015 - £1bn rebate, £1.7bn bill
2016 - £1bn rebate
After yesterday:
2015 - £1bn rebate, £1.7bn bill
2016 - £1.85bn rebate
So the rebate in 2016 becomes smaller when it is moved from 2016 to 2015. What's all the fuss about??
The fuss is because people want to try and muddy the water about Osborne's achievement.
2015 £1.85B rebate £1.7B bill
2016 £0.15B rebate
The reporting on this has been from October 17th as clear as mud and nothing has changed.0 -
Matthew Parris today: "Labour is the problem. It's no longer wanted."0
-
Wouldn't surprise me if the DM was trying to stir the sharny midden yet again. My gut feeling is that Mr S should go for home ground - it's where he lives and he has a challenge against a LD there anyway.YBarddCwsc said:"I'm sure you are right that Salmond could win this seat against Alexander if so and would be a quite a blow for the Lib Dems"
But, it is not in Tory, Labour or LibDem interests for Alex to win. Which suggests an obvious possibility in this 4 way marginal.
Of course, a straight fight between Salmond and Alexander might still result in a Salmond victory, but it is a dodgier prospect.
0 -
Nick Boles is a total prat. The worst form of moderniser. The Matthew d'Ancona of the parliamentary party. This is the man who managed to achieve a swing *against* him in Hove in 2005, achieving a worse poll share for the Conservatives than in 2001, thus ruining their chance of regaining the seat.FalseFlag said:
Ewww Nick Boles.TGOHF said:@NickBolesMP: What a surprise: @Nigel_Farage reveals himself to be an egomaniac. Like all demagogues. http://t.co/zSK6YRAjOE
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/why-nick-boles-is-a-danger-to-the-conservative-party/
He only got into power through riding his connections into a safe seat. Even then the BNP and Liberal Democrats achieved a bigger increase in their vote than he did. Technically, there was a swing away from the Conservatives in Grantham and Stamford as well.
0 -
I certainly didn't consider the rebate at the time of the initial announcement, but it was widely predicted by many that either interest would not need to be paid for paying late - as it was clear that at the least we would not pay on time - or it would be reduced by some amount, and that both of those would be claimed as some grand victory. People have just been taken by surprise at how soon that 'victory' was declared.JonnyJimmy said:Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
0 -
It appears the only people to forget anything were Osborne and HM Treasury... forgot to inform the public so we could have a full and frank discussion on the issues. Instead, he withheld information to ambush his opponents. If a QC did the same stunt he would be disbarred.JonnyJimmy said:Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
Reminiscent of Brown at his worst.
Osbrowne indeed.0
