gdp's Comments

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Daniel Hannan: It's time to explode the myth of Trump and his unique appeal

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:17:54 +0000

Well said.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Daniel Hannan: It's time to explode the myth of Trump and his unique appeal

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:14:00 +0000

Dan, I'm with you on free trade as an objective. Even though Trump was brash and combative, he did have a point about US-China trade. There was asymmetric tariffs on US goods and pillaging of Intellectual Property. Plus, he does have a point about low incomes for the working classes. Wages have fallen from over 50% of GDP in the 1950's to ~42% now. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBE... Some elements of globalisation are good. But others such as unelected cabals taking big decisions because they think it will be good for us are not. I'm thinking of the UN on climate, the ridiculous UN HRC and so on.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Next Tory Leader. It's Johnson first, Raab second and Gove third in our first survey since May's ple

Sun, 31 Mar 2019 12:17:44 +0000

Ranil Jayawardena?

Conservative Home : Leave means Leave

Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:04:23 +0000

A vote to leave the EU, is a vote to leave the EU, nothing more and nothing less. I support #Brexit, and would also support leaving in a phased way, by moving to an EFTA/EEA arrangement as a transitional step to a more comprehensive bespoke deal. We would be out of the EU, but remain in the SIngle MArket and retain passporting rights for financial services companies. We would also have a unilateral emergency brake on immigration, through Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement*. The beauty of this solution is that it effectively spikes the guns of the Remain scaremongering. *See link: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=164

Conservative Home : Christopher Howarth: An analysis of the deal. In sum, there's little new and it's business as usual.

Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:48:00 +0000

The whole 're-negotiation' process illustrates perfectly the problem with the EU. MOnths of "sherpa" discussions and shuttle diplomacy from Cameron, followed by two solid days of 28 heads of Government meeting and negotiating to produce virtually nothing. EU leaders fiddling while the EU economy withers away. We are better than this. Most of the EU countries are better than this. BUt we should not be shackled to this economic corpse We need to leave the EU, reassert sovereignty and get on with free trade with the EU and Eurozone, and be free to enter enter into free-trade deals with the parts of the world that are growing.

Conservative Home : Straw, Rifkind, outside interests - and the law of unexpected consequences

Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:08:31 +0000

In my view it's not outside interests per se that people object to. For instance I have no problem with say a barrister continuing to practise or a business man (or woman) continuing to run the family firm. Who cares how much they get paid for that. The problem arises when they are seen to be using and abusing their position and power to take money to influence Government and policy making. It is this type of lobbying and grubby influence peddling that should be outlawed. And whilst we are about it, those who have financial interests in Parliamentary topics should not be allowed to vote on those items and be forbidden from sitting on those Parliamentarycommittees.

Conservative Home : WATCH: Hannan - Climate change decisions are for politicians, not scientists

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:43:23 +0000

Quite right. They understand very little of science and don't know how to respond or challenge.

Conservative Home : WATCH: Hannan - Climate change decisions are for politicians, not scientists

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:42:00 +0000

Even if the warmists are right - and there's precious little evidence the models on which the alarmism is based are anywhere near right, he is right to challenge the collective response which is frankly useless but very expensive.

Conservative Home : WATCH: Hannan - Climate change decisions are for politicians, not scientists

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:40:01 +0000

Dan, You are quite right. There is a false consensus on whether we are warming, and on whether that is mostly man made or not and on whether that is going to be catastrophic. But even if the warmists are right, then our energy and climate policies are completely bonkers. We have hamstrung our economy and are destroying lives and jobs by pursuing daft policies that push up our energy prices. And our, indeed, Europe's contribution to reduced CO2 emissions is negligible compared to non-OECD CO2 emissions growth. Better to spend small amounts adapting, rather than large amounts trying to pretend we ar esome sort of modern day Canute. See detailed emissions numbers here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/carbonbudget/2013/

Conservative Home : The worst fault of the Westminster elite is that it is not elitist enough

Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:50:54 +0000

A number of points: 1. There is precious little to choose between the main parties. So the elite has contrived to keep itself in power. 2. Too many spads with no real world experience and no affinity to the areas they stand for. 3. Too much power ceded to EU meaning we can't vote to change whatever they come up with. 4. Too many arms length relationships with quangos and not enough accountability to ministers and Parliament 5. Too much pandering to vacuous party lines and evasive answers to questions rather than properly addressing issues. 6. Supine media with precious little proper forensic questioning. This is what makes the elite corrupt and remot.

Platform [OLD] : FROM: @bernardjenkin

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:47:49 +0000

But in the case of the Lords, it was t "bring forward proposals", not a bill. On boundary review (the same bill as AV), the commitment was to bring forward a Bill. Clegg then oversaw the boundary review proposals and is not voting against his own proposals. #hypocrite

Platform [OLD] : FROM: @bernardjenkin

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:43:07 +0000

It seems strange for Clegg to oversee the boundary review proposals and then not vote for his own proposals.

Platform [OLD] : FROM: @bernardjenkin

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:39:51 +0000

This is just plain wrong. As the article says, the commitment in the coalition agreement was to hold a referendum on AV. It was duly held. Clegg lost. Get over it. Moreover, on Lords Reform, the commitment was merely to bring forward proposals. Such proposals were brought forward (commitment honoured) and most people dis-liked them so they weren't pursued. Again, get over it. There was a specific commitment to boundary change which Clegg is now reneging on, despite overseeing the proposals himself and describing them as "fair".

The Tory Diary : 78% of Tory members support common market or out

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:22:54 +0000

It might be very informative if you could conduct the same poll across the wider electorate, not just Tory members, to see how the country at large feels.

The Tory Diary : New poll says UKIP could beat Tories into third place in 2014's European Elections

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:40:03 +0000

I t seems to me the FT, the Economist, the GUardian and Observer are pro-EU. Whereas the Telegraph is pretty much anti. I dont read the Murdoch rags, but I would guess they are anti too. Although apparently Matthew Parris wrote a pro-EU article in the Times recently. Seems fairly balanced to me.

Left Watch : Ed Miliband's green energy subsidies cost one billion pounds

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:16:03 +0000

So are you suggesting that private landlords should let their houses out for free. See what that would do to the homeless figures.

Left Watch : Ed Miliband's green energy subsidies cost one billion pounds

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:11:33 +0000

Solar power may have a part to play. But, they do not generate all the time. In fact they generate most during the day in the summer and least at night time in winter. Energy demand is the exact opposite of when solar produces.

Platform [OLD] : Michael Burnett:

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:57:14 +0000

OK, let's take the arguments apart one by one. 1) If the cost-benefit ratio of national regulation over supra-national regulation is over twice as good; then that makes its own argument. Out. 2) Are you saying we should ignore the cost of EU regulation because we have a trade surplus elsewhere? WOuldn't it be better to improve our trade surplus elsewhere and work to reduce the cost of EU regulation (or eliminate it), from either within or outside the EU. 3) It is easy to argue that FDI might actually improve with exit from the EU. If we were in EFTA and had access to the single market, an offshore island with better, cheaper regulation would be a far more attractive a place for investment. Think Hong Kong or Singapore. 4) The EU will always be an important market for the UK, whether is is 50% of exports or 35%. But we can export to the EU from outside the EU. It would be preferable if we were in the Single Market; but China does fine, and does the US. And no, they are not mutually exclusive, but the EU customs union imposes a tariff of between 5 & 9% on imports from outside the EU. If we were outside the customs union we could trade on more favourable terms with non-EU countries - you know those parts of the world that are growing. 5) Yes, this assertion can only be tested when it happens. But there is precedent: Norway and Switzerland. If we have a big trade deficit, it means it is in the EUs interest to have a favourable trade deal with us. Do you think VW and Mercedes will want to lose the UK market? 6) Yes, we may have to pay something for access to the market. However, it is likely to be far less than our current net contribution (£9-10bn). However, as I understand it, the Swiss pay far less per capita than Norway. Arguably we should pay less than Norway because our GDP per capita is much lower. And Norway has to implement far fewer regulations than we do. In fact, we are bound by EU regulations on how to drill for oil in the North Sea, whereas Norway has opted out of those regulations. see here: http://t.co/JYpFw4AC 7) And EU Single Market disputes would take less time to resolve? What about the French ban on UK beef? 8) Not UKIP's assertion about not being able to enter in to a deal with say Australia is absolutely true. We would probably be better off in EFTA, doing trade deals more quickly and probably on better terms because we wouldn't have to pander to the vested interests of the rest of the EU27. See examples here: http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=1705&a... 9) No, the argument about not implementing all EU laws is exactly the point. Of course, any products we wanted to sell to the EU would have to meet EU regulations, just like we must meet Japanese regulations if selling to Japan. Again, WTO can help with non-tariff barriers. 10) Exactly, the day after leaving the EU, the sky would not fall in. We would still be friends with EU countries, we would still trade with them. We would still enjoy the vast array of cultures, countryside, food, wine, music and architecture. But we would be free from EU meddling and we would have our democracy back. Bruges Group favour the Norway option (on grounds of faster implementation. http://www.brugesgroup.com/EFTAorTheEU.pdf We have fought hard for UK interests in the EU for 40 years. We haven't got anywhere. They are intent on "ever closer union". If that is what they want, then good for them (although I do feel sorry for those out of work in Spain and Greece). We simply do not want that. Let's be adult about it, and part on amicable terms.