Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

15 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

So wages are higher and Taxes are higher, seems pointless. I work in most cities in both countries and I can confirm certain cities there are far more deprived and divided than anything here. So to use them as a beacon on high tax isn't really a good one!

 

You have ignored the France situation people left there, their Prime minister said so. Not a study or a think tank,

 

You are also very hard to take seriously.

 

Socialists burying their head in the sand since 1979! Still we can always borrow just a tad more I suppose!!

You're giving us nothing but unproveable anecdotes and demonstrably untrue Tory soundbites. Come back with some actual data and credible analysis and I'll take you more seriously.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

On two separate occasions you've had a go at people being presented with studies and completely ignoring them (whilst also ignoring the content of what they said) but now, when presented with a piece by an academic from GWU, flanked by from a genuinely centrist and prestigious think tank, that builds on a recent study by an economist at San Francisco's State Federal Reserve and an academic at Arizona, supported by ONS comments, you decide to completely ignore its contents in favour of saying it should more or less balance out and then deciding there is no reason to compare different time periods despite structural differences that might well have an influence. 

 

Then you've also arbitrarily chosen 2006 as a point of comparison, knowing full well the recession had an effect on wages and therefore it's not particularly useful to compare. Fair enough criticise wage growth since 2010 but such arbitrary comparisons are pointless. 

 

Therefore I'm not really sure there's much point discussing it with you, however, I will due to it being a dull and uninspiring Monday evening. 

 

As I said before, I didn't say it was optimal but it isn't quite the picture painted by just looking at the median real wage and being outraged by falling wages. I've asked someone to show me that people are genuinely worse off and it hasn't been forthcoming. With respect to your examples, I have checked it out and yes there has been a fall in the real wage statistics. Now you're immediately wrong because you've assumed there can't have been an increase in low paid jobs in the "Professional, scientific and technical activities" because it says Professional. It's the industry you work in and so therefore the receptionist at a firm is included. Still, even ignoring that, it is entirely possible for firms to have released senior managers, consolidated their structures higher up and beefed up teams with some juniors. I know its happened in financial services so in all likelihood will have happened elsewhere. But still all that is immaterial, because until you actually have an understanding of the structural make-up of the whole labour market and the individual sectors, it's near futile to commentate on one statistic that says a median is falling. Now if you have any idea of any structural changes within water that may have impacted the wages and why they occurred I'll gladly begin to pay attention to your idea that looking at sectors proves academics to be wrong (and given the fall for water in 2010, it might well be possible to blame it on government). But given I suspect you have little knowledge of structural effects over the period, and labour economics, I won't be holding my breath, and I suspect you'll continue to look at isolated ONS figures and not consider questioning why they show what they show aside from waving your fist at the bastard Tories. 

Why would there have been a sudden increase in the number of receptionists in a world of rapidly increasing automation?

 

You're making things up to back up what is purely your interpretation of a theory.

 

I already conceded the possibility that we have created more lower paid jobs, via consolidation or whatever means. How is that a good thing for the average man on the street?

 

Late edit: 2006 was not chosen arbitrarily, far from it, I chose it because it is the last time we had unemployment at a similar rate to what it is now, ie it removes from the comparison the high level of 'job creation' since the financial crisis.

Edited 20 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Innovindil]

30 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Can somebody tell me again - how do I mute fox?

Visit www.guardian.com/echochamber

 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why would there have been a sudden increase in the number of receptionists in a world of rapidly increasing automation?

 

You're making things up to back up what is purely your interpretation of a theory.

 

I already conceded the possibility that we have created more lower paid jobs, via consolidation or whatever means. How is that a good thing for the average man on the street?

And let's not forget that both tax credits and in work benefits have been cut substantially over the last 7 years. 

 

The poorest have been hardest hit by the Tories policies over the last 7 years

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tory-welfare-reforms-hit-poor-vulnerable-hardest-study-a8058176.html

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

And do you think France and or Germany are better places than the UK? I certainly don't. Massive issues with integrating immigration in Germany particularly in the South, France has many cities with extremely poor divided neighbourhoods with huge crime issues so whatever they are doing to me is not a success. Its far worse that anything I have seen in the UK and believe me I travel to these countries a lot, I have never ever been approached at cash machines by poor children and threatened in London, I have in Paris.

You are very poor at getting any basic facts right, and presume too much of countries you seem to know really little about...including it seems

your own.

Southern Germany, Bayern and Bad Württemburg have integrated refugees and immigrants some what   better( even before Merkels refugee promises), than the white middle class  enclaves of southern England....All countries have their problem areas, France may have more historical difficulties in some inner cities on immigration, than some.This goes well beyond anything that crops up in England.They also like England have living areas where the people on the street make it work, spite some despicable govt  indifference

 

I might be wrong but presumption seems too be your best friend, then you let your wild opinions loose into the debate.

I suggest you not only  travel, but live and work in Europe and do some of your own integration, before quoting statistics or incompetent unknowledgable political Journals Columnists...

 

and ffs where in Germany have you been approached by young children and threaten at cash machines.I have experienced young beggars some aggressive ,all over europe including UK and Ireland. I wouldnt use those experiences to settle my political grieviances.

 

I have lived and worked around the World, integrated into local traditions away

from anglo-saxon traits, others with simular but also slightly various cultural  offshoots, but

even with that experience behind be, and all that gathering of knowledge, I cant see for the life of me, where I could take a bombastic view of other peoples political stance or nuances.

Comparisons are futile, because for every found negative stat, there is a positive one to contradict any given values....and visa versa.

Has a character, I just try to stand above racial, social, in fact any discrimination......

but even there I find myelf wanting..

[Buce]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Can somebody tell me again - how do I mute fox?

 

Just rest the cursor over his name and you'll be given the option to ignore user.

[Buce]

 

Electoral Commission launches inquiry into Leave campaign funding:

 

Watchdog has ‘reasonable grounds to suspect offence was committed’ by Vote Leave and student campaigner who received £625,000 from group

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/20/electoral-commission-launches-inquiry-into-leave-campaign-funding

[Realist Guy In The Room]

Due to a number of factors I must say that I now hugely regret the fact there was a referendum and even more so, that I voted to leave.

 

This country really has turned into a very unpleasant place since.

 

Perhaps the most disappointing thing is that I still held on to the thought that our politicians, regardless of anything would always in the end put our country first.  

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The level of self serving bollocks seeping from both Tory and Labour has quite frankly sickened me.

 

I really dont want to live here anymore.

Edited 20 November 2017 by Realist Guy In The Room

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Visit www.guardian.com/echochamber

 

I put Guardian links to news articles.

I use reports and other sources to back up my arguments.

Try it sometime...

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Due to a number of factors I must say that I now hugely regret the fact there was a referendum and even more so, that I voted to leave.

 

This country really has turned into a very unpleasant place since.

 

Perhaps the most disappointing thing is that I still held on to the thought that our politicians, regardless of anything would always in the end put our country first.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The level of self serving bollocks seeping from both Tory and Labour has quite

frankly sickened me.

 

I really dont want to live here anymore.

I've never known the country so divided. 

There's real anger on the remain side.

If we come out of this poorer I honestly am not sure what will happen.

If leaving does incredibly have the positive results some hope for that might be the only way to heal the wound.

 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I've never known the country so divided. 

There's real anger on the remain side.

If we come out of this poorer I honestly am not sure what will happen.

If leaving does incredibly have the positive results some hope for that might be the only way to heal the wound.

 

If Brexit isnt a huge success, the divisions will go on for generations.

 

Like you say, it really is the only scenario that has a chance of solving anything but the way things are being handled, it’s also looking the least likely.

[fuchsntf]

I have decided to stay in Germany, and take the political crisis on the chin...

Plus all that lovely money, the UK will give us to get their way on Brexit....being an expat is painfull..

[Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Why would there have been a sudden increase in the number of receptionists in a world of rapidly increasing automation?

 

You're making things up to back up what is purely your interpretation of a theory.

 

I already conceded the possibility that we have created more lower paid jobs, via consolidation or whatever means. How is that a good thing for the average man on the street?

It was an example of how low wage workers still exist in such sectors, I wasn't saying there's been a boom in the number of receptionists.

 

I'm not interpreting any theory, nor have I made anything up. I'm giving you what has been said by a GWU academic flanked by a prestigious think tank, an economist from San Fran's State Federal Reserve and academic at Arizona, and the ONS themselves. 

 

I've already told you how it's not necessarily a bad thing for anyone, and can be a good thing for some. I don't how else to repeat the same thing so that you understand. Quick and simple model using UK labour market figures and assuming all other things remain equal across time periods.

 

If I have a society of with 101 economically active people and an unemployment rate of 8%, so I have 93 people in the workforce. 62 (~67%) work full-time whilst 31 (~33%) work part time. All 31 part-time workers earn £500, 15 full-time workers earn £750, 21 earn £1000, 20 earn £1500, 6 earn £2000. The median worker is the 47th so has a salary of £1000. 

 

7 years later I have a society with 4 (4%) more economically active people and an unemployment rate of 4%. Therefore, I have an economically active society of 105 and 101 people employed. Now 74 (~73%) (there’s actually a rounding error as a result of rounding up to 101) are employed full-time and 27 (~27%) are employed part time. 1% hit retirement age each year so 7 people become economically inactive, often the higher earners. Take 3 out of £2000 wage bracket and 4 out of £1500 wage bracket. So there has in fact been an addition of 11 newly economically active, who we might expect to be younger and only just entering the labour market for the first time. 4 have moved out of unemployment into work. Taking the reduction of 6% of part-time workers, assuming all moved up to full-time work, we have 6 less part-time workers, so 2 unemployed are now part-timers, the other 2 are added to the £750 bracket (again people tend to move from unemployment to lower wages as noted by the studies presented). The 11 newly economically active take up full-time work but can expect to enter at a lower wage (median graduate salaries are below the UK median as is the migrant median I believe(?)) so add 5 to the £750 wage bracket and 5 to the £1000 wage bracket and 1 to the £1500. We end up with 27 on £500, 28 on £750, 26 on £1000, 17 on £1500, and 5 on £2000. The median worker is now the 50^th worker and therefore has a wage of £750.

 

Median wage has dropped but find me anyone, operating in the labour market, who is worse off (technically the 4 unemployed are worse off but that’s not reflected in wages anyway). Those who entered employment are better off (assuming they are remunerated at a higher rate than benefits for example) and nobody has gotten worse off. I could make all 27 part-timers unemployed and get a median wage of £1000 but you wouldn’t then be telling me that’s a good thing. Now, of course, that simple model relies on a lot of assumptions which you can easily pick apart but it quite effectively accurately shows what a median wage statistic shows and therefore shows the amount of assumptions you have to make to conclude a falling median wage means people are worse off. Now, obviously I accept some people are worse off, due to frictional and structural issues that likely also occur in any time period but the average man is not worse off, he’s just a different person

.

The fact that those in continuous full-time employment (roughly 19 million) have experienced fairly strong wage growth, backs up the notion that wages aren’t really falling in real terms. Look at where jobs have been added recently; health and social care, transport and storage, accommodation and food services, sectors that are possibly lower-wage and probably use more immigrant labour. I’ve not said any of it’s optimal, for I’d love genuine real wages to be accelerating with the median also rising, but a falling median wage doesn’t necessarily indicate much that is useful and that has been shown.

 

Of course, this all ignores the fact that everyone’s inflation rate is different and wage changes differ across the country and it is, in theory, possible, although unlikely, that nobody actually sees a real wage cut even if average figures show that.

 

Why, when we have Daly and Hobjin’s paper (actually papers I found another one from this year building), the Hamilton Project piece, and the ONS all saying similar, whilst the idea is also being pretty intuitive, can you not accept that saying wages are falling because the median real wage falls isn’t terribly useful which was my whole point in the first. I genuinely cannot believe you have the audacity to say to Webbo "And that’s pretty much how the right wing comes across on here in general. It’s like you have a rule where, once formed, a view or opinion must never be reconsidered, all opinions against are wrong, all evidence against is fake." but just bat away evidence that wage growth has been held down by changing workforce composition by saying that's always the case. Still maybe we shouldn't be surprised that you don't practice what you preach and toddy's creating safe spaces for himself. 

Edited 20 November 2017 by Kopfkino

[Alf Bentley]

Anyone see the massive cock-up by Newsnight just now?!

 

They ended with a 30-second piece about Liz and Phil's 70th wedding anniversary - and Emily Maitlis referred to their wedding being in 1937.

 

I assumed she'd just had a slip of the tongue, but no. She went on with a prepared script about it being a time for new relationships with Europe, turbulence in Spain and a Tory Govt making deals....

i.e. run-up to WW2, Spanish Civil War, Chamberlaiin & Hitler. She then repeated the year as 1937....

 

In 1937, the future Queen was 11.

Maths: 1947 + 70 = 2017.....not 1937!

Awaiting reports of grovelling apologies. Unbelievable incompetence!

Your Royal Correspondent 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Anyone see the massive cock-up by Newsnight just now?!

 

They ended with a 30-second piece about Liz and Phil's 70th wedding anniversary - and Emily Maitlis referred to their wedding being in 1937.

 

I assumed she'd just had a slip of the tongue, but no. She went on with a prepared script about it being a time for new relationships with Europe, turbulence in Spain and a Tory Govt making deals....

i.e. run-up to WW2, Spanish Civil War, Chamberlaiin & Hitler. She then repeated the year as 1937....

 

In 1937, the future Queen was 11.

Maths: 1947 + 70 = 2017.....not 1937!

Awaiting reports of grovelling apologies. Unbelievable incompetence!

Your Royal Correspondent 

Wow that’s one hell of a balls up, how the hell did that make it to air?

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, Strokes said:

Wow that’s one hell of a balls up, how the hell did that make it to air?

 

Indeed. You can understand one person getting something wrong, but surely several people sign off a pre-prepared item like that?!

One of the worst TV cock-ups I've ever seen.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Indeed. You can understand one person getting something wrong, but surely several people sign off a pre-prepared item like that?!

One of the worst TV cock-ups I've ever seen.

Oh absolutely, surely someone was told to fact check elements if not it’s entirety. You’ve picked up on it instantly, it’s an unbelievable, astonishing mistake.

[Kopfkino]

On 19/11/2017 at 13:59, leicsmac said:

I think toddy and rog have done a lot of answering these points in a way that I would (especially the climate change part, would like to hear your thoughts on that), but I just have a couple of things to add (think I talked about this with KingGTF on here before but not you, apologies if we have):

 

Do you think that capitalism is a competitive social model, eg. it encourages individuals and/or small groups of people to compete against others for something that in the end is essentially finite (resources, space, whatever)? If not, how would you describe it?

 

Can you think of any circumstance where a complex species in the past has used a competitive social model based on natural selection (as almost all of have) and not ended up in trouble either from fighting amongst each other, from a change in the Earth (including a new better species) or a combination of the two?

 

Are these two things linked in your mind, and if not, why?

 

I know people often say that competition doesn't lead to conflict but history seems to bear out that it almost inevitably does. And while that conflict has often been a really adept driver of human development (when your survival is on the line that tends to make folks rise to the occasion, after all - World War II made us going to the Moon possible), keep doing it and it may well lead to the kind of trouble humanity can't get out of.

 

How do you overcome the problem of the free rider?

 

Not to say that capitalism doesn't have such a problem, more that it's of more significant detriment to the functioning of the system and thus human welfare in  a socialist/communist/centrally allocative system.

 

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Anyone see the massive cock-up by Newsnight just now?!

 

They ended with a 30-second piece about Liz and Phil's 70th wedding anniversary - and Emily Maitlis referred to their wedding being in 1937.

 

I assumed she'd just had a slip of the tongue, but no. She went on with a prepared script about it being a time for new relationships with Europe, turbulence in Spain and a Tory Govt making deals....

i.e. run-up to WW2, Spanish Civil War, Chamberlaiin & Hitler. She then repeated the year as 1937....

 

In 1937, the future Queen was 11.

Maths: 1947 + 70 = 2017.....not 1937!

Awaiting reports of grovelling apologies. Unbelievable incompetence!

Your Royal Correspondent 

I've not watched this but that sounds absolutely incredible, numerous people have totally cocked up there and shouldn't be anywhere near a current affairs show not to spot this.

 

How that can happen on a show on Newsnight is frankly unbelievable.

[Rogstanley]

10 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

It was an example of how low wage workers still exist in such sectors, I wasn't saying there's been a boom in the number of receptionists.

 

I'm not interpreting any theory, nor have I made anything up. I'm giving you what has been said by a GWU academic flanked by a prestigious think tank, an economist from San Fran's State Federal Reserve and academic at Arizona, and the ONS themselves. 

 

I've already told you how it's not necessarily a bad thing for anyone, and can be a good thing for some. I don't how else to repeat the same thing so that you understand. Quick and simple model using UK labour market figures and assuming all other things remain equal across time periods.

 

If I have a society of with 101 economically active people and an unemployment rate of 8%, so I have 93 people in the workforce. 62 (~67%) work full-time whilst 31 (~33%) work part time. All 31 part-time workers earn £500, 15 full-time workers earn £750, 21 earn £1000, 20 earn £1500, 6 earn £2000. The median worker is the 47th so has a salary of £1000. 

 

7 years later I have a society with 4 (4%) more economically active people and an unemployment rate of 4%. Therefore, I have an economically active society of 105 and 101 people employed. Now 74 (~73%) (there’s actually a rounding error as a result of rounding up to 101) are employed full-time and 27 (~27%) are employed part time. 1% hit retirement age each year so 7 people become economically inactive, often the higher earners. Take 3 out of £2000 wage bracket and 4 out of £1500 wage bracket. So there has in fact been an addition of 11 newly economically active, who we might expect to be younger and only just entering the labour market for the first time. 4 have moved out of unemployment into work. Taking the reduction of 6% of part-time workers, assuming all moved up to full-time work, we have 6 less part-time workers, so 2 unemployed are now part-timers, the other 2 are added to the £750 bracket (again people tend to move from unemployment to lower wages as noted by the studies presented). The 11 newly economically active take up full-time work but can expect to enter at a lower wage (median graduate salaries are below the UK median as is the migrant median I believe(?)) so add 5 to the £750 wage bracket and 5 to the £1000 wage bracket and 1 to the £1500. We end up with 27 on £500, 28 on £750, 26 on £1000, 17 on £1500, and 5 on £2000. The median worker is now the 50^th worker and therefore has a wage of £750.

 

Median wage has dropped but find me anyone, operating in the labour market, who is worse off (technically the 4 unemployed are worse off but that’s not reflected in wages anyway). Those who entered employment are better off (assuming they are remunerated at a higher rate than benefits for example) and nobody has gotten worse off. I could make all 27 part-timers unemployed and get a median wage of £1000 but you wouldn’t then be telling me that’s a good thing. Now, of course, that simple model relies on a lot of assumptions which you can easily pick apart but it quite effectively accurately shows what a median wage statistic shows and therefore shows the amount of assumptions you have to make to conclude a falling median wage means people are worse off. Now, obviously I accept some people are worse off, due to frictional and structural issues that likely also occur in any time period but the average man is not worse off, he’s just a different person

.

The fact that those in continuous full-time employment (roughly 19 million) have experienced fairly strong wage growth, backs up the notion that wages aren’t really falling in real terms. Look at where jobs have been added recently; health and social care, transport and storage, accommodation and food services, sectors that are possibly lower-wage and probably use more immigrant labour. I’ve not said any of it’s optimal, for I’d love genuine real wages to be accelerating with the median also rising, but a falling median wage doesn’t necessarily indicate much that is useful and that has been shown.

 

Of course, this all ignores the fact that everyone’s inflation rate is different and wage changes differ across the country and it is, in theory, possible, although unlikely, that nobody actually sees a real wage cut even if average figures show that.

 

Why, when we have Daly and Hobjin’s paper (actually papers I found another one from this year building), the Hamilton Project piece, and the ONS all saying similar, whilst the idea is also being pretty intuitive, can you not accept that saying wages are falling because the median real wage falls isn’t terribly useful which was my whole point in the first. I genuinely cannot believe you have the audacity to say to Webbo "And that’s pretty much how the right wing comes across on here in general. It’s like you have a rule where, once formed, a view or opinion must never be reconsidered, all opinions against are wrong, all evidence against is fake." but just bat away evidence that wage growth has been held down by changing workforce composition by saying that's always the case. Still maybe we shouldn't be surprised that you don't practice what you preach and toddy's creating safe spaces for himself. 

If you'd have read my edit you'd have seen I used 2006 not arbitrarily but because that was the last time unemployment was at a similar rate. So between 2006, proportionately speaking there have been no new jobs created, which takes care of the argument that the creation of new jobs is dragging down the figures except to the extent that the new jobs being created are lower paid than ones they replaced.

 

Your example assumes people retire and are directly replaced by junior staff. That is obviously not the case. When say a director retires, they are replaced by someone who was in a senior position. That person is replaced by someone who has been in a middle ranking positing. That person is replaced by someone who was an assistant and finally the assistant is replaced by the new trainee such that the overall wage structure remains largely the same. Something along those lines is what goes on in businesses across the world and has been happening for hundreds of years. That's why any comparison with other countries or with other periods of time already takes your theory into account. 

 

Why is wage growth in the UK the lowest in the developed world when your theory also applies to every other country? Why is wage growth in the UK at its lowest point since statistics began when your theory also applies to every other period of time?

 

Like I've said two or three times now I'm quite happy to concede that under the Tory government we have replaced well paid jobs with low paid jobs outside of the usual career cycle in a manner that hasn't been repeated in comparable countries. It's great that you've thought about the inner workings of how it has happened. What I'm interested in is why it has happened in the UK and not elsewhere and consequently why wage growth is a lot slower here than it is elsewhere, and more importantly what can be done about it to ensure I get a better pay rise next year and from then on.

Edited 21 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Fox Ulike]

12 hours ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Due to a number of factors I must say that I now hugely regret the fact there was a referendum and even more so, that I voted to leave.

 

This country really has turned into a very unpleasant place since.

 

Perhaps the most disappointing thing is that I still held on to the thought that our politicians, regardless of anything would always in the end put our country first.  

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The level of self serving bollocks seeping from both Tory and Labour has quite frankly sickened me.

 

I really dont want to live here anymore.

 

I think Brexit is a symptom of these divisions, rather than a cause.

 

If you look at what’s happening in USA, and now Germany. What nearly happened in France with Le Pen, and the unrest in Catalonia.

 

All the Western advanced democracies are in crisis which is being exploited by populist politicians and supported by propagandist media outlets.

 

Why this has all happened I don’t know, but it can't be a co-incidence. Russian cyber warfare is one explanation, but seems too simplistic.

Edited 21 November 2017 by Fox Ulike

[Guest MattP]

14 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

You are very poor at getting any basic facts right, and presume too much of countries you seem to know really little about...including it seems

your own.

Southern Germany, Bayern and Bad Württemburg have integrated refugees and immigrants some what   better( even before Merkels refugee promises), than the white middle class  enclaves of southern England....All countries have their problem areas, France may have more historical difficulties in some inner cities on immigration, than some.This goes well beyond anything that crops up in England.They also like England have living areas where the people on the street make it work, spite some despicable govt  indifference

I've personally always felt safe in Germany but I do wonder where you are getting this point of view from? Which white middle class enclaves in the South have struggled with this? These are stories I would follow and I don't recall reading about many problems.

[Guest MattP]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-told-to-exploit-merkel-crisis-german-instability-to-reduce-brexit-divorce-bill-tg090h99k

 

Quote

 

Senior Tory Brexiteers demanded last night that Theresa May exploit Angela Merkel’s political weakness and suspend plans to offer billions of pounds more to the European Union.

The prime minister’s allies said that she had bound her cabinet to Britain’s negotiating stance, including the offer of more money at a meeting before the European Council next month.

The German chancellor’s admission yesterday that she might be forced back to the polls had tipped Brexit negotiations into chaos, said Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and a prominent Brexiteer. He urged Mrs May to “sit tight”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Tory MP for North East Somerset, said that it would be “foolish” to improve the offer at a time when Mrs Merkel needed to reassure German voters that they would not have to foot the bill if Britain left without an agreement.

Germany descended into political instability yesterday after weeks-long talks to form a coalition collapsed. Mrs Merkel said that she was ready for a rerun of the September election as most parties refused to return to negotiations.

Brexit-supporting ministers were said to be pressing Mrs May to use the turmoil of the EU’s most powerful nation to reduce Britain’s “divorce bill” before yesterday’s meeting of the cabinet sub-committee overseeing the negotiations.

It appears, however, that Mrs May has secured agreement from Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and other Leave-supporting cabinet figures to table an improved offer before the European Council meeting next month. The government will not put a figure on the total but it is likely to include commitments in the region of £20 billion on top of the £20 billion already acknowledged as owed in Mrs May’s Florence speech.

The Times understands that yesterday’s meeting ended in agreement on a broad negotiating strategy for the talks, including an improved financial offer. A government source suggested that Mr Johnson and Mr Gove had signed up to Mrs May’s plan. She is likely to put the offer forward informally when she meets Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, on Friday.

 

If this is true that May is going to increase the offer whilst Germany is in this political state then I have no idea what to say, what should be making political capital of this chaos in the same way the EU did to us after our General Election earlier this year, you don't start giving in to the oppositions demands when they are in a state of unrest.

 

This is like checking in a poker game when you see the sweat pouring off the person you are in with.

[ealingfox]

9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Anyone see the massive cock-up by Newsnight just now?!

 

They ended with a 30-second piece about Liz and Phil's 70th wedding anniversary - and Emily Maitlis referred to their wedding being in 1937.

 

I assumed she'd just had a slip of the tongue, but no. She went on with a prepared script about it being a time for new relationships with Europe, turbulence in Spain and a Tory Govt making deals....

i.e. run-up to WW2, Spanish Civil War, Chamberlaiin & Hitler. She then repeated the year as 1937....

 

In 1937, the future Queen was 11.

Maths: 1947 + 70 = 2017.....not 1937!

Awaiting reports of grovelling apologies. Unbelievable incompetence!

Your Royal Correspondent 

 

You're right

 

 

Somewhat skating over the fact that the error informed the rest of the segment

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

17 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

What I am saying by my example is that we are a global economy with global business and global individuals. Its not just as simple as us closing our tax loopholes and raising taxes here.

 

I have no idea how many left France but the French PM said that 10000 people left his country, I have no idea why he would say that if it wasn't true. I expect the true in and outs of those individuals are not known.

 

The UK closing loopholes here will make no difference on a global scale, all it will do is make the UK a lot poorer as people wont want to do business here or live here if they are punished for being rich and succesful. If we increase tax and then legislate where no other country legislates it makes us a very unfriendly business and rich person economy on a global scale.

 

 

 

Maybe I’m not being clear. Let me break in down for ya!

 

Do you believe that people actually leave Western developed countries to avoid paying high levels of tax. Or, do they  buy a house in a tax haven, and then pretend to the tax authorities that they live there? Thereby avoiding tax.

 

Do you believe that 10,000 people left their homes and lives in France, uprooted their families, and moved to Poland or Ireland or Jersey or the Cayman Islands and are actually living and working there now!?