Brexit - Post Match Reaction

That doesn't address the funding issues at all. Your conformable middle/upper class nursery is not the norm I assure you. Here's a link you may find illuminating:

 

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D0Zm-mYA6XpQ&ved=2ahUKEwim9byw3s_dAhXCDcAKHYabDn4QwqsBMAJ6BAgJEAU&usg=AOvVaw2GAZVGZ-06kskO8qD0dg8q

 

Or maybe you're just not very good at it?

Oh noes. How will UJ afford his gold plated chopsticks then???

 

Sadiq Khan isn't my Mayor...

If Sadiq Khan gets another term, those poor downtrodden Londoners may see their property prices fall further. And God help them if Corbyn gets in, he’ll have his eye on all that equity they’ve built up over the years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

‘If’ ? Sounds like you are losing confidence and getting worried old boy

 

Don’t worry your Daily Mail/Express/Sun are going full tilt and have an expose that as an Arsenal fan he was seen at Anfield mixing with Liverpool fans yesterday. The nation can’t trust him.

Edited 23 September, 2018 by whelk

Just out of interest, where did I say I was struggling? Thia is not about me. The fall in house prices make no difference to me, I'm living in my house for the next 20 years, not looking to make any money out of it.

 

Look, you can all gang up and try to criticise me when I am making a point about hard working Londoners, our nurses, our junior doctors, our social care workers having money knocked off the price of their 1 bed Lambert flats, but sneering at me won't make any difference.

 

If you all think that there has been no effect to the cost of living post Brexit, which is what I was arguing, then you are massively mistaken. There is factual evidence to the contrary, so frankly can't understand why you're arguing it.

 

Might not be about you, but you seem to make it all about individuals, saying you are better than someone, saying they are racist. Don’t worry, you might have to downgrade to a Bentley at some point.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or maybe you're just not very good at it?

Or maybe money isn't the primary motivation? Odd concept for you I know. You obviously didn't watch the video either if that's your response because if you did you'd realise it has nothing to do with being "good."

Might not be about you, but you seem to make it all about individuals, saying you are better than someone, saying they are racist. Don’t worry, you might have to downgrade to a Bentley at some point.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I thought the issue was I wasn't making it about individuals, as I said 52% of the population voted Brexit because they're racist?

 

Make up your mind.

Or maybe money isn't the primary motivation? Odd concept for you I know. You obviously didn't watch the video either if that's your response because if you did you'd realise it has nothing to do with being "good."

 

I didn't say money was the primary motivation, but you can still run a large, successful and highly rated nursery without money being the primary motivator. You just have to have the drive to do it.

 

Of course I didn't watch the video. As I said to you, I don't care about what you say or do.

I didn't say money was the primary motivation, but you can still run a large, successful and highly rated nursery without money being the primary motivator. You just have to have the drive to do it.

 

Of course I didn't watch the video. As I said to you, I don't care about what you say or do.

You obviously know very little about nurseries, probably best to stick to discussing subjects you know something about. Nurseries around the country are closing at an unprecedented rate, it will become a crisis in the next couple of years unless something changes. Maybe your views are just too London centric - although if you asked the London early years foundation you'd get a similar response. Really odd that you claim not to care about anything to do with me yet you brought up my business and continue to discuss it in detail with no actual knowledge about it at all.

You obviously know very little about nurseries, probably best to stick to discussing subjects you know something about. Nurseries around the country are closing at an unprecedented rate, it will become a crisis in the next couple of years unless something changes. Maybe your views are just too London centric - although if you asked the London early years foundation you'd get a similar response. Really odd that you claim not to care about anything to do with me yet you brought up my business and continue to discuss it in detail with no actual knowledge about it at all.

Why are they closing?

Why are they closing?

 

Everyone is poorer

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone is poorer

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

True story.

Why are they closing?

Because whilst running costs and wages continue to climb, what the government gives to nurseries for each child has gone down and it won't be changing for another couple of years at least. The arbitrary offering of 30 hours "free" childcare was a campaign promise by the tories purely to counter a promise from labour who offered 20 but it wasn't properly thought through or costed and nurseries now receive less per child whilst paying business rates, wages, resources, bills etc etc. Add to that the pressures from Ofsted, the stresses of dealing with certain parents, child safeguarding issues (in many cases nursery workers are acting as social workers due to the real social workers having too many cases to deal with) and it's no surprise that groups are closing.

 

What the government should have done if they wanted to help parents is either properly funded things or heavily subsidised childcare whilst allowing nurseries to charge a small top up to make up the funding shortfall. This would have dramatically reduced childcare costs whilst allowing nurseries to make up the big gap in their funding that suddenly developed but inexplicably they failed to do so.

 

This explains it quite well:

 

Edited 23 September, 2018 by hypochondriac

Because whilst running costs and wages continue to climb, what the government gives to nurseries for each child has gone down and it won't be changing for another couple of years at least. The arbitrary offering of 30 hours "free" childcare was a campaign promise by the tories purely to counter a promise from labour who offered 20 but it wasn't properly thought through or costed and nurseries now receive less per child whilst paying business rates, wages, resources, bills etc etc.

 

What the government should have done if they wanted to help parents is either properly funded things or heavily subsidised childcare whilst allowing nurseries to charge a small top up to make up the funding shortfall. This would have dramatically reduced childcare costs whilst allowing nurseries to make up the big gap in their funding that suddenly developed but inexplicably they failed to do so.

 

This explains it quite well:

 

 

On paper, sounds like jezza would be a plus for your sector.

Edited 23 September, 2018 by shurlock

On paper, sounds like jezza would be a plus for your sector.

Sadly not. Labour will be increasing the amount of "free" childcare they offer should they get into power which will exacerbate the problem, not a chance will they allow nurseries to charge any sort of top up considering that they view business owners as evil heartless monsters and employees as saintly and virtuous.

Sadly not. Labour will be increasing the amount of "free" childcare they offer should they get into power which will exacerbate the problem, not a chance will they allow nurseries to charge any sort of top up considering that they view business owners as evil heartless monsters and employees as saintly and virtuous.

 

Labour might address the social care crisis. At least they acknowledge it is an issue unlike these current clowns. Not even acknowledging their own lobbying from the Tory shire councils. So many Local Authorities going bust and going to get worse after next spending review.

The likes of Rees-Mogg will say it is all going on back office waste and diversity training. society getting greedier it seems and wants to mirror the US in approach to not paying taxes.

 

I would pay more taxes but even happier if all these off shore/online cnts would pay their way.

Btw friend in HMRC says similar issues in shedding roles, ineffective reorgs that demoralise staff even in areas that are going after Google etc. Same staff could triple salaries working for PWC etc.

Quite depressing really as austerity more an ideology than genuinely helping the economy. Although hopefully enough people will wake up when they are personally impacted by the crp services now on offer. I feel for anyone who has to attempt to get something from say special educational needs now.

Can i ask a quick question.

 

This second referendum Labour want, Voting for deal. What's the point, the EU could (will) turn round and say No.

 

Confusing.

Can i ask a quick question.

 

This second referendum Labour want, Voting for deal. What's the point, the EU could (will) turn round and say No.

 

Confusing.

 

This is just domestic politics from Labour. Jezza doesn't want a second referendum but he's happy to put aside his famous "principled" approach if he can engineer a general election. He thinks this will be a vote winner.

 

Labour's position on Europe is less clear and no more achievable than the Tories'. At least you know where you stand with the various factions of the Tory party. Labour's position is "we don't want THE custom's union, we want A custom's union. We don't want to BE IN the single market, we want ACCESS to the single market". Without nailing their colours to a Norway model then they are essentially just going for the cherry-picking approach that the EU has soundly rejected but in a more mealy-mouthed way.

Can i ask a quick question.

 

This second referendum Labour want, Voting for deal. What's the point, the EU could (will) turn round and say No.

 

Confusing.

 

I guess in theory the Brexit date could be pushed back to allow for a second referendum and the EU might favour it because there is probably a decent chance of a remain win second time around.

I guess in theory the Brexit date could be pushed back to allow for a second referendum and the EU might favour it because there is probably a decent chance of a remain win second time around.

 

They are not tabling for a remain vote thou.

They are not tabling for a remain vote thou.

 

That's right, and I still think it is highly unlikely to happen. It might come to down to whether May and the ERG's differences are so far apart that they'd rather risk PM Corbyn. Although can't see him getting on overall majority, even with the crazy state of politics today. Some of the stuff McDonnell is coming out with is nuts, and could unite the Tories, but I think Boris is too far right even for the Tories now, JRM who knows, for that to realistically happen.

 

If she can't get it through Parliament, that could trigger an election and yet more instability. It was being hinted at in the papers but very risky.

This is just domestic politics from Labour. Jezza doesn't want a second referendum but he's happy to put aside his famous "principled" approach if he can engineer a general election. He thinks this will be a vote winner.

 

Labour's position on Europe is less clear and no more achievable than the Tories'. At least you know where you stand with the various factions of the Tory party. Labour's position is "we don't want THE custom's union, we want A custom's union. We don't want to BE IN the single market, we want ACCESS to the single market". Without nailing their colours to a Norway model then they are essentially just going for the cherry-picking approach that the EU has soundly rejected but in a more mealy-mouthed way.

 

Jezza gave up his “principled approach” to Europe when he became leader. Had he not been so he’d have supported Leave, as he has done all his political life. It’s the one issue that was a threat to his leadership as most of the membership are Euro nutters, hell bent on stopping us leaving. I doubt very much they’d be prepared to allow a Leaver to lead them.

 

Deep down I bet he’d rather we just got out, with May squeezing it through and him voting against. That way he won’t take a political hit and his lifelong ambition of getting out will be fulfilled. Of course they’re all getting a hard on about forcing a GE, but they’ll be fighting it on the Tories terms. If the deal can’t get through the commons because of Labour votes and the Federalist nutters like Soubry, Clarke & Grieve, it’ll be framed as a one issue snap election. The one issue it’ll be fought on is the one issue that labour voters will hold their nose and vote Tory for. As for the soubry type tories, are they really going to vote for Jezza. What’s going to do more damage to the economy ( in their eyes) Jezza or Brexit. And here’s the thing, Jezza won’t fight the election on staying in, but giving us another vote . Tory Remainers who vote tactically may get Corbyn & still get Brexit.

 

May made a horrendous miscalculation when she called a GE and Corbyn will be making one if he thinks now is the best time. In most Tory/ Labour marginals it’ll be far better to be seen as the man who tried to stop us leaving ,than be seen as the man who is standing in the way of us leaving. In one scenario there’s a point to voting Tory, in the other there isn’t, as we’re already out.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 24 September, 2018 by Lord Duckhunter

but I think Boris is too far right even for the Tories now, JRM who knows, for that to realistically happen.

 

Maybe for the faux Tory pinko MP’s, but both would absolutely walk it with the membership. If one of those got to the final 2 it would be a landslide in their favour.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe for the faux Tory pinko MP’s, but both would absolutely walk it with the membership. If one of those got to the final 2 it would be a landslide in their favour.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Either of those as Tory leader in a GE would be Corbyn's best chance of getting elected

Either of those as Tory leader in a GE would be Corbyn's best chance of getting elected

I disagree. The last tory election campaign was the worst in my living memory and she still managed to beat corbyn.

Either of those as Tory leader in a GE would be Corbyn's best chance of getting elected

 

enhance his chances from none to slim?

Either of those as Tory leader in a GE would be Corbyn's best chance of getting elected

 

Agree. Corbyn v Boris or Rees Mogg, with the Lib Dem corpse ****ed in between as an alternative. What a mess.

Maybe for the faux Tory pinko MP’s, but both would absolutely walk it with the membership. If one of those got to the final 2 it would be a landslide in their favour.

 

T would never get to the membership. The MPs would ensure their preferred candidate and a no hoper were the final two

T would never get to the membership. The MPs would ensure their preferred candidate and a no hoper were the final two

 

JRM probably wouldn’t even stand, he’d endorse another candidate for a half decent job. Boris would walk it, if he gets in the ballot, which is extremely doubtful. The point I was making was in response to the claim that Boris is too right wing . Firstly, nobody is too right wing for the membership and secondly he’s not right wing at all, he’s historically a pinko liberal Tory. Just because he’s supported Brexit people label him right wing. Him & Gove are nearer Soubry & Clarke on everything bar Brexit. Those 2 are certainly nearer politically to the pinkos than they are to the JRM, IDS & Redwood part of the party.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On paper, sounds like jezza would be a plus for your sector.

And as if by magic:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45642660

 

An absolutely insane idea which will exacerbate the problem and lead to further closure. He's a buffoon.

 

An absolutely insane idea which will exacerbate the problem and lead to further closure. He's a buffoon.

 

Parliament is full of them.

And as if by magic:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45642660

 

An absolutely insane idea which will exacerbate the problem and lead to further closure. He's a buffoon.

 

Even though it would keep many people in work and contributing to the economy?

Either of those as Tory leader in a GE would be Corbyn's best chance of getting elected

 

strange.

 

Tory voters will never vote Corbyn or old McDonald into power.

 

A lot of labour voters voted for Brexit.

 

For me, its pretty much a dead cert that Boris or JRM would waltz a pre brexit GE in my book. Followed by a labour split. Also, as has been said... even after the last GE we still have Tories.

.. even after the last GE we still have Tories.

 

And the upcoming boundary changes almost all work in the Tories' favour.

And the upcoming boundary changes almost all work in the Tories' favour.

 

Is that because it currently favours a different party?

So, if Jezza can force a general election of further referendum and find the time (around sorting out Palestine) to whip together a manifesto / plan, it's looking like he would be promoting a referendum with 3 options:

 

- A) remain (depends on EU allowing us to revoke our notice, but let's assume it's doable);

 

- B) leave with whatever deal is on the table;

 

- C) leave with no deal.

 

So what on earth are the rules going to be?

 

What happens if the result is:

 

A - 40%

B - 30%

C - 30%

 

?

Is that because it currently favours a different party?

Possibly, but if so then it is probably balanced out by the media bias.

Edited 25 September, 2018 by badgerx16

So, if Jezza can force a general election of further referendum and find the time (around sorting out Palestine) to whip together a manifesto / plan, it's looking like he would be promoting a referendum with 3 options:

 

- A) remain (depends on EU allowing us to revoke our notice, but let's assume it's doable);

 

- B) leave with whatever deal is on the table;

 

- C) leave with no deal.

 

So what on earth are the rules going to be?

 

What happens if the result is:

 

A - 40%

B - 30%

C - 30%

 

?

 

That would be leave with whoever had slightly more in B or C.

So, if Jezza can force a general election of further referendum and find the time (around sorting out Palestine) to whip together a manifesto / plan, it's looking like he would be promoting a referendum with 3 options:

 

- A) remain (depends on EU allowing us to revoke our notice, but let's assume it's doable);

 

- B) leave with whatever deal is on the table;

 

- C) leave with no deal.

 

So what on earth are the rules going to be?

 

What happens if the result is:

 

A - 40%

B - 30%

C - 30%

 

They’re all over the place. Yesterday John Mac and Red Len said remain shouldn’t be on the ballot, today Sir Kier said “nobody is ruling out Remain as an option on the ballot”.

 

Laughably there was some Remain chump on the BBC suggesting we have a Leave or Remain vote, and if it’s Leave , a further vote on deal or no deal. There was me thinking we’d had the first part of that already.

 

Abbott then did one of her “special” interviews on Newsnight to clarify.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Possibly, but if so then it is probably balanced out by the media bias.

 

LoL

They’re all over the place. Yesterday John Mac and Red Len said remain shouldn’t be on the ballot, today Sir Kier said “nobody is ruling out Remain as an option on the ballot”.

 

Laughably there was some Remain chump on the BBC suggesting we have a Leave or Remain vote, and if it’s Leave , a further vote on deal or no deal. There was me thinking we’d had the first part of that already.

 

Abbott then did one of her “special” interviews on Newsnight to clarify.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Kier's taking a run at the Leadership I bet.

 

Amazing how Labour can turn any victory, no matter how big or how small, into a loss.

Kier's taking a run at the Leadership I bet.

 

Amazing how Labour can turn any victory, no matter how big or how small, into a loss.

 

He's a terrible public speaker but a surprisingly effective operator in the shark pool of the Corbyn clique. Until he gets deselected, no doubt.

 

But as for grasping defeat from victory, you could put a reclaimed brick into the leadership and it'll be an improvement on St Jezza.

 

Labour is still polling behind the Tories in the majority of recent opinion polls. That's behind the most incompetent, poisonous, anti-business, anti-anything Conservative government in modern history.

 

Labour should be at least 20 points ahead on a bad day, but the cult will never see it - or they'll resort to their usual 'the media done us in' bleating.

He's a terrible public speaker but a surprisingly effective operator in the shark pool of the Corbyn clique. Until he gets deselected, no doubt.

 

But as for grasping defeat from victory, you could put a reclaimed brick into the leadership and it'll be an improvement on St Jezza.

 

Labour is still polling behind the Tories in the majority of recent opinion polls. That's behind the most incompetent, poisonous, anti-business, anti-anything Conservative government in modern history.

 

Labour should be at least 20 points ahead on a bad day, but the cult will never see it - or they'll resort to their usual 'the media done us in' bleating.

 

Yeah, that's all very interesting, but what about Palestine? Focus on the real issues FFS.

So now, according to May, no deal is better than a Canada-style agreement.

 

She’s right in the narrow sense that a Canada-style deal is the definition of a bad deal. But talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Even the jihadists in all their ignorant, scorched-earth glory can’t make this up.

Edited 26 September, 2018 by shurlock

So now, according to May, no deal is better than a Canada-style agreement.

 

She’s right in the narrow sense that a Canada-style deal is the definition of a bad deal. But talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Even the jihadists in all their ignorant, scorched-earth glory can’t make this up.

 

The only problem with the Canada deal is the Irish problem - otherwise we'd go for that - surely??

The only problem with the Canada deal is the Irish problem - otherwise we'd go for that - surely??

 

And the need for border checks at Dover, Harwich, Portsmouth etc on all transport.

The only problem with the Canada deal is the Irish problem - otherwise we'd go for that - surely??

 

Yeh if you think nontariff barriers are irrelevant to international trade.

The only problem with the Canada deal is the Irish problem - otherwise we'd go for that - surely??

 

She’s either deluded, or the Salzburg thing was just all choreographed as part of a fix. Personally, my money is on the former. Frasier Nelson reckons Chequers will become a similar deal to Canada but May won’t admit it, she’ll still be running around shouting her “ nothing has changed”. mantra. More likely is the political declaration will be a massive fudge, a blind Brexit I believe is the term, then the fun will really begin.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ireland, where US corporate tax dodgers are welcome. Without them and the EU money the Irish used to get, the economy will revert to growing potatoes. No wonder they don't want the UK to leave. They will have to pay more into the EU....

Thanks to Trump, the Irish are going to have to wave goodbye to the billions they have been stealing from the US government. While the international diplomats at the UN continued to abuse the hospitality and largess of the US and laughed at the countries President, a report by the by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was published. Ed Conway picked up on the story and it is reported in the Times this morning, here.

In it he reports:

 

In a report by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is a chart that shows how much money US companies earn on their investments abroad. You might expect the list to be dominated by China, Japan and Germany which are, after all, the next biggest economies in the world, comprising a hefty chunk of US investment and sales. But no: accounting for more American investment income than all three combined is Ireland. Together with the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the Bahamas and Switzerland, Ireland is comfortably the most important source of US overseas investment income.

Corporate tax avoidance, whereby multinationals shift profits around the world to minimise their tax bills, has become the norm. It has contributed to the flow of money into shareholders’ pockets and away from workers, exacerbated austerity as governments struggle to balance their budgets, dramatically reduced the cost of goods, and distorted our picture of the economy. It has taken much tireless work by obscure academics (that fact about Ireland was discovered by Brad Setser, an economist at the US Council on Foreign Relations) to piece together a picture of how multinationals minimise their tax bills.

 

The man who solved this huge problem is, gulp, none other than Donald Trump?

 

The important thing to remember here is that the story of multinational tax avoidance is fundamentally a story about the US tax code. For decades, America’s tax rules made it deeply unattractive for US businesses to bring their profits home, especially if those profits came from intangible things like brands or intellectual property. Much of what was described as tax avoidance was simply American businesses deferring their tax bills until a more sensible regime came into place. And that’s what happened last year. President Trump did what all his predecessors since Reagan failed to do: he rewrote the US tax code.

Attention has been focused on tax cuts for the rich and a cut in the headline federal corporate tax rate from 35 per cent to 21 per cent, so most observers missed the most interesting bit: an overhaul of global tax. Out went the longstanding rules imposing US tax rates on all international profits and in came a scheme designed to encourage companies to bring those profits back to the US. The upshot is that much of the cash sitting offshore in Luxembourg, Ireland and elsewhere is now finding its way back to the homeland. This is at least part of the reason why the US stock market is booming at the moment. Over the past 12 months companies have returned more than a trillion dollars to their shareholders, smashing all known records. And there’s more. Under the new tax rules, any American company with a global tax rate below 13.1 per cent will have to pay the difference up to that level to the US government. In a few years the rate will rise to 16.4 per cent.

 

I think the water is going to be a bit choppy for the Irish over the next few years. They'd better start being nice to the UK over Brexit, because they can't rely on their fair weather friends in the EU. Ask Greece.

 

So much for leprechaun economics.

JJ- did you write Jeremy Cûnt’s conference speech? Asking for a friend.

Edited 2 October, 2018 by shurlock

Im so tired of this. All of it. Has nobody else had enough yet?

 

Pretty much every global manufacturer with a UK footprint saying that it will lead to production issues.

Politically, we’ve seen crazy claims on both sides, which have taken a decidedly rabid turn in recent days.

We’re no closer to a deal of any sort, and the EU just want the whole thing over with.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-guy-verhofstadt-tory-conference-european-parliament-eu-a8564401.html

 

It’s all just horrible.