Mr. Evershed, when referring to a transaction tax, also called a Tobin Tax or Robin Hood* Tax, it's usually taken to apply to transactions involving financial firms (buying and selling shares etc).
*This is particularly laughable as Robin Hood opposed the high levels of taxation imposed by King John/the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Mr Owls is proposing the imposition of a transaction tax on share transactions.
There already is a transaction tax on share transfers - it's called stamp duty and is applied at the rate of 0.5%.
Similarly there is a trnsaction tax on property transfers which is also called stamp duty and is a variable rate depending on the sale/purchase price.
More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.
Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.
Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.
A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
It is better than crashing out with no deal. Disengaging from an organisation we have been part of for four decades takes time and should be done intelligently and, if necessarily, slowly, to minimise the downsides and maximise the opportunities.
Just shouting slogans and hoping for the best and talking in banalities - which is what our government has been doing for a year - is not good enough.
More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.
Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.
Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.
A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.
It will do a lot of good in Richmond and Twickenham where LibDems hope to give the Tories a "Brexit battering". Every EU national in the borough will be reminded that they can vote in the locals and give the Tories a "Brexit battering". I love that phrase.
And the LibDem's democracy deficit? Ignoring the will of the voters stuffed them royally in the SW last year.
... when EU nationals living here, working on essential services and paying taxes were not allowed the vote on something of critical importance to them. That was the democracy deficit and why the EURef was undemocratic. Well - EU nationals can vote in the locals and they will. They will.
If votes on constitutional questions affecting the future of the country and its relations with foreign powers are to be given to citizens of those very foreign powers, there's not much point to British citizenship as a differentiator in that case is there? That has to be the reddest line of the lot.
How about the British citizens living on the continent not registered to vote in the UK who were also denied the vote? What's the point of British citizenship if you can't vote on something of critical importance to your citizenship?
No I'm not putting words into their mouth. I'm saying that leaving the EU respects the result. That's all.
Ashcroft's survey of 12,000+ people showed that the number one reason why people voted Leave was "The principle that decisions about the UK should be made in the UK". I interpret that as "Take Back Control" but I don't want to put words in their mouth.
52% of voters voted to Leave the EU. Some of them voted Leave to control immigration. As it was the second reason given I'd be very surprised if it applied to over 50% of all voters. It was a minority reason.
It is an often repeated fallacy that staying in the Single Market does not respect the result. It is very boring to have to keep refuting the claim, but it has to be refuted or many will think it is the truth. It is a good example of "fake news". It needs calling out.
It's nothing like 'fake news', it's an opinion. If you start calling every opinion you disagree with 'fake news', then you debase the real impact of 'fake news;, which is, you know, stuff presented as factual news but which isn't true.
It also happens to be a very sensible opinion, since there is no getting away from the fact that staying in the Single Market would not mean 'taking back control', of which freedom of movement is the No 1 example.
You would prefer to stay in the EU, and you see EEA membership as the next nearest thing. But you didn't vote Leave, and you don't want the result respected.
Obviously agree with the majority of the thread, but I would like to ask Mr Banks whether the BBC would really be in a position of definding a claim by arguing truth without access to the evidence. I would have thought a third aprty disclosure order, or some other way of bringing the newspaper in.
More than a million European Union citizens in London were today urged to punish Theresa May for “Brexit chaos” in borough elections this spring.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the local elections were the first opportunity since the 2016 referendum for EU citizens to stage a protest vote against the Government’s handling of Brexit negotiations and push the Prime Minister into seeking a softer Brexit deal.
Although EU citizens living in the UK cannot vote in general elections, they are entitled to take part in local elections.
Some 1.1 million are eligible in London, including an estimated 51,000 in Barnet and up to 39,000 in Wandsworth, both of which are key battlegrounds.
A “Brexit battering” at the polls could be significant for Mrs May because some Tories have said her performance in the local elections will be critical to deciding whether fresh moves are made to trigger a leadership contest.
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the CU..... But they're not. So it's the Lib Dems, assuming there are any left, again.....for all the good that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
It is better than crashing out with no deal. Disengaging from an organisation we have been part of for four decades takes time and should be done intelligently and, if necessarily, slowly, to minimise the downsides and maximise the opportunities.
Just shouting slogans and hoping for the best and talking in banalities - which is what our government has been doing for a year - is not good enough.
I dont think anybody wants a no deal, But you dont go into any negotiation without that being a possibility. It strengthens your own hand.
The EU also has a responsibility to avoid a no deal. It is very much in the interest of Germany for there to be a deal. There needs to be compromise on BOTH sides. Remoaners seem to feel that we should capitulate to the EU without the EU making any concessions.
Give over , they are stuck on the SVR , and are been taken advantage off .They do not look to move as there is no one to move to. Lenders are not stepping in because they all hold people stuck on the SVR .
Yeah, it's all an evil conspiracy, and other businesses, building societies, and foreign banks are selflessly refusing to step in so that their rivals can skim off vast profits.
You obviously think paying 5% over the base rate for those on stuck on the SVR is fair.We will leave it at that.
No, I don't think it's fair. I don't think it's unfair either. Fairness doesn't come into it. The question is whether anyone is being ripped off, which means being charged more than they would be charged in a competitive market. They are not, the market is very competitive.
Mr. Evershed, when referring to a transaction tax, also called a Tobin Tax or Robin Hood* Tax, it's usually taken to apply to transactions involving financial firms (buying and selling shares etc).
*This is particularly laughable as Robin Hood opposed the high levels of taxation imposed by King John/the Sheriff of Nottingham.
It is hugely misunderstood as well. Most people think it is a tax on banks or bankers. It isn't. It's a tax on those buying and selling the shares i.e. the pension funds/asset managers. The cost is on those saving for their pension or in a stocks and shares ISA i.e. you and me.
So it is a tax on savers. Not bankers.
It is a tax on everyone with a pension not paid for by other taxpayers, which is most of us. Still Labour has form on attacking pensioners and their savings (see one G Brown) and they clearly don't understand how it works so hardly surprising that they're in favour of it.
Which taxes are you in favour of raising so we can have decent public services??
So to go back to my original point, Marr showed the front page. @Sandpit might be right that the BBC lawyer's worked through the night to say that it was okay to show it on the Marr show.
Yes. Unless my employer had, in advance, said formally that the front page tweeting was company activity and any resulting action would be met with the might of the Corporation’s lawyers, I’d be a little circumspect about posting anything that was potentially libellous on a personal Twitter account.
See Jack Munroe v Katie Hopkins last year for a libel case that’s going to leave both parties massively poorer with the legal fees involved - irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the actual case.
To be blunt, (on topic) they disingenuously seek to base their case on their amazing claim that seventeen and a half million people went to the polls in 2016 and voted to leave the EU but were perfectly happy for the EU to continue to control UK laws and borders via the Single Market.
That would be like saying that people voted for a political party at a general election without agreeing with any of its manifesto.
Leavers made perfectly clear throughout the referendum campaign that to vote Leave would be to "take back control" of UK borders and laws. The official Remain booklet sent to all homes said that a vote for Leave meant leaving the Single Market.
The idea then that in 2016 voters chose only to leave the club but wanted the club to continue to impose all its rules and regulations is ridiculous and disingenuous. People voted to end the EU's control over our borders and laws. Period.
I had to smile when a prominent Leaver, Bernard Jenkin, whom I disagree with on most things, pointed out that for decades the current leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, went into the NO lobbies and voted against every EU treaty, including that which established the Single Market.
There would be no Brexit if it were not for Jeremy Corbyn failing to campaign for Remain effectively.
I wonder whether this ridiculous old Marxist is going to put himself in the ludicrous position in 2022 of campaigning for a Single Market that he voted against creating in the first place.
No wonder Corbynistas want to silence all discussion of him.
Corbyn has made clear he will keep the UK outside the single market but he does want to stay in a form of customs union
No I'm not putting words into their mouth. I'm saying that leaving the EU respects the result. That's all.
Ashcroft's survey of 12,000+ people showed that the number one reason why people voted Leave was "The principle that decisions about the UK should be made in the UK". I interpret that as "Take Back Control" but I don't want to put words in their mouth.
52% of voters voted to Leave the EU. Some of them voted Leave to control immigration. As it was the second reason given I'd be very surprised if it applied to over 50% of all voters. It was a minority reason.
It is an often repeated fallacy that staying in the Single Market does not respect the result. It is very boring to have to keep refuting the claim, but it has to be refuted or many will think it is the truth. It is a good example of "fake news". It needs calling out.
It's nothing like 'fake news', it's an opinion. If you start calling every opinion you disagree with 'fake news', then you debase the real impact of 'fake news;, which is, you know, stuff presented as factual news but which isn't true.
It also happens to be a very sensible opinion, since there is no getting away from the fact that staying in the Single Market would not mean 'taking back control', of which freedom of movement is the No 1 example.
You would prefer to stay in the EU, and you see EEA membership as the next nearest thing. But you didn't vote Leave, and you don't want the result respected.
Richard - I'm doing a Trump with "fake news" . But you're right. It should be restricted to facts not opinions or it debases the words. It feels great though. I understand why Trump does it.
Mr. Evershed, when referring to a transaction tax, also called a Tobin Tax or Robin Hood* Tax, it's usually taken to apply to transactions involving financial firms (buying and selling shares etc).
*This is particularly laughable as Robin Hood opposed the high levels of taxation imposed by King John/the Sheriff of Nottingham.
It is hugely misunderstood as well. Most people think it is a tax on banks or bankers. It isn't. It's a tax on those buying and selling the shares i.e. the pension funds/asset managers. The cost is on those saving for their pension or in a stocks and shares ISA i.e. you and me.
So it is a tax on savers. Not bankers.
It is a tax on everyone with a pension not paid for by other taxpayers, which is most of us. Still Labour has form on attacking pensioners and their savings (see one G Brown) and they clearly don't understand how it works so hardly surprising that they're in favour of it.
Which taxes are you in favour of raising so we can have decent public services??
No I'm not putting words into their mouth. I'm saying that leaving the EU respects the result. That's all.
Ashcroft's survey of 12,000+ people showed that the number one reason why people voted Leave was "The principle that decisions about the UK should be made in the UK". I interpret that as "Take Back Control" but I don't want to put words in their mouth.
52% of voters voted to Leave the EU. Some of them voted Leave to control immigration. As it was the second reason given I'd be very surprised if it applied to over 50% of all voters. It was a minority reason.
It is an often repeated fallacy that staying in the Single Market does not respect the result. It is very boring to have to keep refuting the claim, but it has to be refuted or many will think it is the truth. It is a good example of "fake news". It needs calling out.
It's nothing like 'fake news', it's an opinion. If you start calling every opinion you disagree with 'fake news', then you debase the real impact of 'fake news;, which is, you know, stuff presented as factual news but which isn't true.
It also happens to be a very sensible opinion, since there is no getting away from the fact that staying in the Single Market would not mean 'taking back control', of which freedom of movement is the No 1 example.
You would prefer to stay in the EU, and you see EEA membership as the next nearest thing. But you didn't vote Leave, and you don't want the result respected.
Richard - I'm doing a Trump with "fake news" . But you're right. It should be restricted to facts not opinions or it debases the words. It feels great though. I understand why Trump does it.
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the ood that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).
Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
No I'm not putting words into their mouth. I'm saying that leaving the EU respects the result. That's all.
Ashcroft's survey of 12,000+ people showed that the number one reason why people voted Leave was "The principle that decisions about the UK should be made in the UK". I interpret that as "Take Back Control" but I don't want to put words in their mouth.
52% of voters voted to Leave the EU. Some of them voted Leave to control immigration. As it was the second reason given I'd be very surprised if it applied to over 50% of all voters. It was a minority reason.
It is an often repeated fallacy that staying in the Single Market does not respect the result. It is very boring to have to keep refuting the claim, but it has to be refuted or many will think it is the truth. It is a good example of "fake news". It needs calling out.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
The UK electorate voted by a narrow margin to leave the EU. There was a good deal of post facto polling on why they did so, but ultimately the question was a simple one.
I know some ardent Leavers are concerned that we'll simply take one step to the left, call it Brexit and promptly start the processing of re-accession. However, this seems to discount both domestic politics and EU dynamics.
Our businesses have spent a quarter of a century integrating into a European economy. It seems daft to insist on fully achieving Brexit in one fell swoop. Surely, it's more sensible that we undock slowly and in a considered fashion. Many people think that negotiating a CETA+ deal will take longer than two years, so perhaps remaining within the customs union until that is complete is an option we should consider. That's HMG's call.
I've always accepted that leaving will have a negative economic impact. We need to mitigate that as much as possible, not least as this will maximise the chances that Brexit will 'stick'.
Mr. Evershed, when referring to a transaction tax, also called a Tobin Tax or Robin Hood* Tax, it's usually taken to apply to transactions involving financial firms (buying and selling shares etc).
*This is particularly laughable as Robin Hood opposed the high levels of taxation imposed by King John/the Sheriff of Nottingham.
It is hugely misunderstood as well. Most people think it is a tax on banks or bankers. It isn't. It's a tax on those buying and selling the shares i.e. the pension funds/asset managers. The cost is on those saving for their pension or in a stocks and shares ISA i.e. you and me.
So it is a tax on savers. Not bankers.
It is a tax on everyone with a pension not paid for by other taxpayers, which is most of us. Still Labour has form on attacking pensioners and their savings (see one G Brown) and they clearly don't understand how it works so hardly surprising that they're in favour of it.
Which taxes are you in favour of raising so we can have decent public services??
I know the question isn't aimed at me, but
Switching all public sector employees to defined contribution, and equalising NI for 'self employed' and 65+ to the same level as 65- employees would be my top two means of saving money...
Regulation and taxation of pot could also up the coffers.
On Sainsburys...I don't really understand who their core demographic is these days.
If you are upper middle class, tis to the Waitrose's ones go. Excellent staff, lovely stores and brands you don't find elsewhere. With the odd trip to Aldi for odd bargain or Costco for bulk buy of bog roll.
If you are on more limited means, Lidl / Aldi / Tescos.
If you want mass frozen crap, Asda or Iceland.
Sainsburys is neither cheap nor a superior shopping experience to going to something like Tesco.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
Leave would not have got over 50% if immigration had been the only issue. You wish to pick and choose only those issues which you consider as important whilst downplaying the others.
On Sainsburys...I don't really understand who their core demographic is these days.
If you are upper middle class, tis to the Waitrose's ones go. Excellent staff, lovely stores and brands you don't find elsewhere. With the odd trip to Aldi for odd bargain or Costco for bulk buy of bog roll.
If you are on more limited means, Lidl / Aldi / Tescos.
If you want mass frozen crap, Asda or Iceland.
Sainsburys is neither cheap nor a superior shopping experience to going to something like Tesco.
Like sainsbury. Better food than Tesco etc , more choice and better price than Waitrose. Hits the sweet spot.
Mr. Evershed, when referring to a transaction tax, also called a Tobin Tax or Robin Hood* Tax, it's usually taken to apply to transactions involving financial firms (buying and selling shares etc).
*This is particularly laughable as Robin Hood opposed the high levels of taxation imposed by King John/the Sheriff of Nottingham.
It is hugely misunderstood as well. Most people think it is a tax on banks or bankers. It isn't. It's a tax on those buying and selling the shares i.e. the pension funds/asset managers. The cost is on those saving for their pension or in a stocks and shares ISA i.e. you and me.
So it is a tax on savers. Not bankers.
It is a tax on everyone with a pension not paid for by other taxpayers, which is most of us. Still Labour has form on attacking pensioners and their savings (see one G Brown) and they clearly don't understand how it works so hardly surprising that they're in favour of it.
Which taxes are you in favour of raising so we can have decent public services??
I know the question isn't aimed at me, but
Switching all public sector employees to defined contribution, and equalising NI for 'self employed' and 65+ to the same level as 65- employees would be my top two means of saving money...
Regulation and taxation of pot could also up the coffers.
I buy Orange Top Milk from there 1% fat.
Semi Skimmed tastes too creamy now but cant manage full skimmed
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the ood that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).
Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
No I'm not putting words into their mouth. I'm saying that leaving the EU respects the result. That's all.
52% of voters voted to Leave the EU. Some of them voted Leave to control immigration. As it was the second reason given I'd be very surprised if it applied to over 50% of all voters. It was a minority reason.
It is an often repeated fallacy that staying in the Single Market does not respect the result. It is very boring to have to keep refuting the claim, but it has to be refuted or many will think it is the truth. It is a good example of "fake news". It needs calling out.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
I didn't vote Leave because of high levels of immigration, though I'm certainly incredibly disappointed by the lack of a coherent government response to the issue.
UK demographics dictate that we either import more workers or invest to improve our woeful productivity. We've chosen the former.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration.
What are you basing that on? I can't see why keeping free movement would have switched any Leave vote to Remain, but I can see how it might have switched Remain votes to Leave.
On Sainsburys...I don't really understand who their core demographic is these days.
If you are upper middle class, tis to the Waitrose's ones go. Excellent staff, lovely stores and brands you don't find elsewhere. With the odd trip to Aldi for odd bargain or Costco for bulk buy of bog roll.
If you are on more limited means, Lidl / Aldi / Tescos.
If you want mass frozen crap, Asda or Iceland.
Sainsburys is neither cheap nor a superior shopping experience to going to something like Tesco.
Tesco also have the best Tesco rewards system.
Thanks to Tescobank we get around £400-£500 every November in clubcard vouchers.
On Sainsburys...I don't really understand who their core demographic is these days.
If you are upper middle class, tis to the Waitrose's ones go. Excellent staff, lovely stores and brands you don't find elsewhere. With the odd trip to Aldi for odd bargain or Costco for bulk buy of bog roll.
If you are on more limited means, Lidl / Aldi / Tescos.
If you want mass frozen crap, Asda or Iceland.
Sainsburys is neither cheap nor a superior shopping experience to going to something like Tesco.
Like sainsbury. Better food than Tesco etc , more choice and better price than Waitrose. Hits the sweet spot.
Booths. The only supermarket choice for the discerning northern shopper!
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the ood that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).
Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
A thought experiment.
Suppose 5% of Leave voters were very anti-Single Market but the other 47% of Leave voters were happy about remaining in the Single market but were concerned with getting out of the political institutions and the "Project".
I know that is not the case but I'm creating an extreme example to show the logical fallacy in the leap from "Leave wouldn't have got over 50% without promising to leave the Single Market" to "therefore we should leave the Single Market to respect the result." In my example a very small tail would be wagging a large dog and ignoring the 95% who were happy to stay in the Single Market.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
Leave would not have got over 50% if immigration had been the only issue. You wish to pick and choose only those issues which you consider as important whilst downplaying the others.
No but it would likely have been something like 55% Remain 45% Leave, similar to the Scottish independence referendum, without the free movement and immigration issue
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the ood that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).
Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
No I'm not putting words into their mouth. I'm saying that leaving the EU respects the result. That's all.
52% of voters voted to Leave the EU. Some of them voted Leave to eeds calling out.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
I didn't vote Leave because of high levels of immigration, though I'm certainly incredibly disappointed by the lack of a coherent government response to the issue.
UK demographics dictate that we either import more workers or invest to improve our woeful productivity. We've chosen the former.
We need to do more of the latter and reduce low skilled immigration, so something Brexit should be used to push forward
On Sainsburys...I don't really understand who their core demographic is these days.
If you are upper middle class, tis to the Waitrose's ones go. Excellent staff, lovely stores and brands you don't find elsewhere. With the odd trip to Aldi for odd bargain or Costco for bulk buy of bog roll.
If you are on more limited means, Lidl / Aldi / Tescos.
If you want mass frozen crap, Asda or Iceland.
Sainsburys is neither cheap nor a superior shopping experience to going to something like Tesco.
Like sainsbury. Better food than Tesco etc , more choice and better price than Waitrose. Hits the sweet spot.
Booths. The only supermarket choice for the discerning northern shopper!
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the ood that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).
Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
A thought experiment.
Suppose 5% of Leave voters were very anti-Single Market but the other 47% of Leave voters happy about remaining in the Single market but were concerned with getting out of the political institutions and the "Project".
I know that is not the case but I'm creating an extreme example to show the logical fallacy in the leap from "Leave wouldn't have got over 50% without promising to leave the Single Market" to "therefore we should leave the Single Market to respect the result." In my example a very small tail would be wagging a large dog and ignoring the 95% who were happy to stay in the Single Market.
The Single Market was arguably Britain's greatest contribution to the EEC. I'd be perfectly happy if the UK were to join EFTA/EEA. But I accept that I am very much a minority, and that it is probably politically impossible for the Tories.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration.
What are you basing that on? I can't see why keeping free movement would have switched any Leave vote to Remain, but I can see how it might have switched Remain votes to Leave.
It clearly did switch some potential Remain voters to Leave, yes
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the ood that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).
Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
A thought experiment.
Suppose 5% of Leave voters were very anti-Single Market but the other 47% of Leave voters were happy about remaining in the Single market but were concerned with getting out of the political institutions and the "Project".
I know that is not the case but I'm creating an extreme example to show the logical fallacy in the leap from "Leave wouldn't have got over 50% without promising to leave the Single Market" to "therefore we should leave the Single Market to respect the result." In my example a very small tail would be wagging a large dog and ignoring the 95% who were happy to stay in the Single Market.
Except almost every poll shows a clear majority of Leave voters want to end free movement (indeed now we are Leaving reducing low skilled immigration is one of the only benefits of Brexit for a fair few Remain voters too)
No representation without taxation should be the principle.
I think the fifteen year cut off (I think) is more than generous. I have relatives living on the continent without the faintest intention of coming back as far as I know, and they haven't lived here since Sunny Jim was PM. On what planet is it fair they should get a vote on my future without actually living here for decades or paying a penny in tax?
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the ood that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
A thought experiment.
Suppose 5% of Leave voters were very anti-Single Market but the other 47% of Leave voters happy about remaining in the Single market but were concerned with getting out of the political institutions and the "Project".
I know that is not the case but I'm creating an extreme example to show the logical fallacy in the leap from "Leave wouldn't have got over 50% without promising to leave the Single Market" to "therefore we should leave the Single Market to respect the result." In my example a very small tail would be wagging a large dog and ignoring the 95% who were happy to stay in the Single Market.
The Single Market was arguably Britain's greatest contribution to the EEC. I'd be perfectly happy if the UK were to join EFTA/EEA. But I accept that I am very much a minority, and that it is probably politically impossible for the Tories.
Possibly "very much a minority" among Leavers - but don't forget the other 48% of us.
Which taxes are you in favour of raising so we can have decent public services??
The first and most important thing to do is to work out which services the state should do. Those which can be provided by the private sector should be. EU states have much to teach us in this regard.
Second, people should be told that they need to take much more responsibility for their own lives, not expect so much to be provided "free" by the state. The phrase "there is no such thing as a free lunch" needs to be used more widely. So, I would make it clear that people need to contribute more out of their own assets - if people can afford foreign holidays they can afford to save more for their pension or rainy days etc.
Third, I would be utterly ruthless in what we spend public money on. Waste, inefficiencies, pointless consultants etc. Impose and enforce a cap on public sector salaries. I know everyone says this but value for money is essential, especially if you are going to ask people to pay more.
So, some ideas off the top of my head:-
- Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.
- Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.
- I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people
- If you are working you should pay NI so I would impose it on those working past pensionable age.
- Benefits to pensioners such as TV licences should be removed or made taxable.
- I would make all public sector pensions similar to those in the private sector i.e. paid from a fund to which the employee contributes and which pays out benefits based on how well the fund has grown.
- Oh and I would have a policy which says that if you have assets, including your home, above a certain minimum level, you should expect to use those assets to pay for care in old age.
- Increase the number of council tax bands to capture houses at the top end
- CGT at some low level on the sale of property
- More charges for local services.
- Ensure that people who use our "free" services without any entitlement to do so are actually charged for them.
- Sort out pension tax reliefs
- Place a limit on how much tax relief charitable giving gets
Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).
Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement and control immigration. Now much of the reasoning for that lies in Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries unlike most EU nations in 2004 but that does not change the motivation Leave voters had to end free movement
A thought experiment.
Suppose 5% of Leave voters were very anti-Single Market but the other 47% of Leave voters happy about remaining in the Single market but were concerned with getting out of the political institutions and the "Project".
I know that is not the case but I'm creating an extreme example to show the logical fallacy in the leap from "Leave wouldn't have got over 50% without promising to leave the Single Market" to "therefore we should leave the Single Market to respect the result." In my example a very small tail would be wagging a large dog and ignoring the 95% who were happy to stay in the Single Market.
The Single Market was arguably Britain's greatest contribution to the EEC. I'd be perfectly happy if the UK were to join EFTA/EEA. But I accept that I am very much a minority, and that it is probably politically impossible for the Tories.
Me too. But it's surely only politically impossible for the Tories because Mrs May was so foolish as to box herself in right from the start.
Now she's in a hole - or rather the country is - and she keeps bloody digging......
If only Labour were in favour of staying in the SM and the ood that will do.
Staying in the Single Market is staying in the EU in all but name. Time is running out for Remoaners
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free ovement
A thought experiment.
Suppose 5% of Leave voters were very anti-Single Market but the other 47% of Leave voters happy about remaining in the Single market but were concerned with getting out of the political institutions and the "Project".
I know that is not the case but I'm creating an extreme example to show the logical fallacy in the leap from "Leave wouldn't have got over 50% without promising to leave the Single Market" to "therefore we should leave the Single Market to respect the result." In my example a very small tail would be wagging a large dog and ignoring the 95% who were happy to stay in the Single Market.
The Single Market was arguably Britain's greatest contribution to the EEC. I'd be perfectly happy if the UK were to join EFTA/EEA. But I accept that I am very much a minority, and that it is probably politically impossible for the Tories.
Possibly "very much a minority" among Leavers - but don't forget the other 48% of us.
Who lost the referendum. If you elect a party at the next general election committed to a second EU referendum or taking Britain back into the single market as part of its manifesto then fair enough, until then the Leave vote has to be properly respected
On Sainsburys...I don't really understand who their core demographic is these days.
If you are upper middle class, tis to the Waitrose's ones go. Excellent staff, lovely stores and brands you don't find elsewhere. With the odd trip to Aldi for odd bargain or Costco for bulk buy of bog roll.
If you are on more limited means, Lidl / Aldi / Tescos.
If you want mass frozen crap, Asda or Iceland.
Sainsburys is neither cheap nor a superior shopping experience to going to something like Tesco.
Like sainsbury. Better food than Tesco etc , more choice and better price than Waitrose. Hits the sweet spot.
Booths. The only supermarket choice for the discerning northern shopper!
I agree. But it is in trouble and up for sale.....
Garlands more like. I don't agree with it all - but can't you just run for office?
I particularly like the bit on pensions in the public sector. If I could do one thing only I'd force all politicians to have money purchase schemes. 8.30 day one I'd enact that. Might concentrate a few minds.
Staying in the Single Market but outside the EU political institutions respects the EURef and minimises the economic damage. It's the least worst option (except for actually staying in the EU).
Time is certainly running out for the Brexit negotiations. Punters on Betfair are betting on a 60% probability that the UK will NOT exit the EU on 29 March 2019.
No it doesn't as it requires free movement, one of the key reasons for the Leave vote
As you know, Leavers had a variety of reasons for voting Leave. The only explicit reason was to leave the EU. Don't put words into their mouths.
Aren't you putting words into their rtant issue for Leave voters, your position seems untenable.
.
Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free ment
A thought experiment.
Suppose 5% of Leave voters were very anti-Single Market but the other 47% of Leave voters happy about remaining in the Single market but were concerned with getting out of the political institutions and the "Project".
I know that is not the case but I'm creating an extreme example to show the logical fallacy in the leap from "Leave wouldn't have got over 50% without promising to leave the Single Market" to "therefore we should leave the Single Market to respect the result." In my example a very small tail would be wagging a large dog and ignoring the 95% who were happy to stay in the Single Market.
The Single Market was arguably Britain's greatest contribution to the EEC. I'd be perfectly happy if the UK were to join EFTA/EEA. But I accept that I am very much a minority, and that it is probably politically impossible for the Tories.
Me too. But it's surely only politically impossible for the Tories because Mrs May was so foolish as to box herself in right from the start.
Now she's in a hole - or rather the country is - and she keeps bloody digging......
It is politically imposdible for her as a big majority of Tories want to leave the single market and end free movement and she cannot afford to lose large numbers of them to UKIP
Which taxes are you in favour of raising so we can have decent public services??
The first and most important thing to do is to work out which services the state should do. Those which can be provided by the private sector should be. EU states have much to teach us in this regard.
Second, people should be told that they need to take much more responsibility for their own lives, not expect so much to be provided "free" by the state. The phrase "there is no such thing as a free lunch" needs to be used more widely. So, I would make it clear that people need to contribute more out of their own assets - if people can afford foreign holidays they can afford to save more for their pension or rainy days etc.
Third, I would be utterly ruthless in what we spend public money on. Waste, inefficiencies, pointless consultants etc. Impose and enforce a cap on public sector salaries. I know everyone says this but value for money is essential, especially if you are going to ask people to pay more.
So, some ideas off the top of my head:-
- Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.
- Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.
- I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people
- If you are working you should pay NI so I would impose it on those working past pensionable age.
- Benefits to pensioners such as TV licences should be removed or made taxable.
- I would make all public sector pensions similar to those in the private sector i.e. paid from a fund to which the employee contributes and which pays out benefits based on how well the fund has grown.
- Oh and I would have a policy which says that if you have assets, including your home, above a certain minimum level, you should expect to use those assets to pay for care in old age.
- Increase the number of council tax bands to capture houses at the top end
- CGT at some low level on the sale of property
- More charges for local services.
- Ensure that people who use our "free" services without any entitlement to do so are actually charged for them.
- Sort out pension tax reliefs
- Place a limit on how much tax relief charitable giving gets
Mr. Evershed, when referring to a transaction tax, also called a Tobin Tax or Robin Hood* Tax, it's usually taken to apply to transactions involving financial firms (buying and selling shares etc).
*This is particularly laughable as Robin Hood opposed the high levels of taxation imposed by King John/the Sheriff of Nottingham.
It is hugely misunderstood as well. Most people think it is a tax on banks or bankers. It isn't. It's a tax on those buying and selling the shares i.e. the pension funds/asset managers. The cost is on those saving for their pension or in a stocks and shares ISA i.e. you and me.
So it is a tax on savers. Not bankers.
It is a tax on everyone with a pension not paid for by other taxpayers, which is most of us. Still Labour has form on attacking pensioners and their savings (see one G Brown) and they clearly don't understand how it works so hardly surprising that they're in favour of it.
Which taxes are you in favour of raising so we can have decent public services??
I know the question isn't aimed at me, but
Switching all public sector employees to defined contribution, and equalising NI for 'self employed' and 65+ to the same level as 65- employees would be my top two means of saving money...
Regulation and taxation of pot could also up the coffers.
I agree with all your suggestions.
It is worth pointing out though that the government's unfunded liability for paying the pensions of its employees in future years is not included in the figures for public debt.
Private companies have to fund their liabilities for future pensions as they accrue - or at least show the shortfall as a liability in their accounts.
Clearly the author has never walked along the river there.
I have, including a few weeks ago (as part of my campaign along the Ouse Valley Way). Aside from a few hundred metres near the A6 bridge, it is a dump. It makes Northampton look salubrious.
Even where it has a potential gem - such as the riverside park to the east - it does not take advantage. And as for the decaying pyramid (apparently a swimming pool or somesuch) - whoever designed and commissioned it should be put atop a spike in front of it as a warning to future urban planners.
I don't know which party traditionally runs the town, but whichever it has, has let the population down. And I'm unsure how it can be fixed without wholesale demolition.
Which is a shame, as there are some very picturesque villages to the west and north.
Next time you are going to be here get in touch. I'll be delighted to show you round.
Thanks. If you're not careful I might take you up on the offer. ;0
On Sainsburys...I don't really understand who their core demographic is these days.
If you are upper middle class, tis to the Waitrose's ones go. Excellent staff, lovely stores and brands you don't find elsewhere. With the odd trip to Aldi for odd bargain or Costco for bulk buy of bog roll.
If you are on more limited means, Lidl / Aldi / Tescos.
If you want mass frozen crap, Asda or Iceland.
Sainsburys is neither cheap nor a superior shopping experience to going to something like Tesco.
Like sainsbury. Better food than Tesco etc , more choice and better price than Waitrose. Hits the sweet spot.
Booths. The only supermarket choice for the discerning northern shopper!
Comments
There already is a transaction tax on share transfers - it's called stamp duty and is applied at the rate of 0.5%.
Similarly there is a trnsaction tax on property transfers which is also called stamp duty and is a variable rate depending on the sale/purchase price.
It is better than crashing out with no deal. Disengaging from an organisation we have been part of for four decades takes time and should be done intelligently and, if necessarily, slowly, to minimise the downsides and maximise the opportunities.
Just shouting slogans and hoping for the best and talking in banalities - which is what our government has been doing for a year - is not good enough.
It also happens to be a very sensible opinion, since there is no getting away from the fact that staying in the Single Market would not mean 'taking back control', of which freedom of movement is the No 1 example.
You would prefer to stay in the EU, and you see EEA membership as the next nearest thing. But you didn't vote Leave, and you don't want the result respected.
The EU also has a responsibility to avoid a no deal. It is very much in the interest of Germany for there to be a deal. There needs to be compromise on BOTH sides. Remoaners seem to feel that we should capitulate to the EU without the EU making any concessions.
See Jack Munroe v Katie Hopkins last year for a libel case that’s going to leave both parties massively poorer with the legal fees involved - irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the actual case.
The only losers are criminal gangs.
I know some ardent Leavers are concerned that we'll simply take one step to the left, call it Brexit and promptly start the processing of re-accession. However, this seems to discount both domestic politics and EU dynamics.
Our businesses have spent a quarter of a century integrating into a European economy. It seems daft to insist on fully achieving Brexit in one fell swoop. Surely, it's more sensible that we undock slowly and in a considered fashion. Many people think that negotiating a CETA+ deal will take longer than two years, so perhaps remaining within the customs union until that is complete is an option we should consider. That's HMG's call.
I've always accepted that leaving will have a negative economic impact. We need to mitigate that as much as possible, not least as this will maximise the chances that Brexit will 'stick'.
Switching all public sector employees to defined contribution, and equalising NI for 'self employed' and 65+ to the same level as 65- employees would be my top two means of saving money...
Regulation and taxation of pot could also up the coffers.
If you are upper middle class, tis to the Waitrose's ones go. Excellent staff, lovely stores and brands you don't find elsewhere. With the odd trip to Aldi for odd bargain or Costco for bulk buy of bog roll.
If you are on more limited means, Lidl / Aldi / Tescos.
If you want mass frozen crap, Asda or Iceland.
Sainsburys is neither cheap nor a superior shopping experience to going to something like Tesco.
Semi Skimmed tastes too creamy now but cant manage full skimmed
UK demographics dictate that we either import more workers or invest to improve our woeful productivity. We've chosen the former.
Thanks to Tescobank we get around £400-£500 every November in clubcard vouchers.
Suppose 5% of Leave voters were very anti-Single Market but the other 47% of Leave voters were happy about remaining in the Single market but were concerned with getting out of the political institutions and the "Project".
I know that is not the case but I'm creating an extreme example to show the logical fallacy in the leap from "Leave wouldn't have got over 50% without promising to leave the Single Market" to "therefore we should leave the Single Market to respect the result." In my example a very small tail would be wagging a large dog and ignoring the 95% who were happy to stay in the Single Market.
Very good Black Pudding
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/965573523413635078
Though..
https://twitter.com/KantarPublic/status/965553035127808000
Let the spinning commence.
CON: 39% (-3)
LAB: 39% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-1)
No representation without taxation should be the principle.
I think the fifteen year cut off (I think) is more than generous. I have relatives living on the continent without the faintest intention of coming back as far as I know, and they haven't lived here since Sunny Jim was PM. On what planet is it fair they should get a vote on my future without actually living here for decades or paying a penny in tax?
Second, people should be told that they need to take much more responsibility for their own lives, not expect so much to be provided "free" by the state. The phrase "there is no such thing as a free lunch" needs to be used more widely. So, I would make it clear that people need to contribute more out of their own assets - if people can afford foreign holidays they can afford to save more for their pension or rainy days etc.
Third, I would be utterly ruthless in what we spend public money on. Waste, inefficiencies, pointless consultants etc. Impose and enforce a cap on public sector salaries. I know everyone says this but value for money is essential, especially if you are going to ask people to pay more.
So, some ideas off the top of my head:-
- Income tax will need to go up - and not just on those earning over £85,000. Everyone - including Mr and Mrs Average and those at the bottom end - will need to pay more income tax.
- Elimination of quite a lot of VAT exemptions.
- I would reduce the rate of inheritance tax but make it payable on a wider range of assets and eliminate all (most?) of the exemptions so that there is much less incentive to try and avoid it. Hopefully that would raise more from more people
- If you are working you should pay NI so I would impose it on those working past pensionable age.
- Benefits to pensioners such as TV licences should be removed or made taxable.
- I would make all public sector pensions similar to those in the private sector i.e. paid from a fund to which the employee contributes and which pays out benefits based on how well the fund has grown.
- Oh and I would have a policy which says that if you have assets, including your home, above a certain minimum level, you should expect to use those assets to pay for care in old age.
- Increase the number of council tax bands to capture houses at the top end
- CGT at some low level on the sale of property
- More charges for local services.
- Ensure that people who use our "free" services without any entitlement to do so are actually charged for them.
- Sort out pension tax reliefs
- Place a limit on how much tax relief charitable giving gets
I await the brickbats.....
NEW THREAD
Now she's in a hole - or rather the country is - and she keeps bloody digging......
Garlands more like. I don't agree with it all - but can't you just run for office?
I particularly like the bit on pensions in the public sector. If I could do one thing only I'd force all politicians to have money purchase schemes. 8.30 day one I'd enact that. Might concentrate a few minds.
It is worth pointing out though that the government's unfunded liability for paying the pensions of its employees in future years is not included in the figures for public debt.
Private companies have to fund their liabilities for future pensions as they accrue - or at least show the shortfall as a liability in their accounts.