I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
Agree with others about this Chope business - proper scrutiny of legislation is an important principle, but his reported track record does raise questions.
I have quite a lot of sympathy with the principle that legislation needs proper scrutiny before being passed. However, this looks like a poor application of that general principle. A pressing social problem requires MPs to prioritise giving that scrutiny.
Quite
At least in this case it has the government's support, so it'll probably be on the statute books before too long.
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
Both the UK Libertarian Party and the far right 'For Britain' Party stood against UKIP in the Lewisham East by election so they have competition whichever way they turn post Brexit
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
Great, now we're the pervert party. Wtf is this shit.
Indeed that is utterly bizarre and inexplicable.
Welcome to the mindset of your typical Tory MP Brexiter.
Not typical, one knobhead. This is where party politics because very frustrating because it only takes one utter bellend to object to something entirely reasonable and the media broadcasts "blocked by Conservative MP" not "Christopher Chope".
It is typical of a worldview that contains Brexit as a central belief (together with anti-gay marriage, wanting a return to the death penalty, etc). I'm sorry but this is a pretty standard type of Cons MP Brexiter.
You're being ridiculous. There wasn't a chorus of people shouting object there was one. Please give any evidence that this is more than just an oddball.
He is part of a gang (so a smidge of google tells me) that won't put up with that sort of thing. As I said, a particular mindset including gay marriage and the death penalty. The Union set of people with such views, including Brexit, is large. Cash, Bone, Chope, Davies, Nuttall, and many more.
I don't think it's particularly contentious to say that Brexit fits into a conservative small c, right wing, traditionalist outlook.
Look, I'm a Conservative too and, having just googled those who opposed gay marriage, I'm very disappointed at some of the names in there, to say nothing of Br*x*t. But that's the party for you.
I don't see what gay marriage has to do with putting cameras up people's skirts. Maybe there's a link in your head but I'm not seeing it.
Nope you are not seeing it; I don't think my explaining it further will help.
No so we are back to having one person who represents this and a group of others you already dislike for other, unrelated reasons.
There's none so blind...
Indeed you're so blinded by your hate you can't tell the difference between what you call Br*x*t and putting cameras up skirts.
I pity you.
LOL. That escalated quickly; no need to get angry just because you can't understand the point I made. Several times.
If that doesn't encourage the onshoring of some US production I am not sure what would.
The traditional view is that this is reckless and damaging to international growth and trade but the fact is that the current system has not worked well for the US (or the UK) for more than 20 years now. The growth that is generated is not shared around and neither is the increase in living standards.
A great deal of that is the US's own fault (ours as well) because we don't save enough, we consume too much and we are too prone to electing irresponsible governments who run large deficits. But long term the consequences are seriously adverse. Too much of our future earnings actually belong to people outside this country. Improving the standard of living of those resident in the US or the UK becomes increasingly difficult, as does maintaining public services. Bluntly, the US and the UK really cannot go on like this. Trump is a bull in a china shop but it is difficult to pretend (as I expect the BBC to do) that the current system of trade does not need shaken up.
I respectfully disagree with you.
The UK and the US run unbalanced trade because of our domestic policies. Applying tariffs to Chinese goods, while not changing the underlying cause, i.e. insufficient saving, will not improve things*. All it will do, in all likelihood, is encourage tit-for-tat tariffs from China or the EU.
Tit-for-tat tariffs will slow the world economy down, generally. There won't be winners and losers, everybody will be a loser. Given that the headwinds in the developed world - such as demographics - are secular in nature, and not going away, this is extremely bad news for the world.
* Technically, of course, tariffs raise the price of goods (and spending) relative to saving, and therefore will increase the savings rate.
If that doesn't encourage the onshoring of some US production I am not sure what would.
The traditional view is that this is reckless and damaging to international growth and trade but the fact is that the current system has not worked well for the US (or the UK) for more than 20 years now. The growth that is generated is not shared around and neither is the increase in living standards.
A great deal of that is the US's own fault (ours as well) because we don't save enough, we consume too much and we are too prone to electing irresponsible governments who run large deficits. But long term the consequences are seriously adverse. Too much of our future earnings actually belong to people outside this country. Improving the standard of living of those resident in the US or the UK becomes increasingly difficult, as does maintaining public services. Bluntly, the US and the UK really cannot go on like this. Trump is a bull in a china shop but it is difficult to pretend (as I expect the BBC to do) that the current system of trade does not need shaken up.
With tariffs on EU, Mexican, Canadian, Chinese and Japanese imports Trump clearly is pushing 'America First' in a drastic attempt to reduce the US trade deficit and boost the rustbelt
Yep. Of course having a record federal deficit artificially increasing already high domestic demand is not exactly a policy to reduce the trade deficit. Like us, if the US ran a reasonable surplus in the public accounts most of the deficit would disappear.
Spot on: as I said in my video, the US's expansionary budget makes it practically impossible to run a trade surplus. It's pushing on a stick in two opposite directions and wondering why it doesn't move.
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
If the EU plans to offer us an extension of A50, to resolve our chaos, there'll be a new intake of UKIP MEPs. Will that give it a new lease of life? It certainly helps Farage's personal (lack of) money problem.
If that doesn't encourage the onshoring of some US production I am not sure what would.
The traditional view is that this is reckless and damaging to international growth and trade but the fact is that the current system has not worked well for the US (or the UK) for more than 20 years now. The growth that is generated is not shared around and neither is the increase in living standards.
A great deal of that is the US's own fault (ours as well) because we don't save enough, we consume too much and we are too prone to electing irresponsible governments who run large deficits. But long term the consequences are seriously adverse. Too much of our future earnings actually belong to people outside this country. Improving the standard of living of those resident in the US or the UK becomes increasingly difficult, as does maintaining public services. Bluntly, the US and the UK really cannot go on like this. Trump is a bull in a china shop but it is difficult to pretend (as I expect the BBC to do) that the current system of trade does not need shaken up.
I respectfully disagree with you.
The UK and the US run unbalanced trade because of our domestic policies. Applying tariffs to Chinese goods, while not changing the underlying cause, i.e. insufficient saving, will not improve things*. All it will do, in all likelihood, is encourage tit-for-tat tariffs from China or the EU.
Tit-for-tat tariffs will slow the world economy down, generally. There won't be winners and losers, everybody will be a loser. Given that the headwinds in the developed world - such as demographics - are secular in nature, and not going away, this is extremely bad news for the world.
* Technically, of course, tariffs raise the price of goods (and spending) relative to saving, and therefore will increase the savings rate.
I have acknowledged that the main cause of both the US and trade deficits are our own domestic policies. We are not in disagreement about that. But other policies such as artificially low exchange rates, IP theft, tax advantages for off shoring and NTBs have all played their part as well. And we are, largely but not exclusively as a result of our own stupidity, impoverishing ourselves with our self-indulgence.
I'd have thought the CSU would outpoll the CDU in Bavaria, if the two went head to head. The former is very much the successor to the Bavarian Peoples' Party, which dominated State politics, prior to 1933.
If you were starting a US light manufacturing business, and wanted to build a factory, why would you choose the rust belt?
The local states are in serious money trouble, and therefore taxes are high, and services poor, while the unions are strong. The infrastructure for getting goods out, if you're an exporter isn't that great either.
Wouldn't you rather be in a "right to work" state (i.e. no closed shop), with low taxes, and much better access to export infrastructure?
Since 1994 (the creation of NAFTA), three G8 countries (I'm including Russia here), have increased automobile production: Germany, the US and the UK. Everyone else has seen volumes fall.
The US, though, has seen automobile manufacturing flee the Great Lakes area and head for Kentucky, South Carolina and the like. Even if you in shore manufacturing, won't it be more likely to go to these places?
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I think an alternative scenario for kicking Brexit into the long grass is starting to open up.
If Article 50 is extended so that we take part in the 2019 European elections, they would become a de facto second referendum without there being a referendum. You could see UKIP MEPs losing their seats on GE turnout levels.
I am going to guess Morocco vs Iran isn't exactly a great game?
Actually not bad. At least they are giving it a go. If they don't win this they have no chance of going through with Spai and Portugal to come. Better than the dross from Uruguay Egypt.
If you were starting a US light manufacturing business, and wanted to build a factory, why would you choose the rust belt?
The local states are in serious money trouble, and therefore taxes are high, and services poor, while the unions are strong. The infrastructure for getting goods out, if you're an exporter isn't that great either.
Wouldn't you rather be in a "right to work" state (i.e. no closed shop), with low taxes, and much better access to export infrastructure?
Since 1994 (the creation of NAFTA), three G8 countries (I'm including Russia here), have increased automobile production: Germany, the US and the UK. Everyone else has seen volumes fall.
The US, though, has seen automobile manufacturing flee the Great Lakes area and head for Kentucky, South Carolina and the like. Even if you in shore manufacturing, won't it be more likely to go to these places?
Is it really a rhetorical question if you answer it? /pedent.
The answer, subject to distortion by grants and tax incentives must be yes. Lucky for the rust belt that they comprise the largest clump of marginal states in the country. It incentivises the politicians wonderfully.
I am going to guess Morocco vs Iran isn't exactly a great game?
Actually not bad. At least they are giving it a go. If they don't win this they have no chance of going through with Spai and Portugal to come. Better than the dross from Uruguay Egypt.
If you were starting a US light manufacturing business, and wanted to build a factory, why would you choose the rust belt?
The local states are in serious money trouble, and therefore taxes are high, and services poor, while the unions are strong. The infrastructure for getting goods out, if you're an exporter isn't that great either.
Wouldn't you rather be in a "right to work" state (i.e. no closed shop), with low taxes, and much better access to export infrastructure?
Since 1994 (the creation of NAFTA), three G8 countries (I'm including Russia here), have increased automobile production: Germany, the US and the UK. Everyone else has seen volumes fall.
The US, though, has seen automobile manufacturing flee the Great Lakes area and head for Kentucky, South Carolina and the like. Even if you in shore manufacturing, won't it be more likely to go to these places?
Also, internet connectivity / speeds are really crap. For any business, in any sector, this is massive hindrance in the modern world.
Additional, good US colleges. They aren't in the rust belt. So your engineer grads will have to choose to relocate to a part of the US that isn't very attractive.
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I think an alternative scenario for kicking Brexit into the long grass is starting to open up.
If Article 50 is extended so that we take part in the 2019 European elections, they would become a de facto second referendum without there being a referendum. You could see UKIP MEPs losing their seats on GE turnout levels.
"the 2019 European elections ... would become a de facto second referendum"
If you were starting a US light manufacturing business, and wanted to build a factory, why would you choose the rust belt?
The local states are in serious money trouble, and therefore taxes are high, and services poor, while the unions are strong. The infrastructure for getting goods out, if you're an exporter isn't that great either.
Wouldn't you rather be in a "right to work" state (i.e. no closed shop), with low taxes, and much better access to export infrastructure?
Since 1994 (the creation of NAFTA), three G8 countries (I'm including Russia here), have increased automobile production: Germany, the US and the UK. Everyone else has seen volumes fall.
The US, though, has seen automobile manufacturing flee the Great Lakes area and head for Kentucky, South Carolina and the like. Even if you in shore manufacturing, won't it be more likely to go to these places?
For the rustbelt, which saw the biggest Trump vote, read the West Midlands here, which saw the biggest Leave vote, or indeed the Pas de Calais and industrial North of France which saw the biggest Le Pen vote
If you were starting a US light manufacturing business, and wanted to build a factory, why would you choose the rust belt?
The local states are in serious money trouble, and therefore taxes are high, and services poor, while the unions are strong. The infrastructure for getting goods out, if you're an exporter isn't that great either.
Wouldn't you rather be in a "right to work" state (i.e. no closed shop), with low taxes, and much better access to export infrastructure?
Since 1994 (the creation of NAFTA), three G8 countries (I'm including Russia here), have increased automobile production: Germany, the US and the UK. Everyone else has seen volumes fall.
The US, though, has seen automobile manufacturing flee the Great Lakes area and head for Kentucky, South Carolina and the like. Even if you in shore manufacturing, won't it be more likely to go to these places?
How does Kentucky have better infrastructure than Michigan or Ohio, which are right on the Great Lakes (and thus have access to both the St Lawrence and the Erie Canal?
I guess a traditional reason would be they have an experienced manufacturing workforce in the rustbelt, but people migrate around the US for work, so that doesn't matter. Freedom of movement has a huge tendency to exacerbate cycles of decline. I don't know why economists rate it so much. I guess they are applying intellectual models that don't take into account political economy.
FPT, I don't see anything wrong about referendums. They are a conventional means of determining public opinion.
I think that few people (on either side of the debate) would consider it fair that a government which got elected with c.40% of the vote could simply exercise Article 50, without bothering to consult the public.
The first ever national referendum was called by the Labour party in 1975 to vote on whether to leave the ECC as it was then, or to stay in, this was before there was an article 50.
Later it became official Labour policy to leave, it was in their 1983 election manifesto, presumably without a referendum. Later it became their policy to stay in and not have a referendum.
Now we have had another referendum and it said leave, large numbers of them think we should ignore it and stay in.
Most people agree that the Tories are in a mess over Brexit, the only party that's not in a mess over Brexit is UKIP.
No. But they are in a mess about absolutely everything else.
If there are European elections in the UK next year as a report in the Sun is suggesting, there will be UKIP tanks on everybody's lawns, make no mistake.
But it's the Sun talking, so I don't take it seriously.
Imagine if there was a four month extension to Article 50. Would we have EU elections? Or could it be fudged in some way?
I believe that the legislation reallocating the UK's seats in the European Parliament to other countries is written so that it comes into effect on Brexit day whenever that is. So if Brexit has not happened by the time of the next elections the UK must participate.
If you were starting a US light manufacturing business, and wanted to build a factory, why would you choose the rust belt?
The local states are in serious money trouble, and therefore taxes are high, and services poor, while the unions are strong. The infrastructure for getting goods out, if you're an exporter isn't that great either.
Wouldn't you rather be in a "right to work" state (i.e. no closed shop), with low taxes, and much better access to export infrastructure?
Since 1994 (the creation of NAFTA), three G8 countries (I'm including Russia here), have increased automobile production: Germany, the US and the UK. Everyone else has seen volumes fall.
The US, though, has seen automobile manufacturing flee the Great Lakes area and head for Kentucky, South Carolina and the like. Even if you in shore manufacturing, won't it be more likely to go to these places?
Also, internet connectivity / speeds are really crap. For any business, in any sector, this is massive hindrance in the modern world.
Additional, good US colleges. They aren't in the rust belt. So your engineer grads will have to choose to relocate to a part of the US that isn't very attractive.
Several rustbelt states, including MI, have right-to-work laws, and as for good schools, UMich, Penn State, UIUC, Northwestern, Case Western, UChicago, Carnegie Mellon, Marquette. Need I add more?
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I think an alternative scenario for kicking Brexit into the long grass is starting to open up.
If Article 50 is extended so that we take part in the 2019 European elections, they would become a de facto second referendum without there being a referendum. You could see UKIP MEPs losing their seats on GE turnout levels.
Yes but in 2014 UKIP were the only pro-Leave party, based on 2016 manifestos both the Tories and Labour are pro-Leave too. In which case one suspect at least 75% will go for pro-Leave parties.
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I am not sure why they would need to disband - which isn't quite the same as saying they would be an effective force.
The continuing SDP and Liberal parties still exist legally and even have a few councillors.
www.sdp.org.uk
www.liberal.org.uk
And of course you never know what might be round the corner. I doubt many in May 2015 would have predicted what has happened since.
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I am not sure why they would need to disband - which isn't quite the same as saying they would be an effective force.
The continuing SDP and Liberal parties still exist legally and even have a few councillors.
www.sdp.org.uk
www.liberal.org.uk
And of course you never know what might be round the corner. I doubt many in May 2015 would have predicted what has happened since.
I may be wrong but it's my understanding that UKIP have ran up a lot of debt and are struggling to raise funds now. Continuing a name only doesn't cost too much, paying off debts does if they are fiscally as well as intellectually bankrupt.
If that doesn't encourage the onshoring of some US production I am not sure what would.
The traditional view is that this is reckless and damaging to international growth and trade but the fact is that the current system has not worked well for the US (or the UK) for more than 20 years now. The growth that is generated is not shared around and neither is the increase in living standards.
A great deal of that is the US's own fault (ours as well) because we don't save enough, we consume too much and we are too prone to electing irresponsible governments who run large deficits. But long term the consequences are seriously adverse. Too much of our future earnings actually belong to people outside this country. Improving the standard of living of those resident in the US or the UK becomes increasingly difficult, as does maintaining public services. Bluntly, the US and the UK really cannot go on like this. Trump is a bull in a china shop but it is difficult to pretend (as I expect the BBC to do) that the current system of trade does not need shaken up.
I respectfully disagree with you.
The UK and the US run unbalanced trade because of our domestic policies. Applying tariffs to Chinese goods, while not changing the underlying cause, i.e. insufficient saving, will not improve things*. All it will do, in all likelihood, is encourage tit-for-tat tariffs from China or the EU.
Tit-for-tat tariffs will slow the world economy down, generally. There won't be winners and losers, everybody will be a loser. Given that the headwinds in the developed world - such as demographics - are secular in nature, and not going away, this is extremely bad news for the world.
* Technically, of course, tariffs raise the price of goods (and spending) relative to saving, and therefore will increase the savings rate.
It takes two to tango. The large surplus countries cough China cough are as much a part of the problem. So too is Germany in its way even if it wasn't entirely planned.
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I think an alternative scenario for kicking Brexit into the long grass is starting to open up.
If Article 50 is extended so that we take part in the 2019 European elections, they would become a de facto second referendum without there being a referendum. You could see UKIP MEPs losing their seats on GE turnout levels.
The problem with that is that a further round of European elections could re-invigorate UKIP (sadly).
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If that doesn't encourage the onshoring of some US production I am not sure what would.
The traditional view is that this is reckless and damaging to international growth and trade but the fact is that the current system has not worked well for the US (or the UK) for more than 20 years now. The growth that is generated is not shared around and neither is the increase in living standards.
A great deal of that is the US's own fault (ours as well) because we don't save enough, we consume too much and we are too prone to electing irresponsible governments who run large deficits. But long term the consequences are seriously adverse. Too much of our future earnings actually belong to people outside this country. Improving the standard of living of those resident in the US or the UK becomes increasingly difficult, as does maintaining public services. Bluntly, the US and the UK really cannot go on like this. Trump is a bull in a china shop but it is difficult to pretend (as I expect the BBC to do) that the current system of trade does not need shaken up.
I respectfully disagree with you.
The UK and the US run unbalanced trade because of our domestic policies. Applying tariffs to Chinese goods, while not changing the underlying cause, i.e. insufficient saving, will not improve things*. All it will do, in all likelihood, is encourage tit-for-tat tariffs from China or the EU.
Tit-for-tat tariffs will slow the world economy down, generally. There won't be winners and losers, everybody will be a loser. Given that the headwinds in the developed world - such as demographics - are secular in nature, and not going away, this is extremely bad news for the world.
* Technically, of course, tariffs raise the price of goods (and spending) relative to saving, and therefore will increase the savings rate.
It takes two to tango. The large surplus countries cough China cough are as much a part of the problem. So too is Germany in its way even if it wasn't entirely planned.
Quality of goods or , more precisely, the price/quality ratio also matters. If you sell crap either there will be no takers or takers will not pay much.
Most US goods, apart from Military [ sold on credit to governments ] or agricultural , are crap.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
"We have just spoken with Sir Christopher Chope. He has objected on a principled basis because the bill has not been debated. He has kindly agreed to meet with Gina and I to discuss the bill next week. "
Apparently, there was no debate at first reading. Is this common for private members bills?
I don't think there's normally any debate for any Bill at first reading.
Apparently Philip Davies spoke unbroken for two hours so that Chope.could object there was no debate. Cynical behaviour from the pair of them. A disgrace.
Yes, this is an old story - lots of harmless private Bills were blocked by Chope and another notorious MP with childish glee - they said they believed there was too much legislation and anything important should be done in Government time. The same other MP (who lots here will know, but his name escapes me) used to boast that he would throw away letters from constituents if they related to local problems ("What do I care if their drains don't work?"). He was often cited as a great parliamentarian, which he was in a very specialised and peculiarly unhelpful way.
The Franco-German alliance is becoming strained with the lack of enthusiasm in Germany for Macron's plans and the French are starting to look around for new allies whether the Germans like the proposals or not.
Interesting times and all that.
An emerging theme in the EU at the moment is various member states (particularly in the eurozone) starting to coalesce to oppose Germany.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
FPT, I don't see anything wrong about referendums. They are a conventional means of determining public opinion.
I think that few people (on either side of the debate) would consider it fair that a government which got elected with c.40% of the vote could simply exercise Article 50, without bothering to consult the public.
The first ever national referendum was called by the Labour party in 1975 to vote on whether to leave the ECC as it was then, or to stay in, this was before there was an article 50.
Later it became official Labour policy to leave, it was in their 1983 election manifesto, presumably without a referendum. Later it became their policy to stay in and not have a referendum.
Now we have had another referendum and it said leave, large numbers of them think we should ignore it and stay in.
Most people agree that the Tories are in a mess over Brexit, the only party that's not in a mess over Brexit is UKIP.
No. But they are in a mess about absolutely everything else.
If there are European elections in the UK next year as a report in the Sun is suggesting, there will be UKIP tanks on everybody's lawns, make no mistake.
But it's the Sun talking, so I don't take it seriously.
Imagine if there was a four month extension to Article 50. Would we have EU elections? Or could it be fudged in some way?
If we do have EU elections next year then I’d expect it to give a turboboost to UKIP.
I’d instinctively vote for them just to give the Government a message about backsliding, and I suspect I wouldn’t be alone. That could start to fracture Theresa’s coalition at a Westminster level at well, and even if just 3-4% peeled away back to UKIP subsequently it would be enough to put Labour in the lead.
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I am not sure why they would need to disband - which isn't quite the same as saying they would be an effective force.
The continuing SDP and Liberal parties still exist legally and even have a few councillors.
www.sdp.org.uk
www.liberal.org.uk
And of course you never know what might be round the corner. I doubt many in May 2015 would have predicted what has happened since.
I may be wrong but it's my understanding that UKIP have ran up a lot of debt and are struggling to raise funds now. Continuing a name only doesn't cost too much, paying off debts does if they are fiscally as well as intellectually bankrupt.
You are wrong, the debts were paid off at Easter after a special appeal by Gerard Batten in March.
UKIP have downsized by cutting staff and are now in good financial shape, we have stopped losing members and the party conference will take place at the ICC in Birmingham in September.
Political opponents might wish UKIP will go away, but it's not happening, last night David Kurten got around the same percentage as UKIP got in recent General Elections, except 2015, in a very difficult constituency.
"why it is so offensive to black up your face, as I have never understood this".
Looks like a pretty good attempt at riding both of those horses simultaneously to me.
It depends why.
At a private fancy dress party, or a satirical comedy, I wouldn’t see any problem with this.
But, i wouldn’t advise it: it’s risky to be seen to do and say many taboo things in the social media age as they can be recorded and shown to an audience well behind your control.
Great, now we're the pervert party. Wtf is this shit.
Indeed that is utterly bizarre and inexplicable.
Welcome to the mindset of your typical Tory MP Brexiter.
Not typical, one knobhead. This is where party politics because very frustrating because it only takes one utter bellend to object to something entirely reasonable and the media broadcasts "blocked by Conservative MP" not "Christopher Chope".
It is typical of a worldview that contains Brexit as a central belief (together with anti-gay marriage, wanting a return to the death penalty, etc). I'm sorry but this is a pretty standard type of Cons MP Brexiter.
You're being ridiculous. There wasn't a chorus of people shouting object there was one. Please give any evidence that this is more than just an oddball.
He is part of a gang (so a smidge of google tells me) that won't put up with that sort of thing. As I said, a particular mindset including gay marriage and the death penalty. The Union set of people with such views, including Brexit, is large. Cash, Bone, Chope, Davies, Nuttall, and many more.
I don't think it's particularly contentious to say that Brexit fits into a conservative small c, right wing, traditionalist outlook.
Look, I'm a Conservative too and, having just googled those who opposed gay marriage, I'm very disappointed at some of the names in there, to say nothing of Br*x*t. But that's the party for you.
I don't see what gay marriage has to do with putting cameras up people's skirts. Maybe there's a link in your head but I'm not seeing it.
Nope you are not seeing it; I don't think my explaining it further will help.
No so we are back to having one person who represents this and a group of others you already dislike for other, unrelated reasons.
There's none so blind...
Indeed you're so blinded by your hate you can't tell the difference between what you call Br*x*t and putting cameras up skirts.
I pity you.
LOL. That escalated quickly; no need to get angry just because you can't understand the point I made. Several times.
I'm not angry, nor have you made a point.
His point was to try and use it to have a dig at Brexit and Brexiteers.
If that doesn't encourage the onshoring of some US production I am not sure what would.
The traditional view is that this is reckless and damaging to international growth and trade but the fact is that the current system has not worked well for the US (or the UK) for more than 20 years now. The growth that is generated is not shared around and neither is the increase in living standards.
A great deal of that is the US's own fault (ours as well) because we don't save enough, we consume too much and we are too prone to electing irresponsible governments who run large deficits. But long term the consequences are seriously adverse. Too much of our future earnings actually belong to people outside this country. Improving the standard of living of those resident in the US or the UK becomes increasingly difficult, as does maintaining public services. Bluntly, the US and the UK really cannot go on like this. Trump is a bull in a china shop but it is difficult to pretend (as I expect the BBC to do) that the current system of trade does not need shaken up.
With tariffs on EU, Mexican, Canadian, Chinese and Japanese imports Trump clearly is pushing 'America First' in a drastic attempt to reduce the US trade deficit and boost the rustbelt
Yep. Of course having a record federal deficit artificially increasing already high domestic demand is not exactly a policy to reduce the trade deficit. Like us, if the US ran a reasonable surplus in the public accounts most of the deficit would disappear.
Spot on: as I said in my video, the US's expansionary budget makes it practically impossible to run a trade surplus. It's pushing on a stick in two opposite directions and wondering why it doesn't move.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
Moreover I assume that a Private Members Bill has to go through the same process as any other bill with votes in the Lords and committee stages. So if the objection is that the bill won't be properly scrutinised that seems utterly ridiculous.
I am all for slashing laws and reducing the amount of legislation but I am sure there are literally hundreds of laws we could remove from the statute book rather than sabotaging bills that are meant to protect women.
The Franco-German alliance is becoming strained with the lack of enthusiasm in Germany for Macron's plans and the French are starting to look around for new allies whether the Germans like the proposals or not.
Interesting times and all that.
An emerging theme in the EU at the moment is various member states (particularly in the eurozone) starting to coalesce to oppose Germany.
This sounds very much in line with Merkel's position:
Conte said that the "concept of country of first arrival needs to be reconsidered".
"When someone sets foot in Italy, they set foot in Europe", he said.
If you were starting a US light manufacturing business, and wanted to build a factory, why would you choose the rust belt?
The local states are in serious money trouble, and therefore taxes are high, and services poor, while the unions are strong. The infrastructure for getting goods out, if you're an exporter isn't that great either.
Wouldn't you rather be in a "right to work" state (i.e. no closed shop), with low taxes, and much better access to export infrastructure?
Since 1994 (the creation of NAFTA), three G8 countries (I'm including Russia here), have increased automobile production: Germany, the US and the UK. Everyone else has seen volumes fall.
The US, though, has seen automobile manufacturing flee the Great Lakes area and head for Kentucky, South Carolina and the like. Even if you in shore manufacturing, won't it be more likely to go to these places?
I’m amazed they still have the closed shop in parts of the USA.
On the other hand, far too many Americans still seem to see state/federal public spending on infrastructure as akin to communism, so their infrastructure is often appalling.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I am not sure why they would need to disband - which isn't quite the same as saying they would be an effective force.
The continuing SDP and Liberal parties still exist legally and even have a few councillors.
www.sdp.org.uk
www.liberal.org.uk
And of course you never know what might be round the corner. I doubt many in May 2015 would have predicted what has happened since.
I may be wrong but it's my understanding that UKIP have ran up a lot of debt and are struggling to raise funds now. Continuing a name only doesn't cost too much, paying off debts does if they are fiscally as well as intellectually bankrupt.
You are wrong, the debts were paid off at Easter after a special appeal by Gerard Batten in March.
UKIP have downsized by cutting staff and are now in good financial shape, we have stopped losing members and the party conference will take place at the ICC in Birmingham in September.
Political opponents might wish UKIP will go away, but it's not happening, last night David Kurten got around the same percentage as UKIP got in recent General Elections, except 2015, in a very difficult constituency.
You are wrong, the debts were paid off at Easter after a special appeal by Gerard Batten in March.
UKIP have downsized by cutting staff and are now in good financial shape, we have stopped losing members and the party conference will take place at the ICC in Birmingham in September.
Political opponents might wish UKIP will go away, but it's not happening, last night David Kurten got around the same percentage as UKIP got in recent General Elections, except 2015, in a very difficult constituency.
My mistake. No reason then that going forwards UKIP can't enjoy as much success as the continuity SDP or Liberal parties do today.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
Why should he be deselected?
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
I am going to guess Morocco vs Iran isn't exactly a great game?
I drew Iran in my pub sweepstake, they were the first team to qualify, apart from Russia of course.
Just for fun I also put £1 on them at 1000/1 which I'll lay off if they get to the quarter finals.
LOL
Could do with a draw in this game, puts Iran on top of the group! if they should find a way to qualify, they could beat Uruguay in the next round, they have a tremendous defensive record.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I think the problem goes further than just one. Ken Clarke said '40-50 MPs' are 'the hard right'. If so, they should be in a different party. In a chamber with PR, they probably *would* constitute a group with its own name, e.g. the Freedom Party.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
Quite. The prospect of voting for representatives to an organisation we voted to leave three years before is frankly surreal, and would be the most visible in your face message that our politicians just don’t get it. It’s therefore more of a hard stop to any short term extension ( even though that would be a disgrace for all the same reasons). It would also be bizzare from an EU point of view to organise elections and have 70 odd (?) members sat there for an indeterminate amount of time, before they then had to decide whether they were or weren’t reallocating according to their orginal plans? Farce; nobody would be sure of the rules they were voting under accross 27 countries.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
They are in all parties and if I was his constituent chairman he would be in front of me tomorrow
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
Trouble is with a majority of over 25,000 in his seat he has a job for life and can basically do whatever the hell he wants without being answerable to anyone.
Situations like this really are the best advertisement for voting reform that you can come up with....
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
Why should he be deselected?
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I am not sure why they would need to disband - which isn't quite the same as saying they would be an effective force.
The continuing SDP and Liberal parties still exist legally and even have a few councillors.
www.sdp.org.uk
www.liberal.org.uk
And of course you never know what might be round the corner. I doubt many in May 2015 would have predicted what has happened since.
I may be wrong but it's my understanding that UKIP have ran up a lot of debt and are struggling to raise funds now. Continuing a name only doesn't cost too much, paying off debts does if they are fiscally as well as intellectually bankrupt.
You are wrong, the debts were paid off at Easter after a special appeal by Gerard Batten in March.
UKIP have downsized by cutting staff and are now in good financial shape, we have stopped losing members and the party conference will take place at the ICC in Birmingham in September.
Political opponents might wish UKIP will go away, but it's not happening, last night David Kurten got around the same percentage as UKIP got in recent General Elections, except 2015, in a very difficult constituency.
I think that is a little unfair on the Lib Dems. I may not agree with them but they seem to be pretty united in their EU position. And UKIP hardly even counts as a party anymore.
To be honest we're not entirely united in the Lib Dems. We're pretty much almost all agree that Brexit is a really terrible thing for the country but we have differences of opinion upon what to do about it. Some want to re-run the In/Out referendum, some (most?) want a referendum on the Brexit deal and others want to just try to find ways to minimize the harm as we leave.
UKIP have only gone back to the position in 2009 and we are still there waiting in reserve, no Brexit or a major sell out and we'll be back.
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
If there is a full Brexit (and probably even if there is not), UKIP will probably have to disband.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
I am not sure why they would need to disband - which isn't quite the same as saying they would be an effective force.
The continuing SDP and Liberal parties still exist legally and even have a few councillors.
www.sdp.org.uk
www.liberal.org.uk
And of course you never know what might be round the corner. I doubt many in May 2015 would have predicted what has happened since.
I may be wrong but it's my understanding that UKIP have ran up a lot of debt and are struggling to raise funds now. Continuing a name only doesn't cost too much, paying off debts does if they are fiscally as well as intellectually bankrupt.
You are wrong, the debts were paid off at Easter after a special appeal by Gerard Batten in March.
UKIP have downsized by cutting staff and are now in good financial shape, we have stopped losing members and the party conference will take place at the ICC in Birmingham in September.
Political opponents might wish UKIP will go away, but it's not happening, last night David Kurten got around the same percentage as UKIP got in recent General Elections, except 2015, in a very difficult constituency.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
Well I'm not sure how letting sleazy perv's take pics of women's genitals and share them over the internet without their permission is particularly "socially conservative..."
Trouble is with a majority of over 25,000 in his seat he has a job for life and can basically do whatever the hell he wants without being answerable to anyone.
Well, he did actually win it off the Lib Dems. Though I think anyone could have done.
If that doesn't encourage the onshoring of some US production I am not sure what would.
The traditional view is that this is reckless and damaging to international growth and trade but the fact is that the current system has not worked well for the US (or the UK) for more than 20 years now. The growth that is generated is not shared around and neither is the increase in living standards.
A great deal of that is the US's own fault (ours as well) because we don't save enough, we consume too much and we are too prone to electing irresponsible governments who run large deficits. But long term the consequences are seriously adverse. Too much of our future earnings actually belong to people outside this country. Improving the standard of living of those resident in the US or the UK becomes increasingly difficult, as does maintaining public services. Bluntly, the US and the UK really cannot go on like this. Trump is a bull in a china shop but it is difficult to pretend (as I expect the BBC to do) that the current system of trade does not need shaken up.
With tariffs on EU, Mexican, Canadian, Chinese and Japanese imports Trump clearly is pushing 'America First' in a drastic attempt to reduce the US trade deficit and boost the rustbelt
Yep. Of course having a record federal deficit artificially increasing already high domestic demand is not exactly a policy to reduce the trade deficit. Like us, if the US ran a reasonable surplus in the public accounts most of the deficit would disappear.
Spot on: as I said in my video, the US's expansionary budget makes it practically impossible to run a trade surplus. It's pushing on a stick in two opposite directions and wondering why it doesn't move.
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Maybe he thought that current laws are adequate to cover the situation.
He may think that. But he is wrong. It is a lazy excuse. And he has admitted he doesn't know what it is. He simply blocks any Private Members Bill not by one of his mates.
I am going to guess Morocco vs Iran isn't exactly a great game?
I drew Iran in my pub sweepstake, they were the first team to qualify, apart from Russia of course.
Just for fun I also put £1 on them at 1000/1 which I'll lay off if they get to the quarter finals.
LOL
Could do with a draw in this game, puts Iran on top of the group! if they should find a way to qualify, they could beat Uruguay in the next round, they have a tremendous defensive record.
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
Trouble is with a majority of over 25,000 in his seat he has a job for life and can basically do whatever the hell he wants without being answerable to anyone.
Well, he did actually win it off the Lib Dems. Though I think anyone could have done.
That's true... The Christchurch by-election was one of those famous 1990's Lib-Dem "spectacular's"
Would be interesting to see what would happen to Sir Christopher if he was forced to fight a by election and all other parties stood aside for the Lib-Dems wouldn't it?
Trouble is with a majority of over 25,000 in his seat he has a job for life and can basically do whatever the hell he wants without being answerable to anyone.
Well, he did actually win it off the Lib Dems. Though I think anyone could have done.
That's true... The Christchurch by-election was one of those famous 1990's Lib-Dem "spectacular's"
Would be interesting to see what would happen to Sir Christopher if he was forced to fight a by election and all other parties stood aside for the Lib-Dems would't it?
About 250 Tory MPs would go campaigning for the Lib Dems.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
Well I'm not sure how letting sleazy perv's take pics of women's genitals and share them over the internet without their permission is particularly "socially conservative..."
This also feeds back to the discussion on referendums on the previous thread.
Apparently electing sleasebags like Chope to represent 100,000 people in Parliament is a better system than letting those 100,000 people directly chose what passes into law.
Trouble is with a majority of over 25,000 in his seat he has a job for life and can basically do whatever the hell he wants without being answerable to anyone.
Well, he did actually win it off the Lib Dems. Though I think anyone could have done.
That's true... The Christchurch by-election was one of those famous 1990's Lib-Dem "spectacular's"
Would be interesting to see what would happen to Sir Christopher if he was forced to fight a by election and all other parties stood aside for the Lib-Dems wouldn't it?
I'd imagine he was planning to retire soon anyway given his age.
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
Your words do you credit. Chope, by contrast, is a buffoon. He has made the lead story during the World Cup with a truly spectacular own goal.
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
Why should he be deselected?
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".
Disagreeing with someone vehemently on a number of issues doesn’t make them odious.
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
Your words do you credit. Chope, by contrast, is a buffoon. He has made the lead story during the World Cup with a truly spectacular own goal.
Maybe he thought that current laws are adequate to cover the situation.
The clown has not got enough brain cells to be able to think cogently.
He’s not an idiot. He led Wandsworth Council shortly after the Tories took control in 1978, and drove it to have one of the lowest council taxes in the country using Thatcherite principles.
And he was knighted for political and public service only this year.
He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviour
I don't Big_G.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times ). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I think the problem goes further than just one. Ken Clarke said '40-50 MPs' are 'the hard right'. If so, they should be in a different party. In a chamber with PR, they probably *would* constitute a group with its own name, e.g. the Freedom Party.
There used to be several who clearly wished they were ukip but lacked Carswell's balls to jump.
PR has issues, but a version of it does feel better to me.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/18/philip-davies-political-correctness-campaign
"why it is so offensive to black up your face, as I have never understood this".
If there is a full Brexit, UKIP will probably have to re-brand as a centre-right populist libertarian party an alternative to the Conservative party and some elements of the old Labour party.
UKIP have as much of a pulse as John Cleese's parrot.
The UK and the US run unbalanced trade because of our domestic policies. Applying tariffs to Chinese goods, while not changing the underlying cause, i.e. insufficient saving, will not improve things*. All it will do, in all likelihood, is encourage tit-for-tat tariffs from China or the EU.
Tit-for-tat tariffs will slow the world economy down, generally. There won't be winners and losers, everybody will be a loser. Given that the headwinds in the developed world - such as demographics - are secular in nature, and not going away, this is extremely bad news for the world.
* Technically, of course, tariffs raise the price of goods (and spending) relative to saving, and therefore will increase the savings rate.
(Sell Boeing.)
FPT @tkpfar, (related to mass migration)
I'd have thought the CSU would outpoll the CDU in Bavaria, if the two went head to head. The former is very much the successor to the Bavarian Peoples' Party, which dominated State politics, prior to 1933.
Can I ask a rhetorical question?
I can? Yes!
If you were starting a US light manufacturing business, and wanted to build a factory, why would you choose the rust belt?
The local states are in serious money trouble, and therefore taxes are high, and services poor, while the unions are strong. The infrastructure for getting goods out, if you're an exporter isn't that great either.
Wouldn't you rather be in a "right to work" state (i.e. no closed shop), with low taxes, and much better access to export infrastructure?
Since 1994 (the creation of NAFTA), three G8 countries (I'm including Russia here), have increased automobile production: Germany, the US and the UK. Everyone else has seen volumes fall.
The US, though, has seen automobile manufacturing flee the Great Lakes area and head for Kentucky, South Carolina and the like. Even if you in shore manufacturing, won't it be more likely to go to these places?
If Article 50 is extended so that we take part in the 2019 European elections, they would become a de facto second referendum without there being a referendum. You could see UKIP MEPs losing their seats on GE turnout levels.
The answer, subject to distortion by grants and tax incentives must be yes. Lucky for the rust belt that they comprise the largest clump of marginal states in the country. It incentivises the politicians wonderfully.
Additional, good US colleges. They aren't in the rust belt. So your engineer grads will have to choose to relocate to a part of the US that isn't very attractive.
"the 2019 European elections ... would become a de facto second referendum"
LOL. Nice try.
I guess a traditional reason would be they have an experienced manufacturing workforce in the rustbelt, but people migrate around the US for work, so that doesn't matter. Freedom of movement has a huge tendency to exacerbate cycles of decline. I don't know why economists rate it so much. I guess they are applying intellectual models that don't take into account political economy.
Sorry william.
The continuing SDP and Liberal parties still exist legally and even have a few councillors.
www.sdp.org.uk
www.liberal.org.uk
And of course you never know what might be round the corner. I doubt many in May 2015 would have predicted what has happened since.
1) Get camera with massive telescopic lens;
2) zoom to its maximum magnification;
3) Hold it within an inch of his crotch;
4) Ask a friend very loudly whether this procedure will enable you to see his penis on the resulting image;
5) make sure said friend has been primed with the answer, 'no, his wife told me you need the Hubble telescope.'
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
Most US goods, apart from Military [ sold on credit to governments ] or agricultural , are crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
I’d instinctively vote for them just to give the Government a message about backsliding, and I suspect I wouldn’t be alone. That could start to fracture Theresa’s coalition at a Westminster level at well, and even if just 3-4% peeled away back to UKIP subsequently it would be enough to put Labour in the lead.
Therefore, I don’t expect it to happen.
UKIP have downsized by cutting staff and are now in good financial shape, we have stopped losing members and the party conference will take place at the ICC in Birmingham in September.
Political opponents might wish UKIP will go away, but it's not happening, last night David Kurten got around the same percentage as UKIP got in recent General Elections, except 2015, in a very difficult constituency.
At a private fancy dress party, or a satirical comedy, I wouldn’t see any problem with this.
But, i wouldn’t advise it: it’s risky to be seen to do and say many taboo things in the social media age as they can be recorded and shown to an audience well behind your control.
I am all for slashing laws and reducing the amount of legislation but I am sure there are literally hundreds of laws we could remove from the statute book rather than sabotaging bills that are meant to protect women.
Conte said that the "concept of country of first arrival needs to be reconsidered".
"When someone sets foot in Italy, they set foot in Europe", he said.
Also note that rhetoric and reality are not aligned:
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1007497531528499200
On the other hand, far too many Americans still seem to see state/federal public spending on infrastructure as akin to communism, so their infrastructure is often appalling.
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1005113528989241344?lang=en-gb
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
Quite. The prospect of voting for representatives to an organisation we voted to leave three years before is frankly surreal, and would be the most visible in your face message that our politicians just don’t get it. It’s therefore more of a hard stop to any short term extension ( even though that would be a disgrace for all the same reasons). It would also be bizzare from an EU point of view to organise elections and have 70 odd (?) members sat there for an indeterminate amount of time, before they then had to decide whether they were or weren’t reallocating according to their orginal plans? Farce; nobody would be sure of the rules they were voting under accross 27 countries.
Oh, and Chope. What an idiot. Inexcusable.
Good grief, what an awful person!
Trouble is with a majority of over 25,000 in his seat he has a job for life and can basically do whatever the hell he wants without being answerable to anyone.
Situations like this really are the best advertisement for voting reform that you can come up with....
Better to have loved and won than never to have loved at all.
Well I'm not sure how letting sleazy perv's take pics of women's genitals and share them over the internet without their permission is particularly "socially conservative..."
But he is wrong.
It is a lazy excuse. And he has admitted he doesn't know what it is.
He simply blocks any Private Members Bill not by one of his mates.
Or possibly Moronicity.
Would be interesting to see what would happen to Sir Christopher if he was forced to fight a by election and all other parties stood aside for the Lib-Dems wouldn't it?
Apparently electing sleasebags like Chope to represent 100,000 people in Parliament is a better system than letting those 100,000 people directly chose what passes into law.
Chope, by contrast, is a buffoon. He has made the lead story during the World Cup with a truly spectacular own goal.
And he was knighted for political and public service only this year.
PR has issues, but a version of it does feel better to me.