+1 is so teeth grindingly awful it fails even to reach the status of mini meme. Anyone using it should be summarily dismissed from the site and forced to read Boris’ Telegraph columns as a cruel and unusual punishment.
Why don’t you try starting your own blog where you can impose your own rules as to what others can and cannot say.
+1 came in when the Like button disappeared. It is a very quick way for someone to express their appreciation of a well written post.
Perhaps what we really need is a quick way of expressing the opposite emotion in response to a post.
Cycle
I (and others) am criticising tediousness on here. If you don’t like it, why don’t you start your own blog?
Couldn’t our government do the decent thing and give her and her family asylum?
I'm assuming that the Govt. is treading very carefully for fear of it being seen as a route to effectively expel all Christians out of Pakistan.
I know something about this, as we had a Christian office manager in our Islamabad branch. The stories she casually related of abuse towards Christians in Pakistan were horrific. I have no doubt that many there would see it as a great precedent if the UK were to step in and take them off their hands.
Bear in mind, there are 2.5 million Christians in Pakistan.
That has echoes of the reaction of governments in the 1930’s when Germany started persecuting its Jews. But I still think we should do something for this poor woman and her family.
Perhaps we could raise this at the UN? Perhaps we could use the money we give Pakistan to apply some pressure? Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, isn’t it? It is meant to share common values. Keeping an innocent woman trapped in her country so that she can be murdered by thugs is simply not within any concept of civilised norms worthy of the name.
Sure, there are plenty of other countries that can help. But we can do something, something decent, for once. When we gave Malala asylum it did not lead to a flood of similar cases. We have allowed hate preachers from Pakistan to tour here spreading their hatred and inciting murder. Why not do the right thing for once?
The bien pensant world got outraged over the murder of a Saudi journalist. Why is a poor Pakistani woman less worthy of help now when we can do something practical for her, rather than weep tears after her death?
As Edmund Burke put it: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.”
Hope Heisler, an emergency room doctor: “I’m not a fact-checker. All of the candidates, whether they be Republican or Democrat, don’t say things completely accurately all the time. But I trust in President Trump.”
Linda Sears, a housewife: “Presidents should tell the truth, but sometimes they make mistakes. . . . At least Trump tells it like it is. Trump is a truth teller.”
Pat Banker, a retired registered nurse: “I don’t think he lies. He gets excited when he’s talking, and he likes to exaggerate a little bit. But that’s just his way.”...
Trump speaks the emotional truth, not the literal truth. He connects because his audience "feels" his words. The actual veracity is unimportant. And it is impervious to logical refutation. See also, Corbyn. Brexit.
I’d hate to be treated by a doctor who wasn’t a fact-checker.
The idea that Beto might win the TX seat has been overhyped. This is *Texas*. Things are changing there slowly, but if I was going to put money on when a Dem wins a senate seat there, I'd say 2024 at the earliest.
Your proposed bet isn't inconsistent with the consensus that he *might* win. The Democrats have a great candidate, the Republicans have an awful candidate (albeit an incumbent) and the Democrats are well ahead on the generic ballot, and demographic change only does so much especially with the Texas GOP doing a reasonably good with job Latino voters, so for things to be moving the Dems' way around 2024, they'd have to be at least in with a shot this time.
Couldn’t our government do the decent thing and give her and her family asylum?
I'm assuming that the Govt. is treading very carefully for fear of it being seen as a route to effectively expel all Christians out of Pakistan.
I know something about this, as we had a Christian office manager in our Islamabad branch. The stories she casually related of abuse towards Christians in Pakistan were horrific. I have no doubt that many there would see it as a great precedent if the UK were to step in and take them off their hands.
Bear in mind, there are 2.5 million Christians in Pakistan.
That has echoes of the reaction of governments in the 1930’s when Germany started persecuting its Jews. But I still think we should do something for this poor woman and her family.
Perhaps we could raise this at the UN? Perhaps we could use the money we give Pakistan to apply some pressure? Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, isn’t it? It is meant to share common values. Keeping an innocent woman trapped in her country so that she can be murdered by thugs is simply not within any concept of civilised norms worthy of the name.
Sure, there are plenty of other countries that can help. But we can do something, something decent, for once. When we gave Malala asylum it did not lead to a flood of similar cases. We have allowed hate preachers from Pakistan to tour here spreading their hatred and inciting murder. Why not do the right thing for once?
The bien pensant world got outraged over the murder of a Saudi journalist. Why is a poor Pakistani woman less worthy of help now when we can do something practical for her, rather than weep tears after her death?
As Edmund Burke put it: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.”
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.
The latest House poll has the Democrats ahead by 8% ie exactly the same popular vote lead as the GOP had in 2010 the last time the House changed hands.
Trump's approval rating is 43%, the average gain for an opposition party since WW2 with a President' s approval rating under 50% has been 37 House seats ie clearly above the 23 they need for control.
Talk of a Democratic landslide has been overblown but your puffing up the GOP holding the House is also overblown
Fair post. And good for you nailing your colours to the mast.
Andy and Southam should call a GOP win if they think that. Posts of the ‘I wouldn’t be surprised’ nature mean they cannot be wrong.
I am going to post my colours to the mast and say (1) Mike's bet on the turnout looks to be right and (2) the GOP will hold the House. Admittedly, for 1 and 2, I am ussing one state's data but...
1. Turnout numbers. I love this website for NC, which proved to be very profitable for the 2016 race (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/11/nc-early-votes-11-4-18.html#more). NC is also more low profile given the lack of races. If you look at early voting, the patterns are trending to close to (but not quite) 2016.
2. Questions on the youth surge. Again, guilty of using one state's data. But scroll down half way on the NC data - 18-37 are actually significantly under-performing their registration share in early voting. 54+ are significantly outperforming. That raises a question whether the Dems will benefit from a youth wave.
3. The rallies. Trump's rallies are filling the venues with thousands standing outside watching on screens. Look at the Dems, even Obama can't fill the venues. That does not feel like the Democrats have all the enthusiasm.
There are a few other points as well (the Democrats don't look to be pulling money from a lot of areas they should be if they were expected to win the House easily, Trump's ratings have hit a high in a few polls e.g. NBC, and,, bar Healthcare, there don't seem to be too many hot topics that would be favourable to the Democrats e.g. immogration).
+1 is so teeth grindingly awful it fails even to reach the status of mini meme. Anyone using it should be summarily dismissed from the site and forced to read Boris’ Telegraph columns as a cruel and unusual punishment.
Why don’t you try starting your own blog where you can impose your own rules as to what others can and cannot say.
+1 came in when the Like button disappeared. It is a very quick way for someone to express their appreciation of a well written post.
Perhaps what we really need is a quick way of expressing the opposite emotion in response to a post.
Cycle
I (and others) am criticising tediousness on here. If you don’t like it, why don’t you start your own blog?
+1 is so teeth grindingly awful it fails even to reach the status of mini meme. Anyone using it should be summarily dismissed from the site and forced to read Boris’ Telegraph columns as a cruel and unusual punishment.
Why don’t you try starting your own blog where you can impose your own rules as to what others can and cannot say.
+1 came in when the Like button disappeared. It is a very quick way for someone to express their appreciation of a well written post.
Perhaps what we really need is a quick way of expressing the opposite emotion in response to a post.
Cycle
I (and others) am criticising tediousness on here. If you don’t like it, why don’t you start your own blog?
I have.
Where can one find it, please?
VM on its way to you.
Thanks QUIS CUSTODIET etc I assume?
That and others in that section. I once started a talk to City traders with some Latin. It got their attention!
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.
The latest House poll has the Democrats ahead by 8% ie exactly the same popular vote lead as the GOP had in 2010 the last time the House changed hands.
Trump's approval rating is 43%, the average gain for an opposition party since WW2 with a President' s approval rating under 50% has been 37 House seats ie clearly above the 23 they need for control.
Talk of a Democratic landslide has been overblown but your puffing up the GOP holding the House is also overblown
Fair post. And good for you nailing your colours to the mast.
Andy and Southam should call a GOP win if they think that. Posts of the ‘I wouldn’t be surprised’ nature mean they cannot be wrong.
I am going to post my colours to the mast and say (1) Mike's bet on the turnout looks to be right and (2) the GOP will hold the House. Admittedly, for 1 and 2, I am ussing one state's data but...
1. Turnout numbers. I love this website for NC, which proved to be very profitable for the 2016 race (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/11/nc-early-votes-11-4-18.html#more). NC is also more low profile given the lack of races. If you look at early voting, the patterns are trending to close to (but not quite) 2016.
2. Questions on the youth surge. Again, guilty of using one state's data. But scroll down half way on the NC data - 18-37 are actually significantly under-performing their registration share in early voting. 54+ are significantly outperforming. That raises a question whether the Dems will benefit from a youth wave.
3. The rallies. Trump's rallies are filling the venues with thousands standing outside watching on screens. Look at the Dems, even Obama can't fill the venues. That does not feel like the Democrats have all the enthusiasm.
There are a few other points as well (the Democrats don't look to be pulling money from a lot of areas they should be if they were expected to win the House easily, Trump's ratings have hit a high in a few polls e.g. NBC, and,, bar Healthcare, there don't seem to be too many hot topics that would be favourable to the Democrats e.g. immogration).
Maybe people are going to the rallies just for amusement!
On Brexit - is Simon Coveneney the final sticking point to a deal ?
No, because the commitment to a UK-wide CU is an alternative to the backstop, not the backstop (or at least it was last time we had any detail)
It's still not going to be accepted if it's time-limited
Why can’t it be event-limited? Eg when these events happen, to be determined by A and B and independently verified by C, the backstop gets lifted.
So no time limit but conditions to be fulfilled which render it unnecessary.
Because those conditions would ultimately either allow the backstop to end unilaterally, in which case the EU won't accept it, or only allow it to end bilaterally, in which case May has to get it by the Eurosceptics in her party/the commons. It's exactly the same choice as before, just with an extra layer of indirection- either we can get out without the EU's consent, or we can't.
On Brexit - is Simon Coveneney the final sticking point to a deal ?
No, because the commitment to a UK-wide CU is an alternative to the backstop, not the backstop (or at least it was last time we had any detail)
It's still not going to be accepted if it's time-limited
The ctual backstop would be an NI only CU, so that if we were to pull the trigger on the UK one there still wouldn't be a hard border in Ireland
Convincing the EU is the only hard part
That presumably would then run afoul of the DUP.
We will assure the DUP that we won't pull the trigger on the UK-CU without a replacement aht avoids a border in the Irish sea. In practice that will be a package of technical measures and a better sense of what checks look like.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.
The latest House poll has the Democrats ahead by 8% ie exactly the same popular vote ut your puffing up the GOP holding the House is also overblown
Fair post. And good for you nailing your colours to the mast.
Andy and Southam should call a GOP win if they think that. Posts of the ‘I wouldn’t be surprised’ nature mean they cannot be wrong.
I am going to post my colours to the mast and say (1) Mike's bet on the turnout looks to be right and (2) the GOP will hold the House. Admittedly, for 1 and 2, I am ussing one state's data but...
1. Turnout numbers. I love this website for NC, which proved to be very profitable for the 2016 race (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/11/nc-early-votes-11-4-18.html#more). NC is also more low profile given the lack of races. If you look at early voting, the patterns are trending to close to (but not quite) 2016.
2. Questions on the youth surge. Again, guilty of using one state's data. But scroll down half way on the NC data - 18-37 are actually significantly under-performing their registration share in early voting. 54+ are significantly outperforming. That raises a question whether the Dems will benefit from a youth wave.
3. The rallies. Trump's rallies are filling the venues with thousands standing outside watching on screens. Look at the Dems, even Obama can't fill the venues. That does not feel like the Democrats have all the enthusiasm.
There are a few other points as well (the Democrats don't look to be pulling money from a lot of areas they should be if they were expected to win the House easily, Trump's ratings have hit a high in a few polls e.g. NBC, and,, bar Healthcare, there don't seem to be too many hot topics that would be favourable to the Democrats e.g. immogration).
Trump's approval rating is 43%, alnost exactly the GOP score in most generic ballot polls, the average House seat loss for a President with an approval rating under 50% is 37 which would give the Democrats a majority.
Of course Trump gets big rallies, he is the President after all but those attending are his key backers in rural and blue collar America which will still vote GOP tomorrow.
All the signs are though that Independents and suburbanites have moved to the Democrats since 2016. If the Democrats win the House tomorrow it will because of winning wealthy suburban areas like Loudon in Virginia and Orange County in California and the more prosperous parts of Michigan and Ohio which are filled with college educated whites added to their minority base. Rural, small town, blue collar whites will still be overwhelmingly Republican
On Brexit - is Simon Coveneney the final sticking point to a deal ?
No, because the commitment to a UK-wide CU is an alternative to the backstop, not the backstop (or at least it was last time we had any detail)
It's still not going to be accepted if it's time-limited
The ctual backstop would be an NI only CU, so that if we were to pull the trigger on the UK one there still wouldn't be a hard border in Ireland
Convincing the EU is the only hard part
That presumably would then run afoul of the DUP.
We will assure the DUP that we won't pull the trigger on the UK-CU without a replacement aht avoids a border in the Irish sea. In practice that will be a package of technical measures and a better sense of what checks look like.
But now you're back to us not being able to leave the CU without the EU's consent, at least without going back on those assurances.
On Brexit - is Simon Coveneney the final sticking point to a deal ?
No, because the commitment to a UK-wide CU is an alternative to the backstop, not the backstop (or at least it was last time we had any detail)
It's still not going to be accepted if it's time-limited
The ctual backstop would be an NI only CU, so that if we were to pull the trigger on the UK one there still wouldn't be a hard border in Ireland
Convincing the EU is the only hard part
That presumably would then run afoul of the DUP.
We will assure the DUP that we won't pull the trigger on the UK-CU without a replacement aht avoids a border in the Irish sea. In practice that will be a package of technical measures and a better sense of what checks look like.
But now you're back to us not being able to leave the CU without the EU's consent, at least without going back on those assurances.
I think you are focussing to much on what people say and not why they say it. The combination of a terminable UK-CU is nothing like the trap that supporter of Brexit are worried about and I have no doubt that it can be sold to the UK and NI; the question is the EU, for whom the UK's continued membership of a CU without the rest of the EU's obligations is considered something like blasphemy.
On Brexit - is Simon Coveneney the final sticking point to a deal ?
No, because the commitment to a UK-wide CU is an alternative to the backstop, not the backstop (or at least it was last time we had any detail)
It's still not going to be accepted if it's time-limited
Why can’t it be event-limited? Eg when these events happen, to be determined by A and B and independently verified by C, the backstop gets lifted.
So no time limit but conditions to be fulfilled which render it unnecessary.
It all comes back to May’s own party refusing to accept anything we can’t terminate unilaterally - so as long as the EU either have a role in deciding whether those events have happened, or could act in such a way as to mean the events don’t happen, it’s not ‘proper’ leaving. Essentially we have to be free to do exactly what we want or it doesn’t count.
On Brexit - is Simon Coveneney the final sticking point to a deal ?
No, because the commitment to a UK-wide CU is an alternative to the backstop, not the backstop (or at least it was last time we had any detail)
It's still not going to be accepted if it's time-limited
The ctual backstop would be an NI only CU, so that if we were to pull the trigger on the UK one there still wouldn't be a hard border in Ireland
Convincing the EU is the only hard part
That presumably would then run afoul of the DUP.
We will assure the DUP that we won't pull the trigger on the UK-CU without a replacement aht avoids a border in the Irish sea. In practice that will be a package of technical measures and a better sense of what checks look like.
But now you're back to us not being able to leave the CU without the EU's consent, at least without going back on those assurances.
I think you are focussing to much on what people say and not why they say it. The combination of a terminable UK-CU is nothing like the trap that supporter of Brexit are worried about and I have no doubt that it can be sold to the UK and NI; the question is the EU, for whom the UK's continued membership of a CU without the rest of the EU's obligations is considered something like blasphemy.
That is more the SM by the backdoor but according to the Sunday Times yesterday the EU have now accepted the whole UK staying in a Customs Union until a solution is found to the Irish border with checks in the marketplace. It is more the ERG who will never be reconciled as there is unlikely to be a definitive end to the Customs Union enabling a FTA just a promise to end it once a technical solution is found to the Irish border
On Brexit - is Simon Coveneney the final sticking point to a deal ?
No, because the commitment to a UK-wide CU is an alternative to the backstop, not the backstop (or at least it was last time we had any detail)
It's still not going to be accepted if it's time-limited
Why can’t it be event-limited? Eg when these events happen, to be determined by A and B and independently verified by C, the backstop gets lifted.
So no time limit but conditions to be fulfilled which render it unnecessary.
Because those conditions would ultimately either allow the backstop to end unilaterally, in which case the EU won't accept it, or only allow it to end bilaterally, in which case May has to get it by the Eurosceptics in her party/the commons. It's exactly the same choice as before, just with an extra layer of indirection- either we can get out without the EU's consent, or we can't.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.
The latest House poll has the Democrats ahead by 8% ie exactly the same popular vote lead as the GOP had in 2010 the last time the House changed hands.
Trump's approval rating is 43%, the average gain for an opposition party since WW2 with a President' s approval rating under 50% has been 37 House seats ie clearly above the 23 they need for control.
Talk of a Democratic landslide has been overblown but your puffing up the GOP holding the House is also overblown
Fair post. And good for you nailing your colours to the mast.
Andy and Southam should call a GOP win if they think that. Posts of the ‘I wouldn’t be surprised’ nature mean they cannot be wrong.
I am going to post my colours to the mast and say (1) Mike's bet on the turnout looks to be right and (2) the GOP will hold the House. Admittedly, for 1 and 2, I am ussing one state's data but...
1. Turnout numbers. I love this website for NC, which proved to be very profitable for the 2016 race (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/11/nc-early-votes-11-4-18.html#more). NC is also more low profile given the lack of races. If you look at early voting, the patterns are trending to close to (but not quite) 2016.
2. Questions on the youth surge. Again, guilty of using one state's data. But scroll down half way on the NC data - 18-37 are actually significantly under-performing their registration share in early voting. 54+ are significantly outperforming. That raises a question whether the Dems will benefit from a youth wave.
3. The rallies. Trump's rallies are filling the venues with thousands standing outside watching on screens. Look at the Dems, even Obama can't fill the venues. That does not feel like the Democrats have all the enthusiasm.
There are a few other points as well (the Democrats don't look to be pulling money from a lot of areas they should be if they were expected to win the House easily, Trump's ratings have hit a high in a few polls e.g. NBC, and,, bar Healthcare, there don't seem to be too many hot topics that would be favourable to the Democrats e.g. immogration).
There isn’t much at stake in NC, though - with only two House seats really competitive.
On Brexit - is Simon Coveneney the final sticking point to a deal ?
No, because the commitment to a UK-wide CU is an alternative to the backstop, not the backstop (or at least it was last time we had any detail)
It's still not going to be accepted if it's time-limited
The ctual backstop would be an NI only CU, so that if we were to pull the trigger on the UK one there still wouldn't be a hard border in Ireland
Convincing the EU is the only hard part
That presumably would then run afoul of the DUP.
We will assure the DUP that we won't pull the trigger on the UK-CU without a replacement aht avoids a border in the Irish sea. In practice that will be a package of technical measures and a better sense of what checks look like.
But now you're back to us not being able to leave the CU without the EU's consent, at least without going back on those assurances.
I think you are focussing to much on what people say and not why they say it. The combination of a terminable UK-CU is nothing like the trap that supporter of Brexit are worried about and I have no doubt that it can be sold to the UK and NI; the question is the EU, for whom the UK's continued membership of a CU without the rest of the EU's obligations is considered something like blasphemy.
They'll have to decide when we're out of the EU whether they want us in or out a/the CU. We can't be both. They seem to want NI in, so de-facto that means the rest of the UK is in as the DUP won't wear an Irish sea border.
I expect Trump will at least get a score draw tomorrow, if he loses the House it will be tight and he looks well set to gain 3 or 4 in the Senate. Most of the early polling data favours the Republican's and the more reliable recent polls have Trump at 50% approval. There is a strong scent some of the polls try to shape the results. A little bit like here in 2015 when the polls didn't reflect reality on the ground at all. The smartest bets are Trump 53 or 54 in the Senate and the Dems a single figure majority in the House.
I think you are focussing to much on what people say and not why they say it. The combination of a terminable UK-CU is nothing like the trap that supporter of Brexit are worried about and I have no doubt that it can be sold to the UK and NI; the question is the EU, for whom the UK's continued membership of a CU without the rest of the EU's obligations is considered something like blasphemy.
Actually I'd say that first sentence applies to you too. The people involved here having strong political motivations. Many of the ERG are hell-bent on opposing anything May puts on the table, and they're going to be seeking the worst possible interpretation of any deal to win over waverers and the public. This one would be an absolute gift to them because it has two different bad interpretations: one is that it's a permanent (i.e. can't be ended unilaterally) backstop for NI so it splits the union, the other is that if we keep our promise to NI then it's a permanent CU for the UK so we're a vassal state. That gives them a lot of ammunition.
As for the DUP, I think they have a strong motivation to be "standing up for" NI. Accepting May's unguaranteed assurances- especially since she's likely to be replaced imminently and since she's spent the last year trying to wriggle out of the backstop she agreed to with the EU- would be a very visibly weak move.
The usual qualifiers apply: the DUP may be so terrified of a Corbyn government they agree to anything, Labour rebels may outnumber ERG+DUP, etc. But that's true of any flavour of permanent backstop. The point is that I don't see how the one you're suggesting solves any of these problems.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.
The latest House poll has the Democrats ahead by 8% ie exactly the same popular vote lead as the GOP had in 2010 the last time the House changed hands.
Trump's approval rating is 43%, the average gain for an opposition party since WW2 with a President' s approval rating under 50% has been 37 House seats ie clearly above the 23 they need for control.
Talk of a Democratic landslide has been overblown but your puffing up the GOP holding the House is also overblown
Fair post. And good for you nailing your colours to the mast.
Andy and Southam should call a GOP win if they think that. Posts of the ‘I wouldn’t be surprised’ nature mean they cannot be wrong.
I am going to post my colours to the mast and say (1) Mike's bet on the turnout looks to be right and (2) the GOP will hold the House. Admittedly, for 1 and 2, I am ussing one state's data but...
1. Turnout numbers. I love this website for NC, which proved to be very profitable for the 2016 race (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/11/nc-early-votes-11-4-18.html#more). NC is also more low profile given the lack of races. If you look at early voting, the patterns are trending to close to (but not quite) 2016.
2. Questions on the youth surge. Again, guilty of using one state's data. But scroll down half way on the NC data - 18-37 are actually significantly under-performing their registration share in early voting. 54+ are significantly outperforming. That raises a question whether the Dems will benefit from a youth wave.
3. The rallies. Trump's rallies are filling the venues with thousands standing outside watching on screens. Look at the Dems, even Obama can't fill the venues. That does not feel like the Democrats have all the enthusiasm.
There are a few other points as well (the Democrats don't look to be pulling money from a lot of areas they should be if they were expected to win the House easily, Trump's ratings have hit a high in a few polls e.g. NBC, and,, bar Healthcare, there don't seem to be too many hot topics that would be favourable to the Democrats e.g. immogration).
Whatever you're smoking, pass it round. Latest polls show that even Texas is looking very close.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
I think you are focussing to much on what people say and not why they say it. The combination of a terminable UK-CU is nothing like the trap that supporter of Brexit are worried about and I have no doubt that it can be sold to the UK and NI; the question is the EU, for whom the UK's continued membership of a CU without the rest of the EU's obligations is considered something like blasphemy.
Actually I'd say that first sentence applies to you too. The people involved here having strong political motivations. Many of the ERG are hell-bent on opposing anything May puts on the table, and they're going to be seeking the worst possible interpretation of any deal to win over waverers and the public. This one would be an absolute gift to them because it has two different bad interpretations: one is that it's a permanent (i.e. can't be ended unilaterally) backstop for NI so it splits the union, the other is that if we keep our promise to NI then it's a permanent CU for the UK so we're a vassal state. That gives them a lot of ammunition.
As for the DUP, I think they have a strong motivation to be "standing up for" NI, and accepting May's unguaranteed assurances, especially since she's likely to be replaced imminently and since she's spent the last year trying to wriggle out of the backstop she agreed to with the EU, would be a very visibly weak move.
The usual qualifiers apply: the DUP may be so terrified of a Corbyn government they agree to anything, Labour rebels may outnumber ERG+DUP, etc. But that's true of any flavour of permanent backstop. The point is that I don't see how the one you're suggesting solves any of these problems.
I recognise that any deal with more than one moving part creates more possible attack lines, but it does at least give a deal where you have *something* to sell to every stakeholder. In the end compromise usually means giving everyone some pros and cons, and not giving one guy all the pros and one guy all the cons.
The key plank to rebutting the points you put forward is how feasible a technical solution is. If we simply don't believe that any solution exists where the UK is out of the CU and yet there is no hard border either on the island or Ireland or in the north sea, it fails. If you can sell the idea that in four or five years there might be a solution available, then I think it works.
Of course four or five years would also allow for a change in government or a change in public support for Brexit...
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
What exactly does "the Irish border issue rearing its head again" entail after we've already left with a WA?
I expect Trump will at least get a score draw tomorrow, if he loses the House it will be tight and he looks well set to gain 3 or 4 in the Senate. Most of the early polling data favours the Republican's and the more reliable recent polls have Trump at 50% approval. There is a strong scent some of the polls try to shape the results. A little bit like here in 2015 when the polls didn't reflect reality on the ground at all. The smartest bets are Trump 53 or 54 in the Senate and the Dems a single figure majority in the House.
Which poll has Trump at or over 50% approval? In 2015 most polls had the Tories at least tied
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
What exactly does "the Irish border issue rearing its head again" entail after we've already left with a WA?
Well that depends on where we are after we unilaterally terminate the UK CU. If that's a hard Brexit with no solution to the NI border then I think Nick's point is self-evident.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
The EU seems to have busily been signing FTAs (Japan, S Korea, Australia) recently so staying in the CU would be better for us than not ! I think when the Democrats get back in the daddy of them all EU-USA will be back in the mix too.
I expect Trump will at least get a score draw tomorrow, if he loses the House it will be tight and he looks well set to gain 3 or 4 in the Senate. Most of the early polling data favours the Republican's and the more reliable recent polls have Trump at 50% approval. There is a strong scent some of the polls try to shape the results. A little bit like here in 2015 when the polls didn't reflect reality on the ground at all. The smartest bets are Trump 53 or 54 in the Senate and the Dems a single figure majority in the House.
Which poll has Trump at or over 50% approval? In 2015 most polls had the Tories at least tied
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
That is the obvious solution. A two year notice, same as now, surely would not be objected to by anyone.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
What exactly does "the Irish border issue rearing its head again" entail after we've already left with a WA?
Irish PM has just told May that it cannot be a unilateral ending.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
That is the obvious solution. A two year notice, same as now, surely would not be objected to by anyone.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
That is the obvious solution. A two year notice, same as now, surely would not be objected to by anyone.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
What exactly does "the Irish border issue rearing its head again" entail after we've already left with a WA?
Irish PM has just told May that it cannot be a unilateral ending.
Of course. It's incredible that just last week Raab was trying to get the Irish to agree to a unilateral break with a 3-6 month notice period.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
What exactly does "the Irish border issue rearing its head again" entail after we've already left with a WA?
Any ongoing benefits of the WA being rescinded if we abandon the backstop without agreement of all parties. There were already manoeuvres like this in Chequers - stating that the U.K. could diverge but recognised there would be [absolutely massive] consequences of doing so.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
That is the obvious solution. A two year notice, same as now, surely would not be objected to by anyone.
Ireland ?
It's no worse than they currently have.
They have just reiterated that they will not accept a unilateral ending. See @tconnellyRTE
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
That is the obvious solution. A two year notice, same as now, surely would not be objected to by anyone.
Ireland ?
It's no worse than they currently have.
They have just reiterated that they will not accept a unilateral ending. See @tconnellyRTE
The Irish are worried about the end of a UK-CU arrangement (calling it a 'backstop' if it is possible to end it is a contradiction in terms) if the alternative is a border. The question is not just in what circumstances would that arrangement end, but what result would ending it produce?
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
That is the obvious solution. A two year notice, same as now, surely would not be objected to by anyone.
Ireland ?
It's no worse than they currently have.
They have just reiterated that they will not accept a unilateral ending. See @tconnellyRTE
@NickPalmer offers the hook to make them change their minds. Britain can end the backstop only if it ends every other aspect of its relationship with the EU (to renegotiate it). In other words, Ireland can be put back in the position that it is in now if no agreement is reached.
The Irish have no motive to make a certainty of crashing the deal given that.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
That is the obvious solution. A two year notice, same as now, surely would not be objected to by anyone.
Ireland ?
It's no worse than they currently have.
They have just reiterated that they will not accept a unilateral ending. See @tconnellyRTE
@NickPalmer offers the hook to make them change their minds. Britain can end the backstop only if it ends every other aspect of its relationship with the EU (to renegotiate it). In other words, Ireland can be put back in the position that it is in now if no agreement is reached.
The Irish have no motive to make a certainty of crashing the deal given that.
why would the EU accept two years plus of the UK being members of the CU but not the single market - or at least not all of the single market. that rather feels like a two speed Europe...
That is only a problem because of the EU's obsession with the perceived purity of the EU.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
What exactly does "the Irish border issue rearing its head again" entail after we've already left with a WA?
Irish PM has just told May that it cannot be a unilateral ending.
Of course. It's incredible that just last week Raab was trying to get the Irish to agree to a unilateral break with a 3-6 month notice period.
Having to deal with Ireland as peer rather than peon is a new and chastening experience for the British establishment.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
That is the obvious solution. A two year notice, same as now, surely would not be objected to by anyone.
Ireland ?
It's no worse than they currently have.
They have just reiterated that they will not accept a unilateral ending. See @tconnellyRTE
@NickPalmer offers the hook to make them change their minds. Britain can end the backstop only if it ends every other aspect of its relationship with the EU (to renegotiate it). In other words, Ireland can be put back in the position that it is in now if no agreement is reached.
The Irish have no motive to make a certainty of crashing the deal given that.
Have we cracked it ? Should we put this to May, Barnier, Foster and Coveney ?
Couldn’t our government do the decent thing and give her and her family asylum?
I'm assuming that the Govt. is treading very carefully for fear of it being seen as a route to effectively expel all Christians out of Pakistan.
I know something about this, as we had a Christian office manager in our Islamabad branch. The stories she casually related of abuse towards Christians in Pakistan were horrific. I have no doubt that many there would see it as a great precedent if the UK were to step in and take them off their hands.
Bear in mind, there are 2.5 million Christians in Pakistan.
That has echoes of the reaction of governments in the 1930’s when Germany started persecuting its Jews. But I still think we should do something for this poor woman and her family.
Perhaps we could raise this at the UN? Perhaps we could use the money we give Pakistan to apply some pressure? Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, isn’t it? It is meant to share common values. Keeping an innocent woman trapped in her country so that she can be murdered by thugs is simply not within any concept of civilised norms worthy of the name.
Sure, there are plenty of other countries that can help. But we can do something, something decent, for once. When we gave Malala asylum it did not lead to a flood of similar cases. We have allowed hate preachers from Pakistan to tour here spreading their hatred and inciting murder. Why not do the right thing for once?
The bien pensant world got outraged over the murder of a Saudi journalist. Why is a poor Pakistani woman less worthy of help now when we can do something practical for her, rather than weep tears after her death?
As Edmund Burke put it: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.”
The only authority in Pakistan that has the power to intervene are the Imams. A strongly worded message at Friday prayers that this woman is (a) innocent in the eyes of the law and (b) anybody ignoring that and seeking to implement some form of religious vengeance is on a fast-track to Hell.
A question: what is it about a Customs Union that terrifies the Leavers so much? I get that it's not ideal, but given the alternative of crashing out and having muppets like Liam Fox trying to negotiate for us, it's surely a very, very small price to pay to avert a disaster.
Of course it's a silly proposal but the article actually says "Corbynista Lloyd Russell-Moyle believes town hall chiefs should be given power of first refusal on any house up for sale." which is not quite the same as the complisorary purchase that the tweet implies.
General compulsory purchase of private property (And I am no fan of the 'right to buy' as presently constructed and except in very specific circumstance e.g. HS2 goes through the middle of your living room) would be an abomination. However being able to sell to the council at list price when I sold earlier this year would have been an absolute delight should my actual buyers not showed up - I'd imagine sellers would be only too happy to flog to the council if they can't find a buyer. Heaven knows where the cash would come from for the councils to do this though.
Well, of course it could come from additional borrowing since the councils would have the property assets to borrow against.
Given the difference between the value of land with residential planning permission versus without, I can't see why there shouldn't be legislation to allow councils to tax the increase in value when PP is granted in agricultural land. There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
Of course it's a silly proposal but the article actually says "Corbynista Lloyd Russell-Moyle believes town hall chiefs should be given power of first refusal on any house up for sale." which is not quite the same as the complisorary purchase that the tweet implies.
General compulsory purchase of private property (And I am no fan of the 'right to buy' as presently constructed and except in very specific circumstance e.g. HS2 goes through the middle of your living room) would be an abomination. However being able to sell to the council at list price when I sold earlier this year would have been an absolute delight should my actual buyers not showed up - I'd imagine sellers would be only too happy to flog to the council if they can't find a buyer. Heaven knows where the cash would come from for the councils to do this though.
Well, of course it could come from additional borrowing since the councils would have the property assets to borrow against.
Given the difference between the value of land with residential planning permission versus without, I can't see why there shouldn't be legislation to allow councils to tax the increase in value when PP is granted in agricultural land. There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
And who will have paid tax on that uplift in value to central Govt.
Of course it's a silly proposal but the article actually says "Corbynista Lloyd Russell-Moyle believes town hall chiefs should be given power of first refusal on any house up for sale." which is not quite the same as the complisorary purchase that the tweet implies.
General compulsory purchase of private property (And I am no fan of the 'right to buy' as presently constructed and except in very specific circumstance e.g. HS2 goes through the middle of your living room) would be an abomination. However being able to sell to the council at list price when I sold earlier this year would have been an absolute delight should my actual buyers not showed up - I'd imagine sellers would be only too happy to flog to the council if they can't find a buyer. Heaven knows where the cash would come from for the councils to do this though.
Well, of course it could come from additional borrowing since the councils would have the property assets to borrow against.
Given the difference between the value of land with residential planning permission versus without, I can't see why there shouldn't be legislation to allow councils to tax the increase in value when PP is granted in agricultural land. There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
When new towns like Milton Keynes were built the land was acquired at its agricultural value and the planning gain accrued to the new town corporation. But the law was changed in the early 1960s so that gains accrued to landowners. You will be amazed to learn that it was landed interests in the Tory Party that pushed for the change.
Of course it's a silly proposal but the article actually says "Corbynista Lloyd Russell-Moyle believes town hall chiefs should be given power of first refusal on any house up for sale." which is not quite the same as the complisorary purchase that the tweet implies.
General compulsory purchase of private property (And I am no fan of the 'right to buy' as presently constructed and except in very specific circumstance e.g. HS2 goes through the middle of your living room) would be an abomination. However being able to sell to the council at list price when I sold earlier this year would have been an absolute delight should my actual buyers not showed up - I'd imagine sellers would be only too happy to flog to the council if they can't find a buyer. Heaven knows where the cash would come from for the councils to do this though.
Well, of course it could come from additional borrowing since the councils would have the property assets to borrow against.
Given the difference between the value of land with residential planning permission versus without, I can't see why there shouldn't be legislation to allow councils to tax the increase in value when PP is granted in agricultural land. There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
Couldn’t our government do the decent thing and give her and her family asylum?
I'm assuming that the Govt. is treading very carefully for fear of it being seen as a route to effectively expel all Christians out of Pakistan.
I know something about this, as we had a Christian office manager in our Islamabad branch. The stories she casually related of abuse towards Christians in Pakistan were horrific. I have no doubt that many there would see it as a great precedent if the UK were to step in and take them off their hands.
Bear in mind, there are 2.5 million Christians in Pakistan.
That has echoes of the reaction of governments in the 1930’s when Germany started persecuting its Jews. But I still think we should do something for this poor woman and her family.
Perhaps we could raise this at the UN? Perhaps we could use the money we give Pakistan to apply some pressure? Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, isn’t it? It is meant to share common values. Keeping an innocent woman trapped in her country so that she can be murdered by thugs is simply not within any concept of civilised norms worthy of the name.
Sure, there are plenty of other countries that can help. But we can do something, something decent, for once. When we gave Malala asylum it did not lead to a flood of similar cases. We have allowed hate preachers from Pakistan to tour here spreading their hatred and inciting murder. Why not do the right thing for once?
The bien pensant world got outraged over the murder of a Saudi journalist. Why is a poor Pakistani woman less worthy of help now when we can do something practical for her, rather than weep tears after her death?
As Edmund Burke put it: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.”
The only authority in Pakistan that has the power to intervene are the Imams. A strongly worded message at Friday prayers that this woman is (a) innocent in the eyes of the law and (b) anybody ignoring that and seeking to implement some form of religious vengeance is on a fast-track to Hell.
But I don't hold out much hope of that happening.
There are Imams who will say this. Trouble is there are others who won't. Sunni Islam allows you to choose which flavour to listen to...
A question: what is it about a Customs Union that terrifies the Leavers so much? I get that it's not ideal, but given the alternative of crashing out and having muppets like Liam Fox trying to negotiate for us, it's surely a very, very small price to pay to avert a disaster.
This is beyond my comprehension also. However I have long since learned that trying to apply even a modicum of logic to leavers’ warped viewpoints is a fool’s errand.
Of course it's a silly proposal but the article actually says "Corbynista Lloyd Russell-Moyle believes town hall chiefs should be given power of first refusal on any house up for sale." which is not quite the same as the complisorary purchase that the tweet implies.
General compulsory purchase of private property (And I am no fan of the 'right to buy' as presently constructed and except in very specific circumstance e.g. HS2 goes through the middle of your living room) would be an abomination. However being able to sell to the council at list price when I sold earlier this year would have been an absolute delight should my actual buyers not showed up - I'd imagine sellers would be only too happy to flog to the council if they can't find a buyer. Heaven knows where the cash would come from for the councils to do this though.
Well, of course it could come from additional borrowing since the councils would have the property assets to borrow against.
Given the difference between the value of land with residential planning permission versus without, I can't see why there shouldn't be legislation to allow councils to tax the increase in value when PP is granted in agricultural land. There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
When new towns like Milton Keynes were built the land was acquired at its agricultural value and the planning gain accrued to the new town corporation. But the law was changed in the early 1960s so that gains accrued to landowners. You will be amazed to learn that it was landed interests in the Tory Party that pushed for the change.
A question: what is it about a Customs Union that terrifies the Leavers so much?
It's an admission that their entire manifesto was bullshit
So that's one point.
Also under the EU's "indivisibility of the trinity" doctrine, most combinations of leaving the SM but staying int eh CU are unacceptably blasphemous.
Weirdly it is goods rather than people that is the sticking point, I'd have thought one could get good odds on that prior to Brexit.
Well I think the fear may be that the goods come with free movement of people. But if that can be squared, then having to live with EU regulations on goods (which are 99.9% jolly sensible) seems a mere bagatelle in the scheme of things.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.
The latest House poll has the Democrats ahead by 8% ie exactly the same popular vote lead as the GOP had in 2010 the last time the House changed hands.
Trump's approval rating is 43%, the average gain for an opposition party since WW2 with a President' s approval rating under 50% has been 37 House seats ie clearly above the 23 they need for control.
Talk of a Democratic landslide has been overblown but your puffing up the GOP holding the House is also overblown
Fair post. And good for you nailing your colours to the mast.
Andy and Southam should call a GOP win if they think that. Posts of the ‘I wouldn’t be surprised’ nature mean they cannot be wrong.
I am going to post my colours to the mast and say (1) Mike's bet on the turnout looks to be right and (2) the GOP will hold the House. Admittedly, for 1 and 2, I am ussing one state's data but...
1. Turnout numbers. I love this website for NC, which proved to be very profitable for the 2016 race (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/11/nc-early-votes-11-4-18.html#more). NC is also more low profile given the lack of races. If you look at early voting, the patterns are trending to close to (but not quite) 2016.
2. Questions on the youth surge. Again, guilty of using one state's data. But scroll down half way on the NC data - 18-37 are actually significantly under-performing their registration share in early voting. 54+ are significantly outperforming. That raises a question whether the Dems will benefit from a youth wave.
3. The rallies. Trump's rallies are filling the venues with thousands standing outside watching on screens. Look at the Dems, even Obama can't fill the venues. That does not feel like the Democrats have all the enthusiasm.
There are a few other points as well (the Democrats don't look to be pulling money from a lot of areas they should be if they were expected to win the House easily, Trump's ratings have hit a high in a few polls e.g. NBC, and,, bar Healthcare, there don't seem to be too many hot topics that would be favourable to the Democrats e.g. immogration).
Whatever you're smoking, pass it round. Latest polls show that even Texas is looking very close.
The EU will be fine with a UK option to end it unilaterally, so long as we're clear that all the consequences that make us enter it now (such as the Irish border issue rearing its head again) will still apply. I think we'll have the freedom to do it ("take back control") but in practice it'll never be done ("vassals, but by voluntary choice").
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
The EU is NOT fine with a UK option to end the backstop unilaterally. It will accept the hypothetical possibility that a future arrangement for a frictionless border may make the backstop irrelevant. It wants a hard treaty obligation that there will be no border controls and no need for them in Ireland, leaving it up to the UK to decide whether it will never diverge from the EU or whether prefers to have Northern Ireland within the EU economic zone with a customs border in the Irish Sea.
Otherwise it doesn't need the backstop at all. It can just leave it to the future arrangements negotiation.
The EU hasn't budged an inch on this. Whether it's sensible is another matter. Clearly it thinks we will agree to the backstop.
Which poll has Trump at or over 50% approval? In 2015 most polls had the Tories at least tied
Rasmussen only. They're one of the less accurate pollsters lately though.
Others have it more towards 42ish, which is pretty much where the generic ballot is at.
Rasmussen had Clinton at +2 in the popular vote in 2016 which was very accurate. It also maintained this position in the last couple of weeks before the election when several other pollsters tacked towards the centre having previously had huge Clinton leads.
It took a reputational hit in 2010 and 2012 where its polls were weighted much too far towards the republicans, but before and since then its predictions have been fairly good.
It is the only pollster to do a daily presidential rating poll.
On Friday it had a 3 point lead for the Dems.
None of the above means that Rasmussen will be right, but nor would I dismiss it out of hand.
To follow TheKitchenCabinet, I'm predicting 53 or 54 Republican seats in the senate and a House majority of less than 8 in either direction.
Of course it's a silly proposal but the article actually says "Corbynista Lloyd Russell-Moyle believes town hall chiefs should be given power of first refusal on any house up for sale." which is not quite the same as the complisorary purchase that the tweet implies.
General compulsory purchase of private property (And I am no fan of the 'right to buy' as presently constructed and except in very specific circumstance e.g. HS2 goes through the middle of your living room) would be an abomination. However being able to sell to the council at list price when I sold earlier this year would have been an absolute delight should my actual buyers not showed up - I'd imagine sellers would be only too happy to flog to the council if they can't find a buyer. Heaven knows where the cash would come from for the councils to do this though.
Well, of course it could come from additional borrowing since the councils would have the property assets to borrow against.
Given the difference between the value of land with residential planning permission versus without, I can't see why there shouldn't be legislation to allow councils to tax the increase in value when PP is granted in agricultural land. There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
Taxing the increase in value of land = CGT
Yes. There is capital gains tax plus 8% (ie 28% tax on the uplift in value of land which obtains planning permission.
Of course it's a silly proposal but the article actually says "Corbynista Lloyd Russell-Moyle believes town hall chiefs should be given power of first refusal on any house up for sale." which is not quite the same as the complisorary purchase that the tweet implies.
General compulsory purchase of private property (And I am no fan of the 'right to buy' as presently constructed and except in very specific circumstance e.g. HS2 goes through the middle of your living room) would be an abomination. However being able to sell to the council at list price when I sold earlier this year would have been an absolute delight should my actual buyers not showed up - I'd imagine sellers would be only too happy to flog to the council if they can't find a buyer. Heaven knows where the cash would come from for the councils to do this though.
Well, of course it could come from additional borrowing since the councils would have the property assets to borrow against.
Given the difference between the value of land with residential planning permission versus without, I can't see why there shouldn't be legislation to allow councils to tax the increase in value when PP is granted in agricultural land. There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
Taxing the increase in value of land = CGT
Yes. There is capital gains tax plus 8% (ie 28% tax on the uplift in value of land which obtains planning permission.
Probably not garden plots. If you
obtain planning consent have a house built live in it two years as your 'principal private residence' flog it move back to the old house (or flog the old house and live in the new one) you're unlikely to pay CGT.
Serial self-builders earn a tax-free income by doing this repeatedly. They usually just move from one plot to the next to the next ...
In Germany, local government sometimes buys farmland and gives it planning consent. The uplift in value goes straight into the council's bank account and can help to reduce council taxes. A great idea, I think.
Comments
FWIW Nate has her as a 4.6% chance, which frankly looks generous.
Perhaps we could raise this at the UN? Perhaps we could use the money we give Pakistan to apply some pressure? Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, isn’t it? It is meant to share common values. Keeping an innocent woman trapped in her country so that she can be murdered by thugs is simply not within any concept of civilised norms worthy of the name.
Sure, there are plenty of other countries that can help. But we can do something, something decent, for once. When we gave Malala asylum it did not lead to a flood of similar cases. We have allowed hate preachers from Pakistan to tour here spreading their hatred and inciting murder. Why not do the right thing for once?
The bien pensant world got outraged over the murder of a Saudi journalist. Why is a poor Pakistani woman less worthy of help now when we can do something practical for her, rather than weep tears after her death?
As Edmund Burke put it: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.”
1. Turnout numbers. I love this website for NC, which proved to be very profitable for the 2016 race (http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/11/nc-early-votes-11-4-18.html#more). NC is also more low profile given the lack of races. If you look at early voting, the patterns are trending to close to (but not quite) 2016.
2. Questions on the youth surge. Again, guilty of using one state's data. But scroll down half way on the NC data - 18-37 are actually significantly under-performing their registration share in early voting. 54+ are significantly outperforming. That raises a question whether the Dems will benefit from a youth wave.
3. The rallies. Trump's rallies are filling the venues with thousands standing outside watching on screens. Look at the Dems, even Obama can't fill the venues. That does not feel like the Democrats have all the enthusiasm.
There are a few other points as well (the Democrats don't look to be pulling money from a lot of areas they should be if they were expected to win the House easily, Trump's ratings have hit a high in a few polls e.g. NBC, and,, bar Healthcare, there don't seem to be too many hot topics that would be favourable to the Democrats e.g. immogration).
However the most recent polling had a monstrous undecided figure.
So no time limit but conditions to be fulfilled which render it unnecessary.
Convincing the EU is the only hard part
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElbxcjdWdp8
Festus is in the middle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPL11keVyx8
Of course Trump gets big rallies, he is the President after all but those attending are his key backers in rural and blue collar America which will still vote GOP tomorrow.
All the signs are though that Independents and suburbanites have moved to the Democrats since 2016. If the Democrats win the House tomorrow it will because of winning wealthy suburban areas like Loudon in Virginia and Orange County in California and the more prosperous parts of Michigan and Ohio which are filled with college educated whites added to their minority base. Rural, small town, blue collar whites will still be overwhelmingly Republican
As for the DUP, I think they have a strong motivation to be "standing up for" NI. Accepting May's unguaranteed assurances- especially since she's likely to be replaced imminently and since she's spent the last year trying to wriggle out of the backstop she agreed to with the EU- would be a very visibly weak move.
The usual qualifiers apply: the DUP may be so terrified of a Corbyn government they agree to anything, Labour rebels may outnumber ERG+DUP, etc. But that's true of any flavour of permanent backstop. The point is that I don't see how the one you're suggesting solves any of these problems.
That's how circles are squared by politicians...
The key plank to rebutting the points you put forward is how feasible a technical solution is. If we simply don't believe that any solution exists where the UK is out of the CU and yet there is no hard border either on the island or Ireland or in the north sea, it fails. If you can sell the idea that in four or five years there might be a solution available, then I think it works.
Of course four or five years would also allow for a change in government or a change in public support for Brexit...
I see a single Rasmussen from a few days ago. Not exactly "the more reliable recent polls"
The Irish have no motive to make a certainty of crashing the deal given that.
Others have it more towards 42ish, which is pretty much where the generic ballot is at.
That is only a problem because of the EU's obsession with the perceived purity of the EU.
But I don't hold out much hope of that happening.
Given the difference between the value of land with residential planning permission versus without, I can't see why there shouldn't be legislation to allow councils to tax the increase in value when PP is granted in agricultural land. There have been plenty of owners who have profited enormously through having the good luck (or influence) to get their land re-designated from agricultural to residential.
Also under the EU's "indivisibility of the trinity" doctrine, most combinations of leaving the SM but staying int eh CU are unacceptably blasphemous.
Won't go down well in the NE of Scotland !
Otherwise it doesn't need the backstop at all. It can just leave it to the future arrangements negotiation.
The EU hasn't budged an inch on this. Whether it's sensible is another matter. Clearly it thinks we will agree to the backstop.
It took a reputational hit in 2010 and 2012 where its polls were weighted much too far towards the republicans, but before and since then its predictions have been fairly good.
It is the only pollster to do a daily presidential rating poll.
On Friday it had a 3 point lead for the Dems.
None of the above means that Rasmussen will be right, but nor would I dismiss it out of hand.
To follow TheKitchenCabinet, I'm predicting 53 or 54 Republican seats in the senate and a House majority of less than 8 in either direction.
obtain planning consent
have a house built
live in it two years as your 'principal private residence'
flog it
move back to the old house
(or flog the old house and live in the new one)
you're unlikely to pay CGT.
Serial self-builders earn a tax-free income by doing this repeatedly. They usually just move from one plot to the next to the next ...
In Germany, local government sometimes buys farmland and gives it planning consent. The uplift in value goes straight into the council's bank account and can help to reduce council taxes. A great idea, I think.