politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Miliband won the 2010 LAB members ballot by 8.8% – th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Miliband won the 2010 LAB members ballot by 8.8% – the final poll had had him 4% behind
Judging by what some LAB members have been Tweeting it looks as though, maybe even tonight, we’ll see the first poll, from YouGov, of those who will be able to vote in Labour’s leadership election
at the end of August.
0
Comments
Bit like opinion polls & political parties then.......
However, the flaw in her logic is that all the union members who voted for her and propelled her to 3rd place, wouldn't necessarily get a vote now that union members aren't automatically affiliated to the party.
We have an opt out from a few of the provisions of the Treaties, but the essence of the whole thing can be inferred from the above.
Edit: I also see on the previous thread that you are praying in aid a literal construction of the Treaties.This is either ignorance, or mendacity. The Court of Justice, which has the sole authority to interpret the Treaties, has always held that in construing the treaties, one must first look at their spirit, then their economic aspect, and lastly at their terms (Van Gend en Loos v Neder-Landse Tariefcommissie [1963] CMLR 105, 129). This was how the Court of Justice invented the principles of supremacy, direct effect, and state liability, which appear nowhere in the Treaties.
@JohnRentoul: If there is YouGov poll of Labour members & supporters tomorrow, remember YouGov got it wrong 2010, putting EdM ahead http://t.co/PFtfO3hxaF
Burnham 43.2%
Cooper 40%
Has the poll leaked?
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Not convinced by the War Damages Act, example; this is not a question of tort, but of contract. Likewise, this is not a question of the UK government acting outside its regular remit. No-one would doubt the government has the right to borrow money.
More seriously, you seem to believe the state is something other that just another economic actor. Sure, it has the monopoly on the use of force in the UK. But other than that, why should I take it any more seriously than HSBC?
Will try and get the pre-race piece up in the next hour or so.
There is absolutely no evidence that Monnet ever made that statement either verbally or in writing.
Monnet was an absolute believer in a single European state and that was the main aim of his helping to create the EEC. But he was also a thoroughly honourable and decent man who was unremittingly honest about his aims and what he wanted to see happen in Europe.
The quote you are using was almost certainly created by opponents of Monnet and of the federalist project in general probably in the early 80s. It was not however a product of British Eurosepticism although it has sometimes been quoted by them.
But journalists need to write stories even if there is nothing to write about, hence for 5 months now every Monday and Friday there is Grexit and every Wednesday there is a deal.
If people had listened to me instead of the papers then they would have had less gray hair.
As you point out it does not and the ECJ has made clear on several occasions that the preamble's to treaties should be considered as important if not more important than the main text as they indicate the mindset of those who created the treaties and so help courts to understand how they should be interpreted in the case of disagreements.
Betting PostBacked Alonso and Button [2 bets] not to be classified, at 2.5 with Ladbrokes. Essentially, because their cars keep breaking down.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/austriapre-race.html
(As an aside, I expect the British state to outlive the EU. But the UK was made by humans, and will one day be unmade by them. One day, the last human being who ever heard and understood the words "the United Kingdom" will pass away, and it will be lost to history. Nothing is forever.)
"Consider the lives led once by others, long ago, the lives to be led by others after you, the lives led even now, in foreign lands. How many people don’t even know your name. How many will soon have forgotten it. How many offer you praise now – and tomorrow, perhaps, contempt. That to be remembered is worthless. Like fame. Like everything." Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius does have some words of wisdom (before my second story, Journey to Altmortis, I include one of his quotes) but he could be a bit of a cock. Letting Commodus become emperor was not the act of a wise man.
But then I suppose Charlotte Church needs to find something to do with her wealth and fame now she can no longer sing.
But that is my point. It is all well and good attacking the lies of British politicians who pretend the EU is not about federal union - people like Clarke and Mandelson or pretty much every Lib Dem for the last 2 decades - but we should never criticise people like Monnet who were completely open in their dreams and had good reason for them.
They were wrong - I believe - in both their analysis and their solutions but they had the great benefit of being honest. There are still plenty of politicians in Europe today who are of a similar ilk. It is just a shame the crop we have had in Britain for the last few decades have not shown similar honesty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33210014
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/07/labour-one-point-lead-tories-final-icm-poll
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/observer-opinium-politics-polls
I'm willing to bet from the context though that what he really means is 'tax avoidance', i.e. the clever exploiting of our woefully inept tax laws to pay as little tax as possible. That would fit with his known limited intellect and his penchant for shouting at rich people (presumably anyone who earns more than £89,000 a year, although to be fair I am told he is very scrupulous about expenses). However, here is another problem. It's not 'tax avoidance' that's the issue - it's the law. If it's legal, it's legal. If it should not be legal, Parliament should legislate to stop it. Yet again, they have never done so. To keep firms in this country? Perhaps.
Or perhaps because those people who have some passing grip on reality (so not Corbyn) realise that actually, tax avoidance is actually very common and it is therefore a moral and legal minefield. Once cleaned up, it might help some people, but definitely not the person who did the cleaning up. For example, I am myself a multiple tax avoider. I inherited a small amount of money through a Deed of Variation, I altered my offer on a house to avoid stamp duty, I have an ISA and I put money in a pension. Therefore, in the eyes of the law I am as bad as my constituency's largest employer. I would be most unhappy if those loopholes were closed off for me. Yet if tax avoidance is morally wrong - why should anyone be allowed to do it?
What might be more helpful all around is a full audit of how many middle managers and administrators there are in the public sector and how much actual work they do. When I worked in a university, we actually had more administrative departments than academic staff, although the raw numbers were roughly equal. I noticed that for most of the year a lot of them did very little work - there were some departments you went for just a coffee and a chat any time you felt a bit stressed. I am told by a then colleague, now a council administrator, that it wasn't by any means the worst example of featherbedding he had come across. If we could declutter some of that, maybe that would be a practical way of bringing costs down?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/survation-unpublished-poll-general-election-result-2015-5
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/612288312506732544
"@DAaronovitch We elected a government not a one party state #EndAusterityNow"
Hmm.
...to say it is all part of the fun.
I think a lot of people will be bemused at this protest, especially as it's so soon after an election.
Edited extra bit: ahem, obviously not, was distracted
It's almost unbelievable that the far Left, in particular, has so little self-awareness at present. Do they actually want to forfeit what little support they have left?
I plan my tax affairs
You use a Deed of Variation
He is a tax avoider.....
Last
To put it into context at least 750,000 marched against the Iraq War, protestors said 2 million, 400,000 against the hunting ban, 75,000 attended today's march (though People's Assembly claim 250,000)
(Although strictly speaking, if you plan your tax affairs the Deed of Variation isn't needed - it's used when circumstances change but wills haven't changed to match, as in my case.)
In the same way as Jacques Delors convinced the British Labour movement that the EU could bind the Conservatives to social protection, could Osborne use the EU renegotiations to bind the Labour party to fiscal conservatism?
PS - I can't afford an iPad, and I'm hardly badly paid or poor...
In terms of popular support of the marches in question Iraq was the biggest and had the most public support and in retrospect, with the rise of Isis, was probably correct. The hunting march was least supported by the public but probably had the most passionate marchers because their livelihood and heritage and culture depended on it. This march has support amongst Labour, Green and nationalist voters but few others and is the standard leftwing crowd
A "tax avoider" arranges their affairs in a "non-natural" manner which, while legal, has the sole/primary purpose of minimising or eliminating tax. And is not the same in the eyes of the law since the GAAR regulations were introduced (a great reform by our visionary Chancellor)
" Liberal Democrat leadership hopeful Norman Lamb is at the centre of a ‘dirty tricks’ row after party memberships lists were used to conduct negative polling about his arch rival Tim Farron, The Telegraph can disclose. The Information Commissioner, the information watchdog, is set to be asked to investigate whether there was a breach of data laws in a move which could land the party with heavy fines. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11688437/Norman-Lambs-Liberal-Democrat-leadership-campaign-in-dirty-tricks-polling-row.html
This really is something best handled internationally, perhaps by the EU or even the OECD. I'm not too worried that Amazon will then move its HQ to Botswana or Papua New Guinea, and if they did, then the developed world could make their hosts think again fairly swiftly. It's a serious issue for every developed economy, and I'd give Osborne credit for making at least some effort. Britain got very annoyed when California tried to introduce taxation of companies based on their local activity, but they were right then and we'd be right to try to do it now.
I'm uneasy about GAAR, having now read it. It seems for all its talk of 'safeguards' and 'onus' and 'double reasonableness tests' to be either toothless verbiage or potentially terrifying. I therefore stand by my view that if tax avoidance is to be minimised, the way to do it is by drastic reform (simplification) of the tax code.
Next question - who is willing to do that? Not Labour, and apparently not the Conservatives either.
It's silly giving a thespian's opinion more weight than the average person. We all know that writers are the true font of wisdom.
Ever the Nasty Nat eh Malcolm?
This bitterness can't be doing you any good.....what with your moral superiority and all.....
Whether the GAAR as written by Osborne is effective (or "terrifying", if you like - it needs to be scary if it's not easily avoidable) is something I should like to wait and see. If so, I'll be glad to praise him further.
A contract is, however, only enforceable where the parties can be required to submit to the jurisdiction of a court. Generally, there is no point suing the Crown in right of the United Kingdom to enforce a contract entered into by the British government anywhere other than the UK, since the Crown will successfully plead state immunity. It is a basic rule of international comity that you can only implead a sovereign in his own courts.
A government contract is thus enforceable to the extent to which an English or, God help us, a Scottish court is prepared to, and can enforce it against the Crown. In the ordinary course of things, the Crown is in private law generally treated as any other litigant, although no court can award an equitable remedy against the Crown. No court, however, has any jurisdiction to enforce a contract declared void by Parliament (see, for example, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977). Parliament also has the undoubted power to make retrospective legislation, of which the War Damage Act 1965 is merely one example, retrospectively reversing the judgment of the House of Lords against the Crown in Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75.
It follows that Parliament can retrospectively release the government, or any other person, from contractual liability it has incurred. If it does so, it may be true to say there is still a contract in some sense. Parliament cannot change history. It has, however, become no more than a gentleman's agreement, since it is unenforceable in a court of law. I stress I am not commenting on the political or economic wisdom of such a course, merely its legality.
Very strange response from you indeed. You need to think now and again, not every poor person is a waster.
PS: I am well aware I am not perfect but I do have a conscience and count myself very lucky , even if I have worked very hard to get where I am.
Pollexit?
You clearly missed the irony of people drinking pricy coffee tweeting from expensive consumer electronics about their own "hardship"