@jkblacker: Coming soon to a Tory leaflet nr you: “Corbyn’s ‘Minister for Surrender’”/ “Labour’s plan for ‘Minister for Russian… https://t.co/UXswJv8vXO
Two words have barely been mentioned in the debate today "Owen" and "Smith". If I had a vote in this one it would almost certainly be for Corbyn, I think Smith would be an utter disaster as Labour leader - even more so than Corbyn & McDonnell.
I've never seen a more vacuous, anonymous or poor candidate run for leadership of a major party, ever.
Easy choice for me. I voted Smith because I want Labour to be a party whose overriding aim is to win power through Parliament. I was not interested in any of the policy stuff. Both candidates are well to the left of me.
Given it's a manifesto commitment, the need to keep Tory voters on-side and that we no longer worry about such old fashioned things as budget deficits, I expect the triple lock to stay for the rest of this parliament but for it's post 2020 end to be announced on Nov 23rd.
Yes, I think that is likely. In fact, as Nick Clegg half-says in his article, there was a perfectly respectable case for the triple lock for a period of time, in order to correct for the fact that the state pension was so little, but not for an eternal increase which by the laws of compound interest could eventually become completely unaffordable. So putting a time-limit on it would be very sensible.
As for whether the 2.5% part of the lock will continue to matter in practice, it might well do. Of course no-one really knows, but the 10-year break-even inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional gilts and index-linked gilts) is currently about 2.6%.
Two words have barely been mentioned in the debate today "Owen" and "Smith". If I had a vote in this one it would almost certainly be for Corbyn, I think Smith would be an utter disaster as Labour leader - even more so than Corbyn & McDonnell.
I've never seen a more vacuous, anonymous or poor candidate run for leadership of a major party, ever.
Easy choice for me. I voted Smith because I want Labour to be a party whose overriding aim is to win power through Parliament. I was not interested in any of the policy stuff. Both candidates are well to the left of me.
I get the feeling you'd have voted for David Blunkett's guide dog over Corbyn though
It looks like Don Brind was very wrong about turnout for the Labour leadership election. It's been reported that 630,000 of the 640,000 people eligible to vote have done so.
How ironic it would be if Owen Smith does win after Don bigged up his chances on here so much then backed down at the eleventh hour!
No. On that turnout I'd expect Corbyn to get about 65% of the vote. I really don't know why Don ever bigged Smith's chances up. He never had a scoobie.
The Lib Dem campaign in 2015 was to run away from the coalition record which allowed the Tories to claim credit for everything, including Lib Dem policies such as raising the threshold and a pledge to take people earning the minimum wage out of income tax.
That was a huge error, one that mystified a lot of PB Tories. Including this one. Afterwards it transpired that it was Paddy Ashdown convince Clegg to run the campaign that they were the internal opposition to the Tories. Idiot man.
And they are still confused about what strategy they are trying to follow. There was a superb example in this piece by Nick Clegg:
He's simultaneously trying to claim that the Triple Lock was an egregious piece of cynical Tory vote-chasing and that it was a wonderful LibDem policy of which the party can be proud.
Will I be getting my triple lock too, Daddy ?
Not a chance, son.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it disappears on November 23rd. Probably retaining the link to wages but ditching the 2.5%.
It should. It is simply not affordable in a very low inflation world.
There's a market for sanity right now, though it needs a few eye catching policies of its own and, as I say, a narrative to counter the general media chortling at LD irrelevance.
Farron isn't the man to front that party. The leftie vote is in love with the newly radical Labour party at the moment, the LD route to victory goes through the living rooms of Yellow Tories, people who voted for Clegg and then rowed in behind Cameron but are starting to feel alarmed about what May is starting to do.
Yes I think that's right. The LDs have come a long way from their lefter-than-Lab stance pre-coalition. Now of course it would be a physical and ideological impossibility to be lefter than Labour. Plus, having had a spell in government, they will or should be a hell of a lot more pragmatic than previously.
Depending on choices they make (big if), it would be easy to be long term bullish on the LDs.
Their being in coalition with the Conservatives might be a reason to suspect a certain right-wing bent.
Well if they are criticised by the right for being too left and by the left for being too right...it is a good foundation to build upon.
Two words have barely been mentioned in the debate today "Owen" and "Smith". If I had a vote in this one it would almost certainly be for Corbyn, I think Smith would be an utter disaster as Labour leader - even more so than Corbyn & McDonnell.
I've never seen a more vacuous, anonymous or poor candidate run for leadership of a major party, ever.
Easy choice for me. I voted Smith because I want Labour to be a party whose overriding aim is to win power through Parliament. I was not interested in any of the policy stuff. Both candidates are well to the left of me.
I get the feeling you'd have voted for David Blunkett's guide dog over Corbyn though
I don't want Labour to be a social movement, holding demos on Westminster Green as the decisions are taken inside Parliament.
It looks like Don Brind was very wrong about turnout for the Labour leadership election. It's been reported that 630,000 of the 640,000 people eligible to vote have done so.
How ironic it would be if Owen Smith does win after Don bigged up his chances on here so much then backed down at the eleventh hour!
No. On that turnout I'd expect Corbyn to get about 65% of the vote. I really don't know why Don ever bigged Smith's chances up. He never had a scoobie.
Don's conclusion was based on low turnout among ordinary members, who are pro-Smith. Agree that Corbyn will walk this though.
As for why Don bigged him up, most likely something to do with him being on the Smith campaign!
Two words have barely been mentioned in the debate today "Owen" and "Smith". If I had a vote in this one it would almost certainly be for Corbyn, I think Smith would be an utter disaster as Labour leader - even more so than Corbyn & McDonnell.
I've never seen a more vacuous, anonymous or poor candidate run for leadership of a major party, ever.
Easy choice for me. I voted Smith because I want Labour to be a party whose overriding aim is to win power through Parliament. I was not interested in any of the policy stuff. Both candidates are well to the left of me.
I get the feeling you'd have voted for David Blunkett's guide dog over Corbyn though
David Blunkett's Guide dog would have given them both a run for their money. He generally knows where he is going.
At the next local election, I will probably vote LD.
I voted Leave so that makes me a bigot, but I don't see the point of voting Ukip now. Brexit is coming and Ukip is now a national party.
But for local affairs, we can safely let the yellow peril back.
Unless May takes the UK out of the single market and completely ends freedom of movement and immigration has fallen significantly by 2020 UKIP will still have a purpose for many Leave voters
How exactly? Are UKIP going to unravel whatever deal gets agreed with the EU? Just how many folks do you think are going to risk letting in Corbyn for the sake of maybe getting a chance to have another nibble at the EU? Not many. Maybe a fringe with Surrey on top....
It looks like Don Brind was very wrong about turnout for the Labour leadership election. It's been reported that 630,000 of the 640,000 people eligible to vote have done so.
How ironic it would be if Owen Smith does win after Don bigged up his chances on here so much then backed down at the eleventh hour!
No. On that turnout I'd expect Corbyn to get about 65% of the vote. I really don't know why Don ever bigged Smith's chances up. He never had a scoobie.
Don's conclusion was based on low turnout among ordinary members, who are pro-Smith. Agree that Corbyn will walk this though.
As for why Don bigged him up, most likely something to do with him being on the Smith campaign!
No, Don thought Smith had his best chance on a high turnout. And this site is not really the place for bigging up candidates because you are on their team, is it?
Two words have barely been mentioned in the debate today "Owen" and "Smith". If I had a vote in this one it would almost certainly be for Corbyn, I think Smith would be an utter disaster as Labour leader - even more so than Corbyn & McDonnell.
I've never seen a more vacuous, anonymous or poor candidate run for leadership of a major party, ever.
Easy choice for me. I voted Smith because I want Labour to be a party whose overriding aim is to win power through Parliament. I was not interested in any of the policy stuff. Both candidates are well to the left of me.
I get the feeling you'd have voted for David Blunkett's guide dog over Corbyn though
I met Blunkett's dog when he was Home Secretary and a very fine animal he was too, certainly more wirth a vote than Corbyn or most of Labour's current front bench.
Given it's a manifesto commitment, the need to keep Tory voters on-side and that we no longer worry about such old fashioned things as budget deficits, I expect the triple lock to stay for the rest of this parliament but for it's post 2020 end to be announced on Nov 23rd.
Yes, I think that is likely. In fact, as Nick Clegg half-says in his article, there was a perfectly respectable case for the triple lock for a period of time, in order to correct for the fact that the state pension was so little, but not for an eternal increase which by the laws of compound interest could eventually become completely unaffordable. So putting a time-limit on it would be very sensible.
As for whether the 2.5% part of the lock will continue to matter in practice, it might well do. Of course no-one really knows, but the 10-year break-even inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional gilts and index-linked gilts) is currently about 2.6%.
There is a gloomy short piece in the FT today pointing out that nearly 1/3 of all the world's government bonds are now trading at less than a zero rate of return. As far as I can see the trend remains negative with the result that those without final salary schemes will get ever less for the pension pots and those with final salary schemes threaten to bankrupt those who have to pay them.
I really don't see how a guaranteed 2.5% annual increase fits into such a world.
It looks like Don Brind was very wrong about turnout for the Labour leadership election. It's been reported that 630,000 of the 640,000 people eligible to vote have done so.
How ironic it would be if Owen Smith does win after Don bigged up his chances on here so much then backed down at the eleventh hour!
No. On that turnout I'd expect Corbyn to get about 65% of the vote. I really don't know why Don ever bigged Smith's chances up. He never had a scoobie.
Don's conclusion was based on low turnout among ordinary members, who are pro-Smith. Agree that Corbyn will walk this though.
As for why Don bigged him up, most likely something to do with him being on the Smith campaign!
No, Don thought Smith had his best chance on a high turnout. And this site is not really the place for bigging up candidates because you are on their team, is it?
To clarify, I mean Don's conclusion yesterday (or was it Monday) that Corbyn was going to win was based on low turnout figures.
And agree entirely on the second point, given that people use this site for betting tips there should at the very least have been some kind of disclaimer on his articles.
It looks like Don Brind was very wrong about turnout for the Labour leadership election. It's been reported that 630,000 of the 640,000 people eligible to vote have done so.
How ironic it would be if Owen Smith does win after Don bigged up his chances on here so much then backed down at the eleventh hour!
No. On that turnout I'd expect Corbyn to get about 65% of the vote. I really don't know why Don ever bigged Smith's chances up. He never had a scoobie.
Don's conclusion was based on low turnout among ordinary members, who are pro-Smith. Agree that Corbyn will walk this though.
As for why Don bigged him up, most likely something to do with him being on the Smith campaign!
No actual prices or tips given with any of the articles - was all a bit telling.
If anyone actually thinks Smith has a genuine chance then they can clean up shop on Betfair.
Yes and if Trump wins by 10% he'll win Oregon. Point is, that's not likely to happen so the internal Democratic analysis is right. It's close, but it's still very much Hillary's to lose, despite the endless, breathless Trump ramping we witness on here on a hourly basis.
Given it's a manifesto commitment, the need to keep Tory voters on-side and that we no longer worry about such old fashioned things as budget deficits, I expect the triple lock to stay for the rest of this parliament but for it's post 2020 end to be announced on Nov 23rd.
Yes, I think that is likely. In fact, as Nick Clegg half-says in his article, there was a perfectly respectable case for the triple lock for a period of time, in order to correct for the fact that the state pension was so little, but not for an eternal increase which by the laws of compound interest could eventually become completely unaffordable. So putting a time-limit on it would be very sensible.
As for whether the 2.5% part of the lock will continue to matter in practice, it might well do. Of course no-one really knows, but the 10-year break-even inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional gilts and index-linked gilts) is currently about 2.6%.
There is a gloomy short piece in the FT today pointing out that nearly 1/3 of all the world's government bonds are now trading at less than a zero rate of return. As far as I can see the trend remains negative with the result that those without final salary schemes will get ever less for the pension pots and those with final salary schemes threaten to bankrupt those who have to pay them.
I really don't see how a guaranteed 2.5% annual increase fits into such a world.
My own pension pot is invested 90% equities, 5% bonds, 5% properties (I think) - I calculated just over 8% IRR from 2010 about a month back - DC schemes you can stick where you like, but DB I think have to be alot in gilts ?
Two words have barely been mentioned in the debate today "Owen" and "Smith". If I had a vote in this one it would almost certainly be for Corbyn, I think Smith would be an utter disaster as Labour leader - even more so than Corbyn & McDonnell.
I've never seen a more vacuous, anonymous or poor candidate run for leadership of a major party, ever.
Easy choice for me. I voted Smith because I want Labour to be a party whose overriding aim is to win power through Parliament. I was not interested in any of the policy stuff. Both candidates are well to the left of me.
I get the feeling you'd have voted for David Blunkett's guide dog over Corbyn though
I don't want Labour to be a social movement, holding demos on Westminster Green as the decisions are taken inside Parliament.
I see JC has said he'll have a minister for peace and disarmament when he's PM.
The former SNP Justice Minister who released the Lockerbie bomber has urged Nicola Sturgeon to resist pressure from party members to call a second independence referendum, warning history is “littered with headlong rushes to disaster.”
Kenny MacAskill became the latest Nationalist grandee to argue that staging a rerun of the 2014 vote would lead to defeat, arguing there were too many questions over the currency, a potential “hard” border with England and whether Scotland would be admitted to the EU.
Among many PBers it is now considered 'elitist' to:
• Say that leaving the EU was bad for Britain • Dislike Trump and his supporters • Live in London • Live in Manchester • Consider Jeremy Kyle awful TV • Like the BBC • Call racists racists
Given it's a manifesto commitment, the need to keep Tory voters on-side and that we no longer worry about such old fashioned things as budget deficits, I expect the triple lock to stay for the rest of this parliament but for it's post 2020 end to be announced on Nov 23rd.
Yes, I think that is likely. In fact, as Nick Clegg half-says in his article, there was a perfectly respectable case for the triple lock for a period of time, in order to correct for the fact that the state pension was so little, but not for an eternal increase which by the laws of compound interest could eventually become completely unaffordable. So putting a time-limit on it would be very sensible.
As for whether the 2.5% part of the lock will continue to matter in practice, it might well do. Of course no-one really knows, but the 10-year break-even inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional gilts and index-linked gilts) is currently about 2.6%.
There is a gloomy short piece in the FT today pointing out that nearly 1/3 of all the world's government bonds are now trading at less than a zero rate of return. As far as I can see the trend remains negative with the result that those without final salary schemes will get ever less for the pension pots and those with final salary schemes threaten to bankrupt those who have to pay them.
I really don't see how a guaranteed 2.5% annual increase fits into such a world.
My own pension pot is invested 90% equities, 5% bonds, 5% properties (I think) - I calculated just over 8% IRR from 2010 about a month back - DC schemes you can stick where you like, but DB I think have to be alot in gilts ?
IANAE but my understanding is that it depends on whether the fund is still growing or in payment, how the managers of a fund for multiple pensioners think they should weigh risk against the possible returns and the specialities of the scheme. Generally speaking, however, the annuity (if you buy one) is based on gilt rates.
It looks like Don Brind was very wrong about turnout for the Labour leadership election. It's been reported that 630,000 of the 640,000 people eligible to vote have done so.
It being Labour and Momentum - are you sure you haven't got those two figures reversed?
Given it's a manifesto commitment, the need to keep Tory voters on-side and that we no longer worry about such old fashioned things as budget deficits, I expect the triple lock to stay for the rest of this parliament but for it's post 2020 end to be announced on Nov 23rd.
Yes, I think that is likely. In fact, as Nick Clegg half-says in his article, there was a perfectly respectable case for the triple lock for a period of time, in order to correct for the fact that the state pension was so little, but not for an eternal increase which by the laws of compound interest could eventually become completely unaffordable. So putting a time-limit on it would be very sensible.
As for whether the 2.5% part of the lock will continue to matter in practice, it might well do. Of course no-one really knows, but the 10-year break-even inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional gilts and index-linked gilts) is currently about 2.6%.
There is a gloomy short piece in the FT today pointing out that nearly 1/3 of all the world's government bonds are now trading at less than a zero rate of return. As far as I can see the trend remains negative with the result that those without final salary schemes will get ever less for the pension pots and those with final salary schemes threaten to bankrupt those who have to pay them.
I really don't see how a guaranteed 2.5% annual increase fits into such a world.
My own pension pot is invested 90% equities, 5% bonds, 5% properties (I think) - I calculated just over 8% IRR from 2010 about a month back - DC schemes you can stick where you like, but DB I think have to be alot in gilts ?
DB schemes normally hold a reasonable proportion of bonds (not necessarily gilts) - I think the one I oversee has about 30%. But the bigger issue is that DB forward liabilities are discounted at the yield on long-dated gilts - which means that currently when schemes are valued the liability is valued at a much bigger value than before, hence schemes are in deficit. The extent to which this is a long-term problem depends on how quickly (if ever) you think the current "temporary" state of affairs (eight years and counting here, nearly twenty five years in Japan) will return to 'normal'.
Given it's a manifesto commitment, the need to keep Tory voters on-side and that we no longer worry about such old fashioned things as budget deficits, I expect the triple lock to stay for the rest of this parliament but for it's post 2020 end to be announced on Nov 23rd.
Yes, I think that is likely. In fact, as Nick Clegg half-says in his article, there was a perfectly respectable case for the triple lock for a period of time, in order to correct for the fact that the state pension was so little, but not for an eternal increase which by the laws of compound interest could eventually become completely unaffordable. So putting a time-limit on it would be very sensible.
As for whether the 2.5% part of the lock will continue to matter in practice, it might well do. Of course no-one really knows, but the 10-year break-even inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional gilts and index-linked gilts) is currently about 2.6%.
There is a gloomy short piece in the FT today pointing out that nearly 1/3 of all the world's government bonds are now trading at less than a zero rate of return. As far as I can see the trend remains negative with the result that those without final salary schemes will get ever less for the pension pots and those with final salary schemes threaten to bankrupt those who have to pay them.
I really don't see how a guaranteed 2.5% annual increase fits into such a world.
My own pension pot is invested 90% equities, 5% bonds, 5% properties (I think) - I calculated just over 8% IRR from 2010 about a month back - DC schemes you can stick where you like, but DB I think have to be alot in gilts ?
IANAE but my understanding is that it depends on whether the fund is still growing or in payment, how the managers of a fund for multiple pensioners think they should weigh risk against the possible returns and the specialities of the scheme. Generally speaking, however, the annuity (if you buy one) is based on gilt rates.
I thought annuities were based off of life expectancy.
I'll be taking out as much as I can (In 33 years time I guess) as a lump sum, mind.
It looks like Don Brind was very wrong about turnout for the Labour leadership election. It's been reported that 630,000 of the 640,000 people eligible to vote have done so.
How ironic it would be if Owen Smith does win after Don bigged up his chances on here so much then backed down at the eleventh hour!
No. On that turnout I'd expect Corbyn to get about 65% of the vote. I really don't know why Don ever bigged Smith's chances up. He never had a scoobie.
Among many PBers it is now considered 'elitist' to:
• Say that leaving the EU was bad for Britain • Dislike Trump and his supporters • Live in London • Live in Manchester • Consider Jeremy Kyle awful TV • Like the BBC • Call racists racists
Iff it is Pennsylvania then Trump won't get it** - the polls have stubbornly remained pro-Clinton. Assuming Trump picks up Nevada and North Carolina (not gimmees by any stretch of the book but more favourable polling) then he needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin where there has been more movement. (Barring e.g. Maine/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Rhode Island or similar remote but non-zero possibilities)
Basically he has a very narrow route to 270 and some of the states are very rickety bridges. We'll have some idea this time next week when polls start reflecting the 1st debate (although there will be a time-lag). For instance the polls are dropping back for Trump as the Clinton Collapse fades into the background. His hope is that they will plateau at a substantially higher level than pre September 11th. But Romney was ahead of Obama post 1st debate, wasn't he?
* Barring 'Shy Trumpers' or a failed polling methodology** - if there are any.
** Missing people from the polls who decide to vote Republican
If Nate is right, the thing we have to look out for on the night is turnout in Philly. At 1,553,000, it is 5 times larger than the next biggest city (Pittsburgh) and 13 times larger than the 3rd largest city, Allentown. If turnout is low there, it is very bad news for Hillary.
How much does the rest of Pennsylvania hate Philly? Many of the most restrictive laws passed in Harrisburg (capital, population 50,000) apply only to cities in PA with a population of more than 1 million, i.e. only apply to Philly.
Bet Trump wishes the course of the Delaware would shift a mile or so so that Philly falls into New Jersey.
Wait a second Hillary is relying on the big cities but don't the majority of Americans live outside the Philadelphia's like in England the vast majority live outside of London and the met borough's.
Among many PBers it is now considered 'elitist' to:
• Say that leaving the EU was bad for Britain • Dislike Trump and his supporters • Live in London • Live in Manchester • Consider Jeremy Kyle awful TV • Like the BBC • Call racists racists
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Two words have barely been mentioned in the debate today "Owen" and "Smith". If I had a vote in this one it would almost certainly be for Corbyn, I think Smith would be an utter disaster as Labour leader - even more so than Corbyn & McDonnell.
I've never seen a more vacuous, anonymous or poor candidate run for leadership of a major party, ever.
Easy choice for me. I voted Smith because I want Labour to be a party whose overriding aim is to win power through Parliament. I was not interested in any of the policy stuff. Both candidates are well to the left of me.
I get the feeling you'd have voted for David Blunkett's guide dog over Corbyn though
David Blunkett's Guide dog would have given them both a run for their money. He generally knows where he is going.
Sadie is a lady dog and indeed she would have made a far better leader than Jezza. And would have been Labour's first female leader to boot!
Two words have barely been mentioned in the debate today "Owen" and "Smith". If I had a vote in this one it would almost certainly be for Corbyn, I think Smith would be an utter disaster as Labour leader - even more so than Corbyn & McDonnell.
I've never seen a more vacuous, anonymous or poor candidate run for leadership of a major party, ever.
Easy choice for me. I voted Smith because I want Labour to be a party whose overriding aim is to win power through Parliament. I was not interested in any of the policy stuff. Both candidates are well to the left of me.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Among many PBers it is now considered 'elitist' to:
• Say that leaving the EU was bad for Britain • Dislike Trump and his supporters • Live in London • Live in Manchester • Consider Jeremy Kyle awful TV • Like the BBC • Call racists racists
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
The Lib Dems have had some fantastic local by-election results, and in areas all around UK, so why are national opinion polls still showing them stagnant around 7%?
This is a LOCAL by-election for LOCAL people! There's nothing for YOU here!
Given it's a manifesto commitment, the need to keep Tory voters on-side and that we no longer worry about such old fashioned things as budget deficits, I expect the triple lock to stay for the rest of this parliament but for it's post 2020 end to be announced on Nov 23rd.
Yes, I think that is likely. In fact, as Nick Clegg half-says in his article, there was a perfectly respectable case for the triple lock for a period of time, in order to correct for the fact that the state pension was so little, but not for an eternal increase which by the laws of compound interest could eventually become completely unaffordable. So putting a time-limit on it would be very sensible.
As for whether the 2.5% part of the lock will continue to matter in practice, it might well do. Of course no-one really knows, but the 10-year break-even inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional gilts and index-linked gilts) is currently about 2.6%.
There is a gloomy short piece in the FT today pointing out that nearly 1/3 of all the world's government bonds are now trading at less than a zero rate of return. As far as I can see the trend remains negative with the result that those without final salary schemes will get ever less for the pension pots and those with final salary schemes threaten to bankrupt those who have to pay them.
I really don't see how a guaranteed 2.5% annual increase fits into such a world.
My own pension pot is invested 90% equities, 5% bonds, 5% properties (I think) - I calculated just over 8% IRR from 2010 about a month back - DC schemes you can stick where you like, but DB I think have to be alot in gilts ?
IANAE but my understanding is that it depends on whether the fund is still growing or in payment, how the managers of a fund for multiple pensioners think they should weigh risk against the possible returns and the specialities of the scheme. Generally speaking, however, the annuity (if you buy one) is based on gilt rates.
I thought annuities were based off of life expectancy.
I'll be taking out as much as I can (In 33 years time I guess) as a lump sum, mind.
Yes but also the rate of return from your pot. Unfortunately you now need a pot between 2 and 3 times what you did about 8 years to generate the same income. Or, to put it another way, the income generated by any particular sum will have fallen by that amount.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
'Many' labour supporters are anti-semites. Funny how you can play with words.
Iff it is Pennsylvania then Trump won't get it** - the polls have stubbornly remained pro-Clinton. Assuming Trump picks up Nevada and North Carolina (not gimmees by any stretch of the book but more favourable polling) then he needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin where there has been more movement. (Barring e.g. Maine/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Rhode Island or similar remote but non-zero possibilities)
Basically he has a very narrow route to 270 and some of the states are very rickety bridges. We'll have some idea this time next week when polls start reflecting the 1st debate (although there will be a time-lag). For instance the polls are dropping back for Trump as the Clinton Collapse fades into the background. His hope is that they will plateau at a substantially higher level than pre September 11th. But Romney was ahead of Obama post 1st debate, wasn't he?
* Barring 'Shy Trumpers' or a failed polling methodology** - if there are any.
** Missing people from the polls who decide to vote Republican
If Nate is right, the thing we have to look out for on the night is turnout in Philly. At 1,553,000, it is 5 times larger than the next biggest city (Pittsburgh) and 13 times larger than the 3rd largest city, Allentown. If turnout is low there, it is very bad news for Hillary.
How much does the rest of Pennsylvania hate Philly? Many of the most restrictive laws passed in Harrisburg (capital, population 50,000) apply only to cities in PA with a population of more than 1 million, i.e. only apply to Philly.
Bet Trump wishes the course of the Delaware would shift a mile or so so that Philly falls into New Jersey.
Wait a second Hillary is relying on the big cities but don't the majority of Americans live outside the Philadelphia's like in England the vast majority live outside of London and the met borough's.
The Philly Metro area is about half the state's population, so basically if she's piling up the votes there and winning Pittsburgh as well, it makes it virtually impossible for Trump to win. No GOP nominee has won it since 1988.
"Maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say, 'Look, this is not who we are.' We have to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. There are good, honorable, cool-headed police officers. We've seen them in action in New York in the last, you know, 48 hours because of the terrorist attacks. We can do better. We have got to rein in what is absolutely inexplicable and we have got to have law enforcement respect communities and communities respect law enforcement because they have to work together."
I get what Hillary is trying to say, and it is a good and important message. But.
""Maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say, 'Look, this is not who we are.' "
She has already told 23% of the US electorate, which is probably close to 35% of white people precisely who they are, explicitly this IS who you are, deplorables.
There is currently no person in the US who is worse placed than Hillary to tell white people "This is not who we are"
The risk for Clinton is that people get to a point where they no longer care what Trump says but think Washington DC is so ossified that his victory is necessary to shake it up.
They won't expect much, in fact they might fear him, but would implicitly discount any opportunity for real progress until 2020 on the hope American politics would have got the message and changed by then.
Indeed, the people who need to hear what Hillary was trying to say are not going to hear anything past "Maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say "Look, this is not who we are." They will be in a blind rage at those words and hear nothing further of that paragraph.
Why is Hillary held accountable for her every word whilst the other guy gets away with murder? He literally said 26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?
It looks like Don Brind was very wrong about turnout for the Labour leadership election. It's been reported that 630,000 of the 640,000 people eligible to vote have done so.
How ironic it would be if Owen Smith does win after Don bigged up his chances on here so much then backed down at the eleventh hour!
No. On that turnout I'd expect Corbyn to get about 65% of the vote. I really don't know why Don ever bigged Smith's chances up. He never had a scoobie.
Scooby Doo? Clue?
"I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you pesky Labour members!"
Among many PBers it is now considered 'elitist' to:
• Say that leaving the EU was bad for Britain • Dislike Trump and his supporters • Live in London • Live in Manchester • Consider Jeremy Kyle awful TV • Like the BBC • Call racists racists
Voted to leave.
Live in London.
Not a huge fan of Trump (but sympathise with his supporters in a lot of cases).
Find daytime TV awful. Jeremy Kyle is surely the worst of the lot.
Ambivalent about the BBC. Think a subscription model would suit it better and allow it to be more like HBO.
I guess I'm a minority, but most people think Indians (and Jews) are far too successful to be considered a minority group in the traditional sense of needing protection from the majority. I also think the definition of racism is far too wide and shouldn't include people who make the choice to believe in some kind of wizard who lives in space and tells them to kill other people.
Iff it is Pennsylvania then Trump won't get it** - the polls have stubbornly remained pro-Clinton. Assuming Trump picks up Nevada and North Carolina (not gimmees by any stretch of the book but more favourable polling) then he needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin where there has been more movement. (Barring e.g. Maine/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Rhode Island or similar remote but non-zero possibilities)
Basically he has a very narrow route to 270 and some of the states are very rickety bridges. We'll have some idea this time next week when polls start reflecting the 1st debate (although there will be a time-lag). For instance the polls are dropping back for Trump as the Clinton Collapse fades into the background. His hope is that they will plateau at a substantially higher level than pre September 11th. But Romney was ahead of Obama post 1st debate, wasn't he?
* Barring 'Shy Trumpers' or a failed polling methodology** - if there are any.
** Missing people from the polls who decide to vote Republican
If Nate is right, the thing we have to look out for on the night is turnout in Philly. At 1,553,000, it is 5 times larger than the next biggest city (Pittsburgh) and 13 times larger than the 3rd largest city, Allentown. If turnout is low there, it is very bad news for Hillary.
How much does the rest of Pennsylvania hate Philly? Many of the most restrictive laws passed in Harrisburg (capital, population 50,000) apply only to cities in PA with a population of more than 1 million, i.e. only apply to Philly.
Bet Trump wishes the course of the Delaware would shift a mile or so so that Philly falls into New Jersey.
Wait a second Hillary is relying on the big cities but don't the majority of Americans live outside the Philadelphia's like in England the vast majority live outside of London and the met borough's.
The Philly Metro area is about half the state's population, so basically if she's piling up the votes there and winning Pittsburgh as well, it makes it virtually impossible for Trump to win. No GOP nominee has won it since 1988.
What is this topic referring to? I assume its based on a post/new data? Cheers
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
We shouldn't be labelling them as racists, surely much better to call them a 'person expressing themselves using racist language'
Iff it is Pennsylvania then Trump won't get it** - the polls have stubbornly remained pro-Clinton. Assuming Trump picks up Nevada and North Carolina (not gimmees by any stretch of the book but more favourable polling) then he needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin where there has been more movement. (Barring e.g. Maine/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Rhode Island or similar remote but non-zero possibilities)
Basically he has a very narrow route to 270 and some of the states are very rickety bridges. We'll have some idea this time next week when polls start reflecting the 1st debate (although there will be a time-lag). For instance the polls are dropping back for Trump as the Clinton Collapse fades into the background. His hope is that they will plateau at a substantially higher level than pre September 11th. But Romney was ahead of Obama post 1st debate, wasn't he?
* Barring 'Shy Trumpers' or a failed polling methodology** - if there are any.
** Missing people from the polls who decide to vote Republican
If Nate is right, the thing we have to look out for on the night is turnout in Philly. At 1,553,000, it is 5 times larger than the next biggest city (Pittsburgh) and 13 times larger than the 3rd largest city, Allentown. If turnout is low there, it is very bad news for Hillary.
How much does the rest of Pennsylvania hate Philly? Many of the most restrictive laws passed in Harrisburg (capital, population 50,000) apply only to cities in PA with a population of more than 1 million, i.e. only apply to Philly.
Bet Trump wishes the course of the Delaware would shift a mile or so so that Philly falls into New Jersey.
Wait a second Hillary is relying on the big cities but don't the majority of Americans live outside the Philadelphia's like in England the vast majority live outside of London and the met borough's.
The Philly Metro area is about half the state's population, so basically if she's piling up the votes there and winning Pittsburgh as well, it makes it virtually impossible for Trump to win. No GOP nominee has won it since 1988.
What is this topic referring to? I assume its based on a post/new data? Cheers
Based on the comment I responded too about Hillary relying on big cities.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
'Many' labour supporters are anti-semites. Funny how you can play with words.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Iff it is Pennsylvania then Trump won't get it** - the polls have stubbornly remained pro-Clinton. Assuming Trump picks up Nevada and North Carolina (not gimmees by any stretch of the book but more favourable polling) then he needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin where there has been more movement. (Barring e.g. Maine/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Rhode Island or similar remote but non-zero possibilities)
Basically he has a very narrow route to 270 and some of the states are very rickety bridges. We'll have some idea this time next week when polls start reflecting the 1st debate (although there will be a time-lag). For instance the polls are dropping back for Trump as the Clinton Collapse fades into the background. His hope is that they will plateau at a substantially higher level than pre September 11th. But Romney was ahead of Obama post 1st debate, wasn't he?
* Barring 'Shy Trumpers' or a failed polling methodology** - if there are any.
** Missing people from the polls who decide to vote Republican
If Nate is right, the thing we have to look out for on the night is turnout in Philly. At 1,553,000, it is 5 times larger than the next biggest city (Pittsburgh) and 13 times larger than the 3rd largest city, Allentown. If turnout is low there, it is very bad news for Hillary.
How much does the rest of Pennsylvania hate Philly? Many of the most restrictive laws passed in Harrisburg (capital, population 50,000) apply only to cities in PA with a population of more than 1 million, i.e. only apply to Philly.
Bet Trump wishes the course of the Delaware would shift a mile or so so that Philly falls into New Jersey.
Wait a second Hillary is relying on the big cities but don't the majority of Americans live outside the Philadelphia's like in England the vast majority live outside of London and the met borough's.
The Philly Metro area is about half the state's population, so basically if she's piling up the votes there and winning Pittsburgh as well, it makes it virtually impossible for Trump to win. No GOP nominee has won it since 1988.
What is this topic referring to? I assume its based on a post/new data? Cheers
Based on the comment I responded too about Hillary relying on big cities.
What evidence do we have that Hillary's piling up votes in Philly? (I assume I missed the seed of the topic)
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Apparently as a Lancashire mill town born, comprehensively schooled doctor in provincial England I am one of these elite lizard people. I have to say that I do not feel that powerful.
On PB referring to people as elite is pretty meaningless. It just seems to be a way of posters to display the chip on their shoulders.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Elitist!
well the reason why 55% think Obama wasn't born in the USA is presumably because of the publicity given to Hillary Clinton's campaign team when they pushed this in 2008.
And I have to tell you there is such a thing as 'white slavery' - so being pro slavery is not being racist per se. But of course to a Democrat calling someone a 'racist' is the worst epithet they can hang on them.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Apparently as a Lancashire mill town born, comprehensively schooled doctor in provincial England I am one of these elite lizard people. I have to say that I do not feel that powerful.
On PB referring to people as elite is pretty meaningless. It just seems to be a way of posters to display the chip on their shoulders.
elite eɪˈliːt,ɪ-/Submit noun 1. a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
So politicians then are not elite, unless we are talking about spinning horseshit as a quality.
The last few polls have been trending back towards Hillary.
Interesting. Wobble fading?
Fairly standard - major event happens - sudden change in voting intention - event is overtaken by other events so the peak gradually drops down (probably asymptotically) to a new mean.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Elitist!
well the reason why 55% think Obama wasn't born in the USA is presumably because of the publicity given to Hillary Clinton's campaign team when they pushed this in 2008.
And I have to tell you there is such a thing as 'white slavery' - so being pro slavery is not being racist per se. But of course to a Democrat calling someone a 'racist' is the worst epithet they can hang on them.
Bullshit on the first point. It's Trump and the GOP talking about it for the last 8 years.
Second, in the USA, the poll question asked if it was wrong for slavery to have been abolished, to which 20%+ of trump supporters said 'YES'.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Elitist!
Is that the PPP poll where 16% of very liberal people said they thought that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer? And 14% of them people think Obama wasn't US born. 28% of them think vaccines can cause autism.
Maybe if you ask stupid questions you get stupid answers.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
Depends on the implication of voters failing to endrose the deal. If the implication is that we get what the voters originally voted for (Brexit independent of any deal) but not the deal, then it doesn't block Brexit at all and is in my view perfectly reasonable. Indeed, this approach seems congruent with holding the original referendum in the first place.
If OTOH the implict assumption here is that rejecting the deal would mean no Brexit, then it is clearly designed to scotch Brexit (and indeed if suspected likely in advance of negotiations would incentivise those among the establishment strongly opposed to Brexit to accept a(nother) poor deal in the hope that it would be rejected).
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
Depends on the implication of voters failing to endrose the deal. If the implication is that we get what the voters originally voted for (Brexit independent of any deal) but not the deal, then it doesn't block Brexit at all and is in my view perfectly reasonable. Indeed, this approach seems congruent with holding the original referendum in the first place.
If OTOH the implict assumption here is that rejecting the deal would mean no Brexit, then it is clearly designed to scotch Brexit (and indeed if suspected likely in advance of negotiations would incentivise those among the establishment strongly opposed to Brexit to accept a(nother) poor deal in the hope that it would be rejected).
balance it vs WTO (if indeed we get anything that differs from WTO).
ie the question is - do you agree with the following deal we have negotiated with the EU. If yes, then we adopt the deal, if no then we revert to WTO status.
I am however against a second referendum because, first, BREXIT means too many things to too many people, and secondly, because it delays an already uncertain outcome.
We have a government, we voted to leave the EU, we should be happy for the government to negotiate on our behalf without coming back to us at each stage asking how many immigration points should be awarded for a love of Shakespeare.
I have little doubt that the deal we reach will put the UK in an imperceptibly worse position than the one we occupied as an EU member, but that is irrelevant now.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Apparently as a Lancashire mill town born, comprehensively schooled doctor in provincial England I am one of these elite lizard people. I have to say that I do not feel that powerful.
On PB referring to people as elite is pretty meaningless. It just seems to be a way of posters to display the chip on their shoulders.
That's not a PB thing, that's a people thing. Use of elite as a critical descriptor is pretty meaningless. Much like 'mainstream media' it usually means 'those people/views I dislike'. Notably, people who are definitely part of the social, political, financial elite, do not usually consider themselves of the elite. If they know they are also part of the elite, but they do not agree with the general elite view, that'd be one thing, but usually there's some mental gymnastics to explain how a poor or powerless person who happens to agree with a view that is more common among the elite is part of the elite, but not a rich blueblood who shares a view more common to those not as wealthy as they.
But on issues like the EU it is even more silly than usual, since while the general view might be in favour, it is not as though being anti-EU is unheard of. Someone decides a view is metropolitan and liberal, and suddenly everyone who has that view is a metropolitan liberal, even if they are neither.
Among many PBers it is now considered 'elitist' to:
• Say that leaving the EU was bad for Britain • Dislike Trump and his supporters • Live in London • Live in Manchester • Consider Jeremy Kyle awful TV • Like the BBC • Call racists racists
I'll give you the first six, but the last one about racism is a much more nuanced position, ironically, precisely because people who are not racists are indeed labelled as racist for the crime of inelegant thought or language rather than any evidence of racist views. That is not to say some people do not object to what I personally would say are clear racists being called racist, but I don't think that is common enough to go in with the rest of the list.
Also, living in Brighton is surely much better evidence of elitism than living in Manchester.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Elitist!
well the reason why 55% think Obama wasn't born in the USA is presumably because of the publicity given to Hillary Clinton's campaign team when they pushed this in 2008.
And I have to tell you there is such a thing as 'white slavery' - so being pro slavery is not being racist per se. But of course to a Democrat calling someone a 'racist' is the worst epithet they can hang on them.
Bullshit on the first point. It's Trump and the GOP talking about it for the last 8 years.
Second, in the USA, the poll question asked if it was wrong for slavery to have been abolished, to which 20%+ of trump supporters said 'YES'.
Well you have VERY selective information about the first one - it is all over the internet - as for the second - you are making a classical error in assuming that agreement to slavery is inherently racist (BTW The Koran is in favour of it and explains how to handle slaves appropriately - I suppose that makes all Muslims Racist).
Your 'argument' seems to go like this.
I Don't like peole who like slavery Anyone I don't like is racist Therefore anyone who approves of slavery is racist.
In just the last 24 hours we have had compelling evidence that Clinton's IT man deliberately deleted e-mails that he had been ordered to deliver to the Senate Committee having asked online how to do so and we have seen equally compelling evidence that Trump was using charity money to buy off law suits against his commercial enterprises and buy portraits of himself.
In my opinion the only rational conclusion is that anyone who professes to know how this is going to end up is a fool. This is not like any election in any established democracy that I can recall. It is all about whose misdemeanours are deemed to have the greatest traction at the end of the day.
1. People who are like me and rightfully run the show. 2. People who are not like me and wrongfully run the show.
Or I think we/they do.
Trump's opponents often seem to be running against the idea that a man like Trump could possibly win power, rather than running against the man himself. They think they win by 'denormalising' him, but all they succeed in doing is demonstrating their sense of entitlement and detachment from average people. Clinton has fallen head first into the same trap.
Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.
From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
1. Parliame
2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
The second only flies of the referendum was agreed as binding. Which it could have been (as was AV, as I recall). But this one wasn't. If Parliament agrees a referendum as advisory it must leave open the possibility - in theory if not in practice - that the result can be disregarded.
Can you please cite the clause in the Act that allows for the result to be ignored?
The absence of the words in section 8 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.
Having a Referendum does not equate to taking a decision, unless the Act so specifies.
In other words, no, you can't. Parliament did not specify it was advisory, therefore it wasn't.
I cannot even parse that logic. The act didn't specify a lot of things, are they all mandatory despite not being mentioned? No doubt that's why we are committed to soft/hard/whatever form you like Brexit, despite that also not being set out in the act.
In our legal system referendums are not automatically binding, that at least is one of unambiguous points around this whole debate. A good thing too, having flexibility in our arrangements is on the whole a good thing. Granted, it leaves open theoretical possibilities of ignoring referenda, but the political reality is far different. And our system is full of such situations, with theoretical possibilities and powers which are not, due to political realities, exercised. We could introduce AV if we wanted despite losing a referendum on it, would that be illegal because it went against a referendum? Of course it wouldn't.
I honestly cannot explain the anger people have for the advisory part other than fear and paranoia Brexit will be snatched away from the people, but if our politicians and system had the ability and will to ignore it, they'd have been powerful enough to have not held a referendum in the first place. I think we can say with confidence Cameron would not have risked it, even if he thought he would win it, if he could have avoided it.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Elitist!
well the reason why 55% think Obama wasn't born in the USA is presumably because of the publicity given to Hillary Clinton's campaign team when they pushed this in 2008.
And I have to tell you there is such a thing as 'white slavery' - so being pro slavery is not being racist per se. But of course to a Democrat calling someone a 'racist' is the worst epithet they can hang on them.
Bullshit on the first point. It's Trump and the GOP talking about it for the last 8 years.
Second, in the USA, the poll question asked if it was wrong for slavery to have been abolished, to which 20%+ of trump supporters said 'YES'.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
A bit like when we ask you about vibrant Italy's record on racism and migrants then, tyson.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
He's probably on another forum talking about the bloke who was incredibly rude to him.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
What do you think he has to say about you?
Something about a clueless arsehole talking about vibrant Italy, one imagines.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
What do you think he has to say about you?
What does it matter what these little people think?
One day he might just work out why he lost. But I doubt it.
Comments
As for whether the 2.5% part of the lock will continue to matter in practice, it might well do. Of course no-one really knows, but the 10-year break-even inflation rate (the difference between yields on conventional gilts and index-linked gilts) is currently about 2.6%.
As for why Don bigged him up, most likely something to do with him being on the Smith campaign!
Mr. Pulpstar, why did Smith stand?
I really don't see how a guaranteed 2.5% annual increase fits into such a world.
And agree entirely on the second point, given that people use this site for betting tips there should at the very least have been some kind of disclaimer on his articles.
If anyone actually thinks Smith has a genuine chance then they can clean up shop on Betfair.
Yes and if Trump wins by 10% he'll win Oregon. Point is, that's not likely to happen so the internal Democratic analysis is right. It's close, but it's still very much Hillary's to lose, despite the endless, breathless Trump ramping we witness on here on a hourly basis.
Basically the country ignores politicians most of the time (even at elections).
Then every so often they wake up and go "WTF! What do you think you are doing?!" Slaps them around a bit and then goes back to ignoring them.
The former SNP Justice Minister who released the Lockerbie bomber has urged Nicola Sturgeon to resist pressure from party members to call a second independence referendum, warning history is “littered with headlong rushes to disaster.”
Kenny MacAskill became the latest Nationalist grandee to argue that staging a rerun of the 2014 vote would lead to defeat, arguing there were too many questions over the currency, a potential “hard” border with England and whether Scotland would be admitted to the EU.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/kenny-macaskill-warns-nicola-sturgeon-against-headlong-rush-to-s/
Among many PBers it is now considered 'elitist' to:
• Say that leaving the EU was bad for Britain
• Dislike Trump and his supporters
• Live in London
• Live in Manchester
• Consider Jeremy Kyle awful TV
• Like the BBC
• Call racists racists
Bravo sir
I'll be taking out as much as I can (In 33 years time I guess) as a lump sum, mind.
Yo bob! Is it 'cos I is a LEAVER?
Imagine if Hillary said the same thing?
Interesting. Wobble fading?
Live in London.
Not a huge fan of Trump (but sympathise with his supporters in a lot of cases).
Find daytime TV awful. Jeremy Kyle is surely the worst of the lot.
Ambivalent about the BBC. Think a subscription model would suit it better and allow it to be more like HBO.
I guess I'm a minority, but most people think Indians (and Jews) are far too successful to be considered a minority group in the traditional sense of needing protection from the majority. I also think the definition of racism is far too wide and shouldn't include people who make the choice to believe in some kind of wizard who lives in space and tells them to kill other people.
I am an ordinary person, at least I thought I was. I suppose posting on PB immediately rules me out of that category?
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
What about the 17 million wot voted to LEAVE???
(pedant mode now swithched to off)
On PB referring to people as elite is pretty meaningless. It just seems to be a way of posters to display the chip on their shoulders.
And I have to tell you there is such a thing as 'white slavery' - so being pro slavery is not being racist per se. But of course to a Democrat calling someone a 'racist' is the worst epithet they can hang on them.
eɪˈliːt,ɪ-/Submit
noun
1.
a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
So politicians then are not elite, unless we are talking about spinning horseshit as a quality.
Second, in the USA, the poll question asked if it was wrong for slavery to have been abolished, to which 20%+ of trump supporters said 'YES'.
Maybe if you ask stupid questions you get stupid answers.
Just sayin'...
If OTOH the implict assumption here is that rejecting the deal would mean no Brexit, then it is clearly designed to scotch Brexit (and indeed if suspected likely in advance of negotiations would incentivise those among the establishment strongly opposed to Brexit to accept a(nother) poor deal in the hope that it would be rejected).
1. People who are like me and rightfully run the show.
2. People who are not like me and wrongfully run the show.
Or I think we/they do.
ie the question is - do you agree with the following deal we have negotiated with the EU. If yes, then we adopt the deal, if no then we revert to WTO status.
I am however against a second referendum because, first, BREXIT means too many things to too many people, and secondly, because it delays an already uncertain outcome.
We have a government, we voted to leave the EU, we should be happy for the government to negotiate on our behalf without coming back to us at each stage asking how many immigration points should be awarded for a love of Shakespeare.
I have little doubt that the deal we reach will put the UK in an imperceptibly worse position than the one we occupied as an EU member, but that is irrelevant now.
But on issues like the EU it is even more silly than usual, since while the general view might be in favour, it is not as though being anti-EU is unheard of. Someone decides a view is metropolitan and liberal, and suddenly everyone who has that view is a metropolitan liberal, even if they are neither.
Also, living in Brighton is surely much better evidence of elitism than living in Manchester.
Your 'argument' seems to go like this.
I Don't like peole who like slavery
Anyone I don't like is racist
Therefore anyone who approves of slavery is racist.
In my opinion the only rational conclusion is that anyone who professes to know how this is going to end up is a fool. This is not like any election in any established democracy that I can recall. It is all about whose misdemeanours are deemed to have the greatest traction at the end of the day.
In our legal system referendums are not automatically binding, that at least is one of unambiguous points around this whole debate. A good thing too, having flexibility in our arrangements is on the whole a good thing. Granted, it leaves open theoretical possibilities of ignoring referenda, but the political reality is far different. And our system is full of such situations, with theoretical possibilities and powers which are not, due to political realities, exercised. We could introduce AV if we wanted despite losing a referendum on it, would that be illegal because it went against a referendum? Of course it wouldn't.
I honestly cannot explain the anger people have for the advisory part other than fear and paranoia Brexit will be snatched away from the people, but if our politicians and system had the ability and will to ignore it, they'd have been powerful enough to have not held a referendum in the first place. I think we can say with confidence Cameron would not have risked it, even if he thought he would win it, if he could have avoided it.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYJdFutL_yY
REMAIN 48%
One day he might just work out why he lost. But I doubt it.
I see that the latest Yougov poll has Clinton +1%, and the latest Ipsos is a tie (Trump +2% when the four candidates are named).