Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why those wanting an EU referendum shouldn’t pin their hope
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why those wanting an EU referendum shouldn’t pin their hopes on Ed Miliband
Last night I got into a little Twitter discussion with Lord Ashcroft over Labour and an EU referendum. He was articulating what is a widespread Tory view that EdM will be forced ahead of the election to make a commitment. It will become a politically difficult, they believe, for him to avoid.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And I don't think there will be any choice about the next parliament being partly dominated by Europe. Labour may as well join the discussion else the conversation will only be between centre-right reformists and BOOers (not that that is a bad thing).
Those who want the lights to come on shouldn't pin their hopes on Ed Miliband.
Those who want a bank in which their money is safe and accesible shouldn't pin their hopes on Ed Miliband.
Those who want employment shouldn't pin their hopes on Ed Miliband.
In fact is the question not really; who should pin their hopes on Ed?
I would suggest that there is some mileage for the government parties in picking apart these ill-thought-through plans.
This is quite apart from the fact that it was the Labour government who allowed and even encouraged the industry to concentrate to this extent in the first place, that more mid-sized banks don't necessarily improve competition if they just behave like all the others, that branch footprint is less and less relevant, or that you don't (or shouldn't) want an overly-competitive financial industry anyway as it increases the risk of failure.
Simple solutions are for simple people.
My, how I love the rain!
Some years ago I told my son that I didn't understand the 21st century. I certainly don't understand its politics if these two issues are anything to go by.
My arsehole of the week prize goes to scaremongerer Steve Odell of Ford who threatened Ford would with draw from the UK. Conveniently foregtting that
- when we joined the EU Ford had 3 UK assembly plants now it has none
- Ford ditched JLR and Aston Martin when we were in the EU
- Ford has recently close Southampton and Dagenham when we were in the EU
- The UK is Ford's largest European market
So since he has closed down all the major facilities already ( bar one plant at Bridgend ) where's the threat ?
I though Gordon was terrible but Ed M is really showing me it is possible to be even less suited for leading this country. Remarkable.
Populist clap-trap with basic wrong calls on the big economic issues.
@labourpress: RT @BBCr4today: "We believe the costs involved in the reform we're proposing will, in the long term, be in the public interest." - @ChukaUmunna #r4today
@Pulpstar said:
"I'd suggest the odds of an UNMARRIED French president having an affair were 'slightly' higher than the Queen. And our head of state has no economic governing function. Obviously if God Rest their soul Will, Charles and Liz fell under a bus tomorrow then it wouldn't really come to anyone's surprise if King Henry IX was off continuing the 'traditions' of the previous King Henry..."
@JohnLoony replied:
"Prince Harry would be the Prince Regent. The King would be George VII; he can be relied on to continue the calm and popular manner of the reign of George VI."
........................................................
The Duchess of Cambridge would be the most likely regent and not Prince Henry
Prior to Princess Victoria attaining her majority and as heir-presumptive to King William IV it was Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent who was nominated as Regent.
There is also the matter of the sequence of death of the Queen, Charles and William. It might be they died hours or days after each other in succession order in which case the Queen would have been succeeded by Charles III or George VII (the latter apparently the PoW's preferred choice) and then William V. In the latter case the Duchess of Cambridge would have become Queen Katherine and certainly Regent.
The infant King would be Goerge VII or VIII dependent on the regnal name and number of his grandfather, if any.
Which isn't to say it might not be an option of desperate last resort if little Ed found himself sufficiently behind in the polls. Problem being that kippers are no more likely to believe little Ed's Cast Iron Referendum Pledges than they do when they come from Cameron. It's also obviously immigration that kippers are taking most advantage of while the EU is of secondary importance.
What could push it to the forefront again is if labour do badly at the EU elections and find they have lost an uncomfortably big chunk of disaffected voters to the kippers.
Look at the VI from the beginning of last year to the May local elections when the kipper VI hit it's high. (that kipper rise will be repeated for this May's EU elections and likely get even higher) Both parties took a hit but the softer tory kipper switchers had already moved so the higher kipper VI gets the more likely it is to take an increasing chunk out of labour's vote.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Was all of the labour drop to the kippers? No, little Ed took care of a good deal of that himself. However, it is quite clear that while little Ed struggles to appeal to the kind of voters that Farage can grab it is not just Cammie who has to worry about Farage.
There is another option for little Ed. The so called 'mandate' referendum that some tories seemed to favour. Doesn't mean he will pledge that either but he can and will posture on the subject to try and appease disaffected labour voters if things get particularly bad.
He has little choice since he can no more outkip the kippers on their core issues than Cameron can. Both are still pinning their hopes on the kipper vote crashing after May. Even though it is still Cammie who has most to lose in 2015 if it remains as stubbornly high as it did after last May's fall. Falling back down to above 10% just isn't good enough for 2015. The panic from tory Eurosceptics wold be incredible if the kippers are roughly that level in 2015.
Ref, they'll announce it late with plenty of conditions the Tories won't like.
Time for MP's to be auto enroled in to Nest and start appreciating investmenr risk!!!
Q. The European elections are held under a proportional voting system which gives smaller parties a better chance of winning seats than in general elections. If there were an election to the European Parliament held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?
This seems to me a pretty hefty prod not just for UKIP but also for the LibDems and the Greens, who will be a bit disappointed not to get more than the 9% and 6% shown here.
It is the suicidal infighting on the subject between varieties of europhobes that is going to put Miliband in Downing st. He would be crazy to put an end to that fight.
If Cameron had any sense he would call an EU referendum now "to give me the mandate to fight for Britain in Europe, and to bring reform to Europe". Only a few Conservative MPs would want to oppose a 'pre renegotiation' exit, and therefore there would likely be a large-ish majority in favour of staying (the polls are - what - 70:30 if there's a renegotiation), and he might get even better than that (as quite a few people would say "well, Mr Cameron keeps his word on referendums (now), so we may as well give him a chance." He could put as the cornerstone of powers to bring back an opt out from the ECHR (which the Germans are sympathetic to).
Blood-sugar level warning contact lenses
Being in the EU hardly saved Ford car-making in the UK, did it? It's reduced massively over the last couple of decades.
Nissan have also made similar threats in the past:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/08/nissan-automotive-industry
There will be disadvantages to full withdrawal from the EU, just as there are advantages.
Many of these on both sides will not be known before any referendum (and if they are, they will be argued about ad infinitum), and therefore it will be more of an emotional choice by the public, rather than one based on hard, cold facts.
"If Miliband was a master tactician (which I suspect he might be) ..."
Well that started the morning on PB with a mirth filled moment !!
Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk
under a Lab government, you will no longer be serving the banks. Instead, the banks will be serving you” http://labli.st/K7NlaL
It is worth remembering in all of this that Ford doesn't actually care about us being in the EU - what it does care about is us being inside the Single Economic Area: that is the part of Europe covered by the Single External Tariff and where parts can go between countries without being stopped for customs checks. So, Ford would be equally happy if we had a Norway-like status. But they would be much less happy if we left the SEA, because that would mean their just-in-time supply chains between their engine and transmission making plants in the UK, and their vehicle assembly locations outside the UK would be subject to interruption - forcing them to carry more stock (which, as I'm sure you know is an expensive business).
And Ed's bank annoucnement is sensible and will be popular.
Oh, wait...
It may be popular; it may not. It sure as heck isn't sensible. Are you one of the few who still thinks that his energy cap police was anything other than insane?
He will offer a referendum because, as we saw so recently with the Cons & energy, there needs to be a credible answer to questions posed across the floor (and the press and on blogs and...).
There is no credible answer to the question:
"Why do you not trust the British public to make their own minds up on Europe?"
Bashing bankers played well in 2009-12 in the recession, but will be looking a bit tired by 2015. The threat to high st banks on branch closures would only switch the votes of a few, but those would be the front of house staff in branches and their regular customers. I cannot see it gaining many votes.
A better way to improve competition would be to assist the entry of smartphone enabled financial services, as that is where the future of retail banking lies. The rise of Wonga and similar companies demonstrates that customers value convenience of access and easy borrowing over value.
Of course easier borrowing may not be the answer to individuals cost of living issues, but rather the seeds of another crisis. Banks falling over each other to loan to sub-prime debtors may have caused a few problems in the past, as I recall!
It's fear.
Little Ed knows that "don't let labour ruin it again" will be just as powerful as "the cost of living crisis" in 2015 and for the exact same reasons. Voters don't give a crap about economic stats whereas they instinctively know if they are better off or not. The public also know full well that the banks and labour crashed the economy before and no amount of economic stats will change that fact either. (The tories would love it if Brown and Darling were still in place to remind voters of the crash but they'll just have to make do with Balls and little Ed since trust will be a massive factor in the success of both strategies)
Hence this new attempt to convince voters that the banks won't be allowed to do that again with these proposals. Whether tory spinners like them or not is hilariously beside the point.
It's if the public can be convinced that this means labour can be trusted again.
The reality is it's going to take far more than this to convince them. Just like it will take far more than Osbrowne adopting the TUC, labour and lib dem proposals on the minimum wage to convince the public they will be personally better off with another five years of Osbrowne.
If the patient starts to deteriorate, it alerts staff. Instead of having vitals checked every few hours, it is done every couple of minutes. There's also no need for bulky machines, and the measurements occur whenever the patient is near a wireless hub, so when being wheeled down corridors.
Anecdotally, they've already saved lives.
http://www.toumazltd.com/sensiumvitals®-pilot-study
It's fear.
Little Ed knows that "don't let labour ruin it again" will be just as powerful as "the cost of living crisis" in 2015 and for the exact same reasons. Voters don't give a crap about economic stats whereas they instinctively know if they are better off or not. The public also know full well that banks and labour crashed the economy and no amount of economic stats will change that fact either. (The tories would love it if Brown and Darling were still in place to remind voters of the crash but they'll just have to make do with Balls and little Ed since trust will be a massive factor in the success of both strategies)
Hence this new attempt to convince voters that the banks won't be allowed to do that again with these proposals. Whether tory spinners like them or not is hilariously beside the point.
It's if the public can be convinced that this means labour can be trusted again.
The reality is it's going to take far more than this to convince them. Just like it will take far more than Osbrowne adopting the TUC, labour and lib dem proposals on the minimum wage to convince the public they will be personally better off with another five years of Osbrowne.
The difference is that no one pays any attention to what Mad Uncle Vince has to say...
If (BIG IF) there is a crossover in a poll soon that might change the dynamic significantly.
Last year they also announced they were moving production of a van from Spain to France. It's hard to discern any particular trend in the machinations of car companies form individual announcements.
What we can say is that Ford has dramatically reduced their car making in the UK since we have been in the EU, whilst Honda and Nissan have massively increased theirs.
We heard similar dire warnings from companies about not joining the Euro. They were wrong then, weren't they?
A poor Labour performance in the Euros would cause a crisis of confidence in that party, but I think is priced in to Tory performance already. I think that the Tory europhobes would quite like UKIP to beat them in the Euros in order to justify their own internicine squabbling, and put pressure on Dave before 2015. The Euro risk is mostly to the LDs and Labour.
But the rest of me is just very depressed, we are truly lead by pygmies.
At first sight a lot of such policies look good, until the thing is thought through.
I'm a LD>Lab voter, not a pbTory.
Cable was voted (yet again) the lib dem government minister of the year. (Clegg was in the bottom 5 performers unsurprisingly) So there is no question that he appeals to lib dem voters. In short the kind of voters labour want to keep and win over even if some tories no longer seem to care about those kind of voters. Which won't matter at all in all those tory lib dem marginals I'm sure.
Hmmm...this poll has them on 30%, a bit below their average of around 33/34 across various pollsters recently. I think a Lab 33, Tory 34 result is entirely possible in the coming weeks from some pollster or other. (Possible but not necessarily likely).
Although Prince Henry would not be Regent he would be the Heir Presumptive followed by the Duke of York and his daughters. They would all also be Counsellors of State under the terms of the Regency Act 1937.
In any case, numbers are only of relatively minor import to how competitive a market is. There have been intensely competitive markets with just two players, there have been uncompetitive markets with hundreds; it all depends on the culture of the providers and of how far public demand for improvements (a) exists and (b) can be made to influence the providers.
Breaking one or two banks up will not promote increased competition if they act in the same way as the existing ones (which is quite likely given that it'd be the same people running them).
As with regulation, the issue with competition is not whether there should be more or less, but whether it can be more effective.
Some of us have been saying this over and over again: nobody that matters cares about Europe! Why indeed would Ed offer a referendum on it when none of his pool of support cares about it (2010 LDs are probably pro-Europe in fact)?
Yes, it is corrosive for the Conservatives, hence why the very clever Labour strategists will keep the pot boiling. I do think many Conservatives on here have an almost congenital tendency to underestimate their opponents.
That's not what we teach at scouts.
Indeed. Playing to Labour's tune cf minimum wage. Has any Loto ever been as good at setting the agenda as Mr Miliband? Do not underestimate this man.
Besides, if the consequence is a shrinking of the banking and financial services sector and a diminishing of its influence in the UK economy, that is a benefit to us all.
The only charge this is vulnerable to is: what would you put in its place? That is a relevant and thorny question. Something better than this money grubbing, economy destorying, corrupt industry that's for sure.
Don't underestimate how vulnerable The Tories are to this.
I can't imagine what upheaval a third place finish in the Euros would cause inside Labour.
Kate would have no role under the terms of the 1937 Act, though the precedent of the 1953 Act suggests that parliament may act to include her (though in that case, the two consorts involved - the then Queen Mother and the Duke of Edinburgh - had served in that capacity).
Don't underestimate how vulnerable The Tories are to this.
Don't underestimate how vulnerable little Ed and labour are to the fact that they were in charge when it happened and the public know it. It cuts both ways. Reminding the public of the banking crash is risky for little Ed too.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2662
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2654
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2642
32% is the lowest I've found so far.
The alternative way is that Labour is putting off many potential voters by its attitude to Europe. That includes disillusioned Con voters who might have voted Labour in the past and are instead choosing UKIP.
Whoever comes 3rd is going to have some serious 'splaining to do. Dave will have the excuse/comfort that this is an EU protest vote and will have a route out via red meat and 'vote UKIP, get Blob' messaging. Miliblob's excuses will be harder to find and believe.
We'll also see across Europe a significant shift towards the anti-EU vote. I expect FN in France, Wilders in NL, Grillo in Italy all to do really well.
The story on Dennis reclaiming control of McLaren is up here, with additions since the last time I posted the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula-one/25766407
Pirelli have signed a deal to provide tyres until 2016:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25762121
One hopes the idiots in charge realise by then that you cannot manufacture the Canadian Grand Prix of a few years ago (2008 or similar) when everyone was surprised by how rapidly the tyres wore out. When people expect that to happen the drivers are forced to drive at 80%.
Even so I'm hedged all the way between any minority Gov't, a continuation of the coalition and a Labour win...
`Miliband wants to break banks,so f****** what` would be the predominant reaction.
Miliband sometimes forgets that his main(sorry only) job is to win votes and whatever changes he wants to make,he can only do so when he wins.
Prince Henry would be Regent. The precedent of the 1830 Act was fully superseded by the 1937 Act.
Most communities (outside of major towns) have easy access to a limited number of banks - so forcing the sale of some of those branches is not going increase choice, it is going to limit it (at best) or force people to move to a different bank - breaking personal relationships built up over many years.
Add into this the fact that increasing numbers of people don't really use the physical banking facilities (other than for paying in the occasional cheque), and you do have to wonder what Miliband is thinking he is going to achieve by this rather random set of proposals.
I think the most likely losers are those at the bottom of the financial ladder who are forced to accept 'Basic' bank accounts - those with limited access to cash machines and branches anyway. Surely these are the people who need the most support in their access to banks - not see their access stripped away by someone who wants to raise a headline by bashing the banks (who have been operating under the regulatory system that he and his shadow Chancellor helped devise)
It just doesn't add up
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25764261
In perhaps more significant news, the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Fein (in Northern Ireland) are having a go at one another:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25772866
This policy would be a bit too abstract for most voters.
Don't underestimate how vulnerable The Tories are to this.
Or Labour to the fact they were friends with the bankers through all the Blair years, or that the crash happened on their watch.
Or the fact that they had their dirty little mitts deep in one of the failed banks. Reverend Flowers, anyone?
But ignore that because you raise a very good point which is that most people interact only with their local branch.
And that also applies to GPs, hospitals and schools, which is why NHS reorganisations and Michael Gove's reforms go down like a lead balloon with the voter on the Clapham omnibus.
Instead we seem to be getting another wonky speech from Miliband.
The breakup of Lloyds TSB into Lloyds and TSB upset plenty of people who suddenly found they had no local branch. Repeating the process on a larger scale is going to upset plenty more with no obvious winners.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/15/lloyds-dumps-customers-tsb