itsonlyme wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
I also don't see why you think rental costs will go down? If food and other products increase the person renting the property will want to maintain their lifestyle. To do this they will increase the rental costs to compensate to balance their income.

That's probably because the obvious thing escapes you, people leaving the country because of Brexit and/or the cost of living combined with hopefully a dramatic decrease in the number of people actually coming to live here, it's the same in many cities across Europe that people simply flock to them making them unaffordable. What your talking about really has little to do with that.

People do not buy properties in central London to rent. They are bought as investments on the assumption they will gain value in the future. The rental income is nice sprinkles on the top to cover costs. But the vast majority of money from central London property market comes from buying, waiting and selling after the value has increased.

The value of property can only go so high before it crashes, combine this with the uncertainty of Brexit and we might well see people actually selling those properties so the demand goes down and people can actually afford to buy. The situation we have in the housing market is terrible with so many people only being able to afford to rent a room.

 r_squared wrote:

 itsonlyme wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

People do not buy properties in central London to rent. They are bought as investments on the assumption they will gain value in the future. The rental income is nice sprinkles on the top to cover costs. But the vast majority of money from central London property market comes from buying, waiting and selling after the value has increased.

The value of property can only go so high before it crashes, combine this with the uncertainty of Brexit and we might well see people actually selling those properties so the demand goes down and people can actually afford to buy. The situation we have in the housing market is terrible with so many people only being able to afford to rent a room.

This article might be of interest to you...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/huge-spike-in-chinese-property-investors-interest-in-the-uk-post/

Prices won't be crashing anytime soon, at least in London. I watched an interesting documentary about a year ago which investigated the reasons for London's hyper-inflated property market, and it found that Chinese investment is the engine. In Hong Kong prices are astonishingly high, making London look like a bargain in comparison. There's a long way to go before the HK Chinese tap out, which means more empty developments being built and sold as investments keeping demand, and therefore prices, high.

 itsonlyme wrote:
That's probably because the obvious thing escapes you, people leaving the country because of Brexit and/or the cost of living combined with hopefully a dramatic decrease in the number of people actually coming to live here, it's the same in many cities across Europe that people simply flock to them making them unaffordable. What your talking about really has little to do with that.

The value of property can only go so high before it crashes, combine this with the uncertainty of Brexit and we might well see people actually selling those properties so the demand goes down and people can actually afford to buy. The situation we have in the housing market is terrible with so many people only being able to afford to rent a room.

If you think the EU multiculturalism experiment was a success, enlighten me.

You know what I see, housing prices through the roof, areas that segregate themselves, laughable wages

dragged into a global government that make bad decision after bad decision

We have terrorists attacks fuelling racing hatred and a media that plays boths sides against another.

We have people who feel its acceptable to run round labelling anyone who doesn't agree with the globalist dream bigoted, racist, xenophobic at every corner.

 r_squared wrote:
I can assure you that the RAF is involved in far more than the limited range of activities you describe.
I also doubt very much that any savings could be achieved by extending the FAA and the AAC to take on the full range of responsibilities. The roles would still be there, however all would find themselves under the command of personnel who's tactical focus is elsewhere.
I have worked alongside Air force, Army, Naval and Marine personnel from the UK and from many other nations, I can assure you that their outlooks and methodologies are very different, necessarily so. All are able to work alongside each other very well, however, all are very different.
An Air arm of the army would not be air power focused, it would be ground support focused. That is an essential part of what the RAF does, but by no means the be all and end all. The Navy regard air power as a fringe benefit, particularly as we haven't actually had an effective FAA for a number of years.
The RAF is a very valid, professional force, and will be around for quite a few years to come. In fact, considering recent developments, it's quite likely that air defence of our assets will become increasingly more likely and the RAF will likely be needed repeatedly yet again for the forsee able future.

Besides, I think this subject is rather more suitable for its own thread, I'm not particularly interested in starting one myself though tbh.

Policy and lobbying
Research & statistics
International student statistics
International students in UK HE
Student visa statistics
Statistics on UK students abroad
Research on international students
Infographic on student mobility trends
UKCISA Grants Scheme 2016-17
UKCISA Grants Scheme 2015-16
Completed projects
International student statistics: UK higher education

These pages have been updated using the Higher Education Statistics Agency [^] (HESA) First Statistical Release 224 and the HESA publication Students in Higher Education 14/15.

For initial assessment of the data see:
UKCISA news item on HESA First Stats 2014-15
Times Higher Education [^]
PIE News [^] (quoting UKCISA Chief Executive, Dominic Scott)

Last modified: 30 March 2016
International (non-UK) students in UK HE in 2014-15
International students in UK HE by domicile, level and mode,
European Union (EU) (excluding UK) and non-EU, 2014-15
Higher Education qualifications obtained in 2014-15
International student numbers by UK nation and English regions 2014-15
Sex of international students 2014-15
Top Ten non-EU sending countries
Top EU sending countries
International student numbers by subject area 2014-15
Top 20 largest recruiters of international students 2014-15
Students studying wholly overseas for a UK qualification
Level and location of study of students studying wholly overseas 2014-15 (top 10 countries)
Data below was updated in 2016 from the Higher Education Statistics Agency [^] (HESA) First Statistical Release and the publication Students in Higher Education 2014-15.

Note: totals differ in the tables below due to rounding within the HESA data.

International (non-UK) students in UK HE in 2014-15

There are 436,585 students from outside the UK coming to study in the UK.
The number of Chinese students far exceeds any other nationality at 89,540.
Indian students are the next largest cohort with 18,320 although this represents a continuing drop from the previous year and the year before.
University College London (now including the Institute of Education) hosted the largest number of international (EU and non-EU) students in the UK with a total of 20,745.
Business and administrative studies have the largest proportion of international students (38.4% of students in this subject are international) with Engineering and technology second (33.1%) and Law third (26.3%).
There is no significant difference in the sex of non-UK students coming to the UK with 51% female and 49% male.
International students in UK HE by domicile, level and mode,
European Union (EU) (excluding UK) and non-EU, 2014-15

Level of Study/Domicile Full-time Part-time Total
EU students (non-UK domicile) in HE
Higher degree (research) 11,580 2,705 14,280
Higher degree (taught) 22,130 5,515 27,640
Postgraduate other 1,790 2,520 4,305
First degree 71,190 2,270 73,465
Other undergraduate 1,235 3,645 4,885
Total non-UK EU 107,925 16,655 124,575
Non-EU students in HE
Higher degree (research) 29,565 2,850 32,415
Higher degree (taught) 108,875 10,285 119,160
Postgraduate other 3,145 3,570 6,690
First degree 135,695 3,625 139,320
Other undergraduate 6,750 7,670 14,425
Total non-EU 284,010 28,000 312,010
All non-UK domicile in HE
Higher degree (research) 41,145 5,550 46,695
Higher degree (taught) 131,000 15,800 146,800
Postgraduate other 4,905 6,090 10,995
First degree 206,890 5,895 212,785
Other undergraduate 7,990 11,320 19,305
Total non-UK 391,935 44,655 436,585

well that's the entirety of our Higher Educational sector fethed then & we'll piss off the Chinese too.

On the plus side it'll mean all those poor people can stop getting ideas above their stations and stick to fruit picking and so forth.

 reds8n wrote:


One would suggest we should invest more in science -- biology especially perhaps

http://thetab.com/uk/2016/10/20/spoke-anti-tampon-tax-guy-told-women-just-hold-bladder-23156

 reds8n wrote:
I'm be quite impressed if a political party made a pledge so that 1 "generation" -- if you follow -- of pupils could actually complete 100% of their syllabus without a swift course change XX% of the way through ...

.. one can dream...


One would suggest we should invest more in science -- biology especially perhaps


http://thetab.com/uk/2016/10/20/spoke-anti-tampon-tax-guy-told-women-just-hold-bladder-23156

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
I'm be quite impressed if a political party made a pledge so that 1 "generation" -- if you follow -- of pupils could actually complete 100% of their syllabus without a swift course change XX% of the way through ...

.. one can dream...


One would suggest we should invest more in science -- biology especially perhaps


http://thetab.com/uk/2016/10/20/spoke-anti-tampon-tax-guy-told-women-just-hold-bladder-23156

When it comes to strategic defense reviews, i.e the future of the British Military for the next 50 years, there's a lot of cross-party consensus there, and I don't remember new governments changing much of the previous government.

If they can do it for defence, why not education? That's the tragedy, here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
CETA won't fail. The Belgians will be squared somehow. Too much is at stake for the EU to drop it now.

It is ironic, though, that we are simultaneously criticising the EU for being too democratic and for being too undemocratic.

A major Lincolnshire employer has announced it is moving its headquarters to Europe as a direct result of the Brexit vote in June.

Anxiety over the cost of a hard Brexit, which would see the UK drifting away from cooperation with the rest of the EU, has compelled Smiffys to open a new headquarters in the Netherlands.

Elliott Peckett, director of Smiffys, said 40 per cent of the company sales go to the European Union, its largest trading partner, and he needs to be prudent.

Mr Peckett told The Independent: “The Government proclaim that they want to encourage Britain to export, but pursuing this hard Brexit approach has simply pulled the chair from beneath us and left us dangling. The simple answer is that we cannot afford to wait.

“During that time [the negotiating process], not only will Smiffys have lost valuable EU sales due to this uncertainty, as we are already experiencing, but we will have lost the opportunity to have acted to protect what are vital sales to our company.

“Moreover, the fact that the pound is now at a 168-year record low against the dollar, according to the Bank of England, sums up the outlook for the UK economy under the approach that the Government are taking on Brexit.”

The company, a costume and fancy dress supplier which employs 250 people across its two sites in Gainsborough and Leeds, has been based in the UK for more than 120 years.

Mr Peckett said: “Smiffys have no choice but to protect our business by moving our headquarters to the EU. This will allow us to continue growing our trade to the EU, from within the single market."

Prior to joining the single market, Smiffys exported only a tiny fraction of their current sales to the EU.

“Both Smiffys and its European customers were then faced with bureaucratic and administrative barriers, not to mention the costly import duties that our products attracted, making us uncompetitive,” Mr Peckett explained.

“Going back to these times would feel like a step back in time and a lost opportunity to freely access a trading bloc of over 500 million people,” he added.

Another concern for the company is the uncertainty surrounding its workforce as it employs over a dozen European staff.

“All we have heard from the Government is that it is highly unlikely that they will be allowed to stay and work for us. If this is the case, this will remove Smiffys’ ability to communicate as well as we currently do with our EU customers,” Mr Peckett said.

Smiffys’ announcement comes as banks and financial firms warned they could start making decisions to move assets out of the UK as early as 2017 if there is no deal in place to maintain their rights to sell services freely across the EU.

Open Europe, which took a neutral stance on the referendum, warned that losing access to the single market could cost banks in the UK as much as £27bn, or a fifth of their annual revenue.

On Thursday, Nicolas Mackel, the head of financial development for Luxembourg, said a string of overseas banks and fund managers had explored moving London staff to the tiny country since the Brexit vote.

The Government is reportedly considering making future payments to the EU to secure privileged access to the single market for City firms to continue trading across the continent

Another concern for the company is the uncertainty surrounding its workforce as it employs over a dozen European staff.

“All we have heard from the Government is that it is highly unlikely that they will be allowed to stay and work for us. If this is the case, this will remove Smiffys’ ability to communicate as well as we currently do with our EU customers,” Mr Peckett said.

Britain’s public finances suffered a shock setback in September after a collapse in corporation tax receipts to the lowest level since 2009 widened the budget deficit to £10.6bn.

A slowdown in the growth of VAT receipts was also blamed for pushing the deficit £1.3bn, or 14.5%, higher than September last year and higher than the £10.5bn recorded in August.

City analysts, who had expected an £8.5bn shortfall, warned that the figures were a setback for Philip Hammond as he prepares to boost public spending in his autumn statement next month. The chancellor is seeking ways to boost growth next year to cushion the economy against a widely expected slowdown following the Brexit vote.

In recent months he has sent conflicting signals about the likely size and scope of extra spending to compensate for the uncertainty surrounding the Brexit negotiations and forecasts of growth for next year that have halved from around 2.2% to nearer 1%.

Immediately after the vote he ripped up George Osborne’s fiscal rule of achieving a budget surplus by the end of the parliament, and talked about the need for extra spending to create jobs and improve the country’s infrastructure.

But he has sought to dampen expectations by emphasising that he is constrained by volatile international money markets, which could drive up the government’s borrowing costs if he is seen to be reckless.

The weak September figures took the budget deficit to £45bn for the first six months of the year, down nearly 5% from the same period in 2015.The Office for National Statistics said it could not offer a reason for the dive in corporation tax receipts.

Paul Hollingsworth, UK economist at Capital Economics, said if the public finances continued on the current trend, then borrowing would overshoot the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) forecast of £55.5bn for the financial year by about £17bn.

He said: “Even before the vote to leave the EU, the OBR’s fiscal forecasts were looking optimistic. But the weaker economic prospects over the next few years as a result means that these forecasts are likely to be revised substantially in the autumn statement next month.”

Government expenditure since April has been kept in check, rising by £5.9bn or 1.7%, to £348.7bn while tax receipts from the biggest sources of income – income tax and national insurance – increased at a faster pace. National insurance was 7% higher at £59.3bn and income tax rose 2.7% to £78.7bn.

These improvements were undermined when the usually strong September corporation tax receipts proved much weaker, limiting the tax take to £21bn in the first half of the year. The interest bill on the government’s debts caused another headache for the Treasury after it increased by £800m, or 9%.

The OBR said the rise in debt interest payments and a change in the monthly profile of contributions to the EU budget opened up a gap between central government expenditure and income to 4.5% from the first six months last year.

Suren Thiru, head of economics at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the rise in government borrowing underscored the weakness of the UK economy.

“The UK’s ability to generate tax revenue has diminished following the financial crisis, and this underlying weakness is likely to be exacerbated further if the UK economy slows as we predict,” he said, adding it was vital the chancellor offered incentives to “invest, create jobs, and support growth”.

Hammond said: “We have already made significant progress in bringing the public finances under control, reducing the deficit by almost two-thirds since 2010, but our debt and deficit remain too high. We remain committed to fiscal discipline and will return the budget to balance over a sensible period of time, in a way that allows us the space to support the economy as needed.”

 Kilkrazy wrote:
CETA won't fail. The Belgians will be squared somehow. Too much is at stake for the EU to drop it now.

It is ironic, though, that we are simultaneously criticising the EU for being too democratic and for being too undemocratic.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-smiffys-business-moves-leaves-uk-europe-hq-exodus-a7371956.html

A major Lincolnshire employer has announced it is moving its headquarters to Europe as a direct result of the Brexit vote in June.

Anxiety over the cost of a hard Brexit, which would see the UK drifting away from cooperation with the rest of the EU, has compelled Smiffys to open a new headquarters in the Netherlands.

Elliott Peckett, director of Smiffys, said 40 per cent of the company sales go to the European Union, its largest trading partner, and he needs to be prudent.

Mr Peckett told The Independent: “The Government proclaim that they want to encourage Britain to export, but pursuing this hard Brexit approach has simply pulled the chair from beneath us and left us dangling. The simple answer is that we cannot afford to wait.

“During that time [the negotiating process], not only will Smiffys have lost valuable EU sales due to this uncertainty, as we are already experiencing, but we will have lost the opportunity to have acted to protect what are vital sales to our company.

“Moreover, the fact that the pound is now at a 168-year record low against the dollar, according to the Bank of England, sums up the outlook for the UK economy under the approach that the Government are taking on Brexit.”

The company, a costume and fancy dress supplier which employs 250 people across its two sites in Gainsborough and Leeds, has been based in the UK for more than 120 years.

Mr Peckett said: “Smiffys have no choice but to protect our business by moving our headquarters to the EU. This will allow us to continue growing our trade to the EU, from within the single market."

Prior to joining the single market, Smiffys exported only a tiny fraction of their current sales to the EU.

“Both Smiffys and its European customers were then faced with bureaucratic and administrative barriers, not to mention the costly import duties that our products attracted, making us uncompetitive,” Mr Peckett explained.

“Going back to these times would feel like a step back in time and a lost opportunity to freely access a trading bloc of over 500 million people,” he added.

Another concern for the company is the uncertainty surrounding its workforce as it employs over a dozen European staff.

“All we have heard from the Government is that it is highly unlikely that they will be allowed to stay and work for us. If this is the case, this will remove Smiffys’ ability to communicate as well as we currently do with our EU customers,” Mr Peckett said.

Smiffys’ announcement comes as banks and financial firms warned they could start making decisions to move assets out of the UK as early as 2017 if there is no deal in place to maintain their rights to sell services freely across the EU.

Open Europe, which took a neutral stance on the referendum, warned that losing access to the single market could cost banks in the UK as much as £27bn, or a fifth of their annual revenue.

On Thursday, Nicolas Mackel, the head of financial development for Luxembourg, said a string of overseas banks and fund managers had explored moving London staff to the tiny country since the Brexit vote.

The Government is reportedly considering making future payments to the EU to secure privileged access to the single market for City firms to continue trading across the continent

.. and so it begins...

Another concern for the company is the uncertainty surrounding its workforce as it employs over a dozen European staff.

“All we have heard from the Government is that it is highly unlikely that they will be allowed to stay and work for us. If this is the case, this will remove Smiffys’ ability to communicate as well as we currently do with our EU customers,” Mr Peckett said.

is the bit that really grinds my gears .... there's people/families in similar situations all over the country and being treated like this is disgraceful.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/21/public-deficit-10-bn-corporation-tax-receipts-philip-hammond-shock-into-slugs

Britain’s public finances suffered a shock setback in September after a collapse in corporation tax receipts to the lowest level since 2009 widened the budget deficit to £10.6bn.

A slowdown in the growth of VAT receipts was also blamed for pushing the deficit £1.3bn, or 14.5%, higher than September last year and higher than the £10.5bn recorded in August.

City analysts, who had expected an £8.5bn shortfall, warned that the figures were a setback for Philip Hammond as he prepares to boost public spending in his autumn statement next month. The chancellor is seeking ways to boost growth next year to cushion the economy against a widely expected slowdown following the Brexit vote.

In recent months he has sent conflicting signals about the likely size and scope of extra spending to compensate for the uncertainty surrounding the Brexit negotiations and forecasts of growth for next year that have halved from around 2.2% to nearer 1%.

Immediately after the vote he ripped up George Osborne’s fiscal rule of achieving a budget surplus by the end of the parliament, and talked about the need for extra spending to create jobs and improve the country’s infrastructure.

But he has sought to dampen expectations by emphasising that he is constrained by volatile international money markets, which could drive up the government’s borrowing costs if he is seen to be reckless.

The weak September figures took the budget deficit to £45bn for the first six months of the year, down nearly 5% from the same period in 2015.The Office for National Statistics said it could not offer a reason for the dive in corporation tax receipts.

Paul Hollingsworth, UK economist at Capital Economics, said if the public finances continued on the current trend, then borrowing would overshoot the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) forecast of £55.5bn for the financial year by about £17bn.

He said: “Even before the vote to leave the EU, the OBR’s fiscal forecasts were looking optimistic. But the weaker economic prospects over the next few years as a result means that these forecasts are likely to be revised substantially in the autumn statement next month.”

Government expenditure since April has been kept in check, rising by £5.9bn or 1.7%, to £348.7bn while tax receipts from the biggest sources of income – income tax and national insurance – increased at a faster pace. National insurance was 7% higher at £59.3bn and income tax rose 2.7% to £78.7bn.

These improvements were undermined when the usually strong September corporation tax receipts proved much weaker, limiting the tax take to £21bn in the first half of the year. The interest bill on the government’s debts caused another headache for the Treasury after it increased by £800m, or 9%.

The OBR said the rise in debt interest payments and a change in the monthly profile of contributions to the EU budget opened up a gap between central government expenditure and income to 4.5% from the first six months last year.

Suren Thiru, head of economics at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the rise in government borrowing underscored the weakness of the UK economy.

“The UK’s ability to generate tax revenue has diminished following the financial crisis, and this underlying weakness is likely to be exacerbated further if the UK economy slows as we predict,” he said, adding it was vital the chancellor offered incentives to “invest, create jobs, and support growth”.

Hammond said: “We have already made significant progress in bringing the public finances under control, reducing the deficit by almost two-thirds since 2010, but our debt and deficit remain too high. We remain committed to fiscal discipline and will return the budget to balance over a sensible period of time, in a way that allows us the space to support the economy as needed.”

..oh good.

Theresa May is fond of saying Brexit means Brexit. But for UKIP, Brexit could also mean bankruptcy – or at least a struggle to get by.
Concerns have been raised about the state of UKIP’s finances following the EU referendum, with major donors defecting to the Conservatives or threatening to form a new party now UKIP has achieved its main objective.
Now, to make matters worse, an analysis by BuzzFeed News shows just how much the party benefits from EU funding. Many support staff and a large proportion of the party’s most prominent individuals are reliant on the EU for their income, which will vanish in 2019 if the government sticks to its planned timetable for Brexit.
Collectively UKIP’s 22 MEPs can claim up to €6,072,000 (£5,400,000) a year from the European parliament to fund staff costs, with limited scrutiny of how it is spent.
Public records reveal that at least 76 different individuals are currently listed as employed by UKIP’s MEPs using European funds, all working on behalf of the party’s politicians.
There is no suggestion UKIP has broken the strict restrictions on using the funds for domestic political purposes and some of these simply are simply constituency case workers. However, the majority of these employees have some personal connection to UKIP and many have social media profiles showing their campaigning on behalf of the party.
Among the staff employed by UKIP MEPs are prominent UKIP volunteers, councillors, regional organisers, and parliamentary candidates who may find it harder to dedicate as much time to the party if they were forced to find another job.
UKIP’s 22 MEPs also benefit from EU-funded salaries worth €95,000 a year (£84,484) and expenses, enabling them the freedom to campaign for UKIP.




Nigel Farage congratulates short-lived leader Diane James at the party’s annual conference in September. Toby Melville / Reuters
“Many Eurosceptics, not only UKIP, are living off European funding,” said Daniel Freund, head of advocacy at the campaign group EU international. “Other than the very direct money that the MEPs themselves receive, there is the staff allowance, and there is also the political groups which employ staff used for communications.
“What is prohibited is that any of the EU money is channelled into national party politics. But let’s say it is a fine line that is difficult to really assess. If someone’s salary is paid out of the European pot then sometimes they don’t fulfil the bare minimum of work under their work contract. The EU has very little investigative power so they mainly rely on media reports and inquiries to point to these things.”
To make matters worse, UKIP does not currently pay its leader from party funds, since Nigel Farage and his predecessors have traditionally survived on their EU-funded MEP’s salaries and outside earnings – raising the question of how the party intends to pay its leaders in the future.
As a result, whoever wins the second UKIP leadership election of the year, will have to battle to raise funds from donors to cover both campaign costs and potentially their own salary.
UKIP’s media profile could also be hit by the loss of the EU jobs. Of the eight UKIP politicians who have appeared on BBC Question Time this year, six rely on European parliament funding for their main job by virtue of being MEPs or working for MEPs.
Meanwhile, the loss of EU funding will also see the party lose a number of policy and communications staff. Hermann Kelly, who is frequently referred to in the media as a “UKIP spokesperson”, is technically employed by the European parliament’s EFDD grouping.
The EFDD is nominally a pan-European political party, but in reality consists of UKIP, Italy’s Five Star Movement, and a handful of fringe candidates from other nations. The arrangement was criticised after some EFDD funding was used to finance a Farage speaking tour and for security costs at major events in the run-up to the EU referendum.
Earlier this week UKIP was forced to deny reports in the Telegraph that it had a £800,000 “black hole” in its finances and owed substantial sums of money. However, the party’s most recent accounts for 2015 reveal the party “had no financial reserves” and was “dependent upon contributions from donors” to meet ongoing costs, while the most recent Electoral Commission figures show the party owes £470,000 in loans.
The situation has reached the point where UKIP does not currently even have a press office.

The situation is made worse by the party’s struggle to establish itself in domestic politics. The only prominent UKIP politicians certain to continue to receive full-time salaries from politics after 2019 are the party’s only MP, Douglas Carswell; its two London assembly representatives; and seven members of the Welsh assembly, including Neil Hamilton.
Tim Aker, a UKIP MEP for the East of England, helps to fund at least four employees in the UK who also happen to be UKIP councillors. One of them, his spokesperson Jack Duffin, said that if May delivers Brexit by 2019, “I will no longer work for an MEP after happily voting for the sack.”
Some central office staff are now working part-time for these groups in order to keep costs down.
“We will have to cut out suit to suit our cloth. That is only right and proper,” admitted a UKIP spokesperson. “You’ve got to remember that while the MEP and EFDD funding has been useful in certain ways, it’s actually very, very restrictive. It is enormously useful if you want to produce trade pamphlets, not so useful if you want to go out campaigning.”
However, the spokesperson – who said they themselves had lost their own house as a result of quitting their EU job and taking a pay cut to work directly for the party during the referendum campaign – admitted UKIP faced serious financial challenges as a result of losing European funding.
“We are the turkeys that voted for Christmas,” they said. “How many jobs are going to be lost because of Brexit? Well, ours, for one. We were cutting our own throats.”
The spokesperson also suggested a future UKIP leader could try boost donations from wealthy donors by promising to keep up the pressure on May to deliver Brexit, but admitted there were doubts about how the next UKIP leader would be paid post-Brexit.
“That is a problem for the new party leader,” they said.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm trying hard not to rant here, but let them go.

I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing business bang on about uncertainty, as if the economy was the only thing that mattered to a nation's well being. There is this little thing called democracy...

But corporate interests have been trying to blackmail us for the last two years.

The tidal wave of corporate propaganda we've had since before and after the referendum is something to behold...

I remember business being against the minimum wage, maternity leave, pensions, and let's not forget their use of zero hour contracts.

I'm not anti-buisness, but if they had their way, we'd still be sending kids to work down the mines.

I mean, look at that spiv Phillip Green and the damage he did to BHS.

Rant over!

 reds8n wrote:
As long as one is realistic about things



meanwhile, proof that if God exists she does have a sense of humour at least

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/exchange-rate-blues?utm_term=.ifMQaae2pk&utm_content=bufferf04e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.uelo44ZkD5

Theresa May is fond of saying Brexit means Brexit. But for UKIP, Brexit could also mean bankruptcy – or at least a struggle to get by.
Concerns have been raised about the state of UKIP’s finances following the EU referendum, with major donors defecting to the Conservatives or threatening to form a new party now UKIP has achieved its main objective.
Now, to make matters worse, an analysis by BuzzFeed News shows just how much the party benefits from EU funding. Many support staff and a large proportion of the party’s most prominent individuals are reliant on the EU for their income, which will vanish in 2019 if the government sticks to its planned timetable for Brexit.
Collectively UKIP’s 22 MEPs can claim up to €6,072,000 (£5,400,000) a year from the European parliament to fund staff costs, with limited scrutiny of how it is spent.
Public records reveal that at least 76 different individuals are currently listed as employed by UKIP’s MEPs using European funds, all working on behalf of the party’s politicians.
There is no suggestion UKIP has broken the strict restrictions on using the funds for domestic political purposes and some of these simply are simply constituency case workers. However, the majority of these employees have some personal connection to UKIP and many have social media profiles showing their campaigning on behalf of the party.
Among the staff employed by UKIP MEPs are prominent UKIP volunteers, councillors, regional organisers, and parliamentary candidates who may find it harder to dedicate as much time to the party if they were forced to find another job.
UKIP’s 22 MEPs also benefit from EU-funded salaries worth €95,000 a year (£84,484) and expenses, enabling them the freedom to campaign for UKIP.




Nigel Farage congratulates short-lived leader Diane James at the party’s annual conference in September. Toby Melville / Reuters
“Many Eurosceptics, not only UKIP, are living off European funding,” said Daniel Freund, head of advocacy at the campaign group EU international. “Other than the very direct money that the MEPs themselves receive, there is the staff allowance, and there is also the political groups which employ staff used for communications.
“What is prohibited is that any of the EU money is channelled into national party politics. But let’s say it is a fine line that is difficult to really assess. If someone’s salary is paid out of the European pot then sometimes they don’t fulfil the bare minimum of work under their work contract. The EU has very little investigative power so they mainly rely on media reports and inquiries to point to these things.”
To make matters worse, UKIP does not currently pay its leader from party funds, since Nigel Farage and his predecessors have traditionally survived on their EU-funded MEP’s salaries and outside earnings – raising the question of how the party intends to pay its leaders in the future.
As a result, whoever wins the second UKIP leadership election of the year, will have to battle to raise funds from donors to cover both campaign costs and potentially their own salary.
UKIP’s media profile could also be hit by the loss of the EU jobs. Of the eight UKIP politicians who have appeared on BBC Question Time this year, six rely on European parliament funding for their main job by virtue of being MEPs or working for MEPs.
Meanwhile, the loss of EU funding will also see the party lose a number of policy and communications staff. Hermann Kelly, who is frequently referred to in the media as a “UKIP spokesperson”, is technically employed by the European parliament’s EFDD grouping.
The EFDD is nominally a pan-European political party, but in reality consists of UKIP, Italy’s Five Star Movement, and a handful of fringe candidates from other nations. The arrangement was criticised after some EFDD funding was used to finance a Farage speaking tour and for security costs at major events in the run-up to the EU referendum.
Earlier this week UKIP was forced to deny reports in the Telegraph that it had a £800,000 “black hole” in its finances and owed substantial sums of money. However, the party’s most recent accounts for 2015 reveal the party “had no financial reserves” and was “dependent upon contributions from donors” to meet ongoing costs, while the most recent Electoral Commission figures show the party owes £470,000 in loans.
The situation has reached the point where UKIP does not currently even have a press office.

The situation is made worse by the party’s struggle to establish itself in domestic politics. The only prominent UKIP politicians certain to continue to receive full-time salaries from politics after 2019 are the party’s only MP, Douglas Carswell; its two London assembly representatives; and seven members of the Welsh assembly, including Neil Hamilton.
Tim Aker, a UKIP MEP for the East of England, helps to fund at least four employees in the UK who also happen to be UKIP councillors. One of them, his spokesperson Jack Duffin, said that if May delivers Brexit by 2019, “I will no longer work for an MEP after happily voting for the sack.”
Some central office staff are now working part-time for these groups in order to keep costs down.
“We will have to cut out suit to suit our cloth. That is only right and proper,” admitted a UKIP spokesperson. “You’ve got to remember that while the MEP and EFDD funding has been useful in certain ways, it’s actually very, very restrictive. It is enormously useful if you want to produce trade pamphlets, not so useful if you want to go out campaigning.”
However, the spokesperson – who said they themselves had lost their own house as a result of quitting their EU job and taking a pay cut to work directly for the party during the referendum campaign – admitted UKIP faced serious financial challenges as a result of losing European funding.
“We are the turkeys that voted for Christmas,” they said. “How many jobs are going to be lost because of Brexit? Well, ours, for one. We were cutting our own throats.”
The spokesperson also suggested a future UKIP leader could try boost donations from wealthy donors by promising to keep up the pressure on May to deliver Brexit, but admitted there were doubts about how the next UKIP leader would be paid post-Brexit.
“That is a problem for the new party leader,” they said.

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm trying hard not to rant here, but let them go.

I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing business bang on about uncertainty, as if the economy was the only thing that mattered to a nation's well being. There is this little thing called democracy...

But corporate interests have been trying to blackmail us for the last two years.

The tidal wave of corporate propaganda we've had since before and after the referendum is something to behold...

I remember business being against the minimum wage, maternity leave, pensions, and let's not forget their use of zero hour contracts.

I'm not anti-buisness, but if they had their way, we'd still be sending kids to work down the mines.

I mean, look at that spiv Phillip Green and the damage he did to BHS.

Rant over!

Democracy isn't the only thing important in a country either, and many people prioritise being able to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads ahead of politics.
Weird I know, but there you go.

 r_squared wrote:
I listened to a very interesting piece on Radio 4 this morning, Two rooms.
About a month after the referendum they gathered leave and remain supporters from Brixton and Boston, the two areas with the highest leave or remain votes, and listened to them discuss issues separately.
It's well worth a listen to if you are remotely interested in the subject. It certainly gave me an understanding of the thinking of some of my fellow Bostonians that had been drowned our by all the ridiculous shouting and hyperbole that has been thrown around before and after.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07nrrg3

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So you're annoyed that businesses who said that leaving the single market would be damaging to their business are still saying the leaving the single market will be bad for their businesses?

Perhaps the reason that the vast majority of the business community was producing "propaganda" against the leave vote is because leaving will damage their businesses. That fact isn't going to go away just because people who voted to leave in the referendum don't like them saying it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

"The Belgians will be squared somehow!"

Understatement of the year!

I'm sure the rest of the EU will 'persuade' the Belgians to rethink their decision and make the 'correct' decision...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So you're annoyed that businesses who said that leaving the single market would be damaging to their business are still saying the leaving the single market will be bad for their businesses?

Perhaps the reason that the vast majority of the business community was producing "propaganda" against the leave vote is because leaving will damage their businesses. That fact isn't going to go away just because people who voted to leave in the referendum don't like them saying it.

In a democracy, business is entitled to its opinion like any other group or individual, but their opinion shouldn't carry extra weight, and I'd prefer it if they remained apolitical.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So you're annoyed that businesses who said that leaving the single market would be damaging to their business are still saying the leaving the single market will be bad for their businesses?

Perhaps the reason that the vast majority of the business community was producing "propaganda" against the leave vote is because leaving will damage their businesses. That fact isn't going to go away just because people who voted to leave in the referendum don't like them saying it.

In a democracy, business is entitled to its opinion like any other group or individual, but their opinion shouldn't carry extra weight, and I'd prefer it if they remained apolitical.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

"The Belgians will be squared somehow!"

Understatement of the year!

I'm sure the rest of the EU will 'persuade' the Belgians to rethink their decision and make the 'correct' decision...

Just a clarification; it's not "the Belgians" the EU needs to convince, but the Walloon Parlament who refused to vote the same as our federal government, that was in full agreement with CETA.

It's really a small part of Belgium, actually.