Does anyone actually have a link to this bet? It's not under Politics or Specials, that I could find?
What an @rsepain the Ladbrokes site is to use (and update evidently). If you go to Scottish Referendum Betting page and click on 'Other Markets' there's a 'Scottish Currency' sub category, but nothing happens when you click on it. Presumably they'll connect it up to an actual bet sometime this decade.
It's also possible that China is Sui generis. We have never before seen a country of this enormous size and physical/intellectual potential - with such a long history of unified rule - industrialise and "capitalise" its economy so rapidly and dynamically, from an inert, communist standing start.
The lessons we have learned from other developing nations, even Asian states similar to China, like Japan or South Korea, may NOT be scalable. They may not apply. China might be rewriting the rules, for good or bad.
Whenever someone says "this time it's different"...
Nuclear weaponry, thanks to its sheer scale and power, changed the character of warfare. Sometimes size does make things different.
It would not apply to British citizens but could see foreigners who have become naturalised citizens whose conduct is deemed "seriously prejudicial" lose their nationality.
A really bad move IMHO. Expect the definition of "seriously prejudicial" to be really stretched over time.
Oh yuck. If you're a British citizen, you're a British citizen. That should be the end of it.
That should be the end of it unless you have a backbench rebellion to head off. I loved the reported Lib Dem leadership position - they'll support it because it will only affect a few people. Your rights are in safe hands people!
What's Labour's position on it? Are they going to vote for this amendment?
Well I seem to remember them saying they were going to save poor Cammie from his strangely mistrustful backbench tory rebels before today.
Interesting sketch from Simon Carr on the Energy and Climate Change committee, regardless of your views on AGW.
"These particular MPs are simply not up to it. Climate enthusiasts will be embarrassed by them, and sceptics contemptuous."
The sooner Tim Yeo, who couldn't recognise a conflict of interest if it came in a brown envelope marked "CONFLICT OF INTEREST", is out of parliament the better, too.
I think it is fair to say there is a trend developing.One possible explanation is that the 3% or so left vote Labour has regained since Blair was kicked into touch has picked up on the less publicised but more important decision to create a budget surplus by further public sector wage cuts and some cuts to already very stretched public services.Those who make their living from working for government might think there is no difference to the Tories. Normally,there would be an upspring in Green support but maybe the NHA party will be the gainers this time.
One possible explanation is that the 3% or so left vote Labour has regained since Blair was kicked into touch has picked up on the less publicised but more important decision to create a budget surplus by further public sector wage cuts and some cuts to already very stretched public services.Those who make their living from working for government might think there is no difference to the Tories. Normally,there would be an upspring in Green support but maybe the NHA party will be the gainers this time.
And another possible explanation is that people have noticed that the economy is growing again. Who can say which is more likely?
Interesting sketch from Simon Carr on the Energy and Climate Change committee, regardless of your views on AGW.
"These particular MPs are simply not up to it. Climate enthusiasts will be embarrassed by them, and sceptics contemptuous."
The sooner Tim Yeo, who couldn't recognise a conflict of interest if it came in a brown envelope marked "CONFLICT OF INTEREST", is out of parliament the better, too.
Sadly, Shadsy hasn't after all lost his marbles. The bet is not as reported. Instead it is:
Scottish Currency
Scotland to still be using GBP on Jan 1st 2016: 1/100 Scotland to be using a different currency on Jan 1st 2016: 50/1
No bet.
That's outrageously different to what was in the press release!
I will offer 1/33.
But - as with Ladbrokes - you have to give me the money.
(I don't actually think there is even a 3% chance that Scotland will be using another currency in two years time. It's just that lending me money at 1.5%/year sounds like a good deal. For me.)
"So when the MPs' voting rights are removed, an electoral college currently made up of MPs, members and trade unionists is effectively going to be replaced by an electoral college of members and trade unionists. The unions had a third of the votes for leader. Now they’re basically going to have half. "
1. China has had the one child policy. And, in Beijing province, the TFR was a spectacularly low 0.65. (That is, each woman, over the course of her child bearing years, is averaging just 0.65 births. You need 2.1 to keep the population stable.)
2. We have more immigration than China.
3. On the other hand, life expectancy is rising quite quickly in China. That said, Chinese working age population is about to start declining. While I don't want to be a Cassandra on China, it's quite hard to keep growing your economy hard, when the number of workers is in absolute decline.
That's outrageously different to what was in the press release!
Ladbrokes: Scotland 1/100 to enter currency union - 50/1 not to
Ladbrokes press release
Scotland certs for currency union
Scotland are a racing certainty to form a currency union should they vote 'yes' to independence, according to Ladbrokes.
The book is now open on the prospects of the formation of the union, should Scotland break away from the rest of the UK and it's a near-certainty at 1/100 that they keep sterling, with 50/1 the price that any other currency, including the Euro, is used.
Mea cupla first.I thought GDP would be around 0.4,so got it wrong there.
Balls has gone insane to wanting to copy the Tory playbook when poll after poll has shown that people are becoming less interested in the deficit.It could be a strategic move to ward off attacks but I cannot see the left wingers pleased by this move.
Sadly, Shadsy hasn't after all lost his marbles. The bet is not as reported. Instead it is:
Scottish Currency
Scotland to still be using GBP on Jan 1st 2016: 1/100 Scotland to be using a different currency on Jan 1st 2016: 50/1
No bet.
That's outrageously different to what was in the press release!
And the spin given on here. No bet !
It wasnt spin - it was just taking the wording in the press release at face value.
Yes - the headline didn't match the substance - I'm not singling you out as an offender.
Almost like shadsy released a press release to take advantage of free publicity ?
Labrokes would have had the same publicity if they put out a press release that actually matched the bet they were offering! I mean they're basically offering odds on Scotland changing currency *before* independence. 50,000/1 wouldnt be value.
I think the narrowing of the polls is entirely due to Ed Balls being on the television a lot in the past few days. The same effect is often seen when Ed Miliband is touring the studios.
They are both going to be on TV a lot during the general election campaign
Only Connect: there was a reasonable attempt made to get a pb.com team together to apply for a previous series, but I think nothing came of it in the end. A team of 3 is needed - however I can't be a part of it as I've been on the show before. It's great fun and I'm sure with the quality of minds on here a very competitive team could be formed.
China's going to get old before it gets rich. Demographics is destiny.
They'll continue to grow and will overtake the USA in absolute GDP but average Chinese living standards will not. (Non-average standards in the big cities for the well connected already are way ahead of the US average).
Another point not so often talked about is: Who benefits from China's growth? Erm...London, Vancouver, New York, etc. The very rich are leaving in droves because they can and have squirreled away trillions overseas. The chinese boom manifests itself not in their rural poor doing spectacularly better but in OECD asset prices (esp property) doing spectacularly better.
Actually I'm a bit sceptical about some of the data in that table, such as Zimbabwe having such a high growth rate. I've seen other sources of information putting it much lower due to the situation there.
Actually I'm a bit sceptical about some of the data in that table, such as Zimbabwe having such a high growth rate. I've seen other sources of information putting it much lower due to the situation there.
Zimbabwe might have a very growth rate, but it's very much a dead cat bounce.
GDP per head probably fell by 75% after 2000. If it recovers by 20% in one year, that still leads it far lower than it was.
The scary bit about that article was this "The world's biggest national population rose by 6.7 million in 2013 to 1.361 billion, excluding Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, the National Bureau of Statistics said. Almost 118 boys were born for every 100 girls."
No wonder the Chinese authorities are desperately reversing the one child policy with the working population dropping by nearly 2.5 million in the last year.
In the long run the decline in the working age population is a nightmare for the Chinese which is no doubt why they are reversing the one child policy and preparing to raise retirement age.
In the short to medium term it is trivial as there are STILL 650 million Chinese peasants, yet to be urbanised. I kid you not, there are still 650 million potential recruits for the factories, out there in the paddy fields.
As has been said on here several times before Simon Carr is simply far too good to be earning his crust on Guido. I really don't understand why the Guardian has not picked him up. They would double their number of contributors and hits almost daily as the guardianistas frothed.
As a broader illustration of the limitations of our select committee system it would be hard to improve upon. Stupid people asking stupid questions so they can write a stupid report. Where is the benefit in that? And for the avoidance of doubt the "skeptics" selected may have all been loons for all I know and for all we will ever know.
Only Connect: there was a reasonable attempt made to get a pb.com team together to apply for a previous series, but I think nothing came of it in the end. A team of 3 is needed - however I can't be a part of it as I've been on the show before. It's great fun and I'm sure with the quality of minds on here a very competitive team could be formed.
Mrs J and I have said in the past we'd be tempted to go on, and we seem to do quite well in the early stages, before the questions get harder. But that's sitting at home and not a studio situation.
Also, isn't it an advantage for the team to know each other well beforehand?
SO: I was London. Which is strange, as I picked 'outdoorsy'.
Mr. F, when I was at school or university (forget which) Zimbabwe actually had a lower life expectancy than Europe in the Middle Ages. It was barely above 30 for both genders due to Mugabe's combination of sky-high AIDS infection rates and innovative approach to farming methods (ie getting rid of all the nasty white men who actually knew how to farm and replacing them with black thugs with machetes who, er, didn't) leading to widespread famine.
Improving from a life expectancy of 32, interest rates of 65,000% and inflation measured in millions isn't hard.
The fact that, reportedly, the South African Question Time had audience support for copying Mugabe's deranged, racist approach to farming and land was deeply worrying (yet, frankly, not hugely surprising).
The scary bit about that article was this "The world's biggest national population rose by 6.7 million in 2013 to 1.361 billion, excluding Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, the National Bureau of Statistics said. Almost 118 boys were born for every 100 girls."
The scary thing is that's the rate after 3 years of decline! The natural ratio is about 106.
Scotland won't even be independent if my thinking is correct by January 1st 2016. Of course they will still have the pound at that point. Stretch the bet to Jan 1st 2018 and it might be worthwhile at 50-1.
Only Connect: there was a reasonable attempt made to get a pb.com team together to apply for a previous series, but I think nothing came of it in the end. A team of 3 is needed - however I can't be a part of it as I've been on the show before. It's great fun and I'm sure with the quality of minds on here a very competitive team could be formed.
Mrs J and I have said in the past we'd be tempted to go on, and we seem to do quite well in the early stages, before the questions get harder. But that's sitting at home and not a studio situation.
Also, isn't it an advantage for the team to know each other well beforehand?
SO: I was London. Which is strange, as I picked 'outdoorsy'.
Haha, love that show. My best moment watching at home was a round 1 question to which the first clue was "Combined English Universities". I would have buzzed then, as, I think, some other pbers would have...
Only Connect: there was a reasonable attempt made to get a pb.com team together to apply for a previous series, but I think nothing came of it in the end. A team of 3 is needed - however I can't be a part of it as I've been on the show before. It's great fun and I'm sure with the quality of minds on here a very competitive team could be formed.
Mrs J and I have said in the past we'd be tempted to go on, and we seem to do quite well in the early stages, before the questions get harder. But that's sitting at home and not a studio situation.
Also, isn't it an advantage for the team to know each other well beforehand?
SO: I was London. Which is strange, as I picked 'outdoorsy'.
Haha, love that show. My best moment watching at home was a round 1 question to which the first clue was "Combined English Universities". I would have buzzed then, as, I think, some other pbers would have...
My favourite was in the first round, where the first clue was 'Immelman'. Both the contestant and I shouted 'aerobatics' and got five points. ;-)
No wonder the Chinese authorities are desperately reversing the one child policy with the working population dropping by nearly 2.5 million in the last year.
See my post upthread. It's a ludicrous point if it ignores the vast Chinese rural population. When it comes to industrialising societies THIS is the crucial stat - how many people are still out there, waiting to walk into factories, off the fields.
Maybe 100 million Chinese are still on a dollar a day.
Mr. F, when I was at school or university (forget which) Zimbabwe actually had a lower life expectancy than Europe in the Middle Ages. It was barely above 30 for both genders due to Mugabe's combination of sky-high AIDS infection rates and innovative approach to farming methods (ie getting rid of all the nasty white men who actually knew how to farm and replacing them with black thugs with machetes who, er, didn't) leading to widespread famine.
Improving from a life expectancy of 32, interest rates of 65,000% and inflation measured in millions isn't hard.
The fact that, reportedly, the South African Question Time had audience support for copying Mugabe's deranged, racist approach to farming and land was deeply worrying (yet, frankly, not hugely surprising).
It's disturbing that there are many people worldwide who have a lower standard of living than England did in 1400.
It still appears that little Ed is going to save poor Cammie from his dastardly rebel MPs.
Perhaps the obsequious Cameroonian spinners can send labour a nice gift for sparing Cammie from his own side? *chortle*
For as long as Labour claims to support membership of the European Union in principle, the party cannot realistically do anything but oppose an amendment which would vitiate the effect of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
Also, isn't it an advantage for the team to know each other well beforehand?
Well, yes ;-) Knowing each other beforehand is not essential but probably a bit of an advantage, though if & when you'd got past the audition I reckon everyone would be sufficiently up to speed on each other's strengths and weaknesses.
Mr. F, when I was at school or university (forget which) Zimbabwe actually had a lower life expectancy than Europe in the Middle Ages. It was barely above 30 for both genders due to Mugabe's combination of sky-high AIDS infection rates and innovative approach to farming methods (ie getting rid of all the nasty white men who actually knew how to farm and replacing them with black thugs with machetes who, er, didn't) leading to widespread famine.
Improving from a life expectancy of 32, interest rates of 65,000% and inflation measured in millions isn't hard.
The fact that, reportedly, the South African Question Time had audience support for copying Mugabe's deranged, racist approach to farming and land was deeply worrying (yet, frankly, not hugely surprising).
It's disturbing that there are many people worldwide who have a lower standard of living than England did in 1400.
On a recent trip to Africa I saw many villages without electricity or running water, where the people lived in mud huts, with beaten earth floors and straw roofs. Pigs, chickens and naked toddlers all ran around together.
Essentially, it was Anglo-Saxon England, with better weather.
I kind of knew these impoverished places existed - I've seen them before - yet every time you see them it is a total, physical shock.
No wonder the Chinese authorities are desperately reversing the one child policy with the working population dropping by nearly 2.5 million in the last year.
See my post upthread. It's a ludicrous point if it ignores the vast Chinese rural population. When it comes to industrialising societies THIS is the crucial stat - how many people are still out there, waiting to walk into factories, off the fields.
Maybe 100 million Chinese are still on a dollar a day.
The number of people leaving the countryside to go to the cities is now in decline.
Worse, the age profile of your remaining peasants is not encouraging. Median rural age is 47; urban is 31.
The bulk of the young, ambitious workers have already gone.
It still appears that little Ed is going to save poor Cammie from his dastardly rebel MPs.
Perhaps the obsequious Cameroonian spinners can send labour a nice gift for sparing Cammie from his own side? *chortle*
For as long as Labour claims to support membership of the European Union in principle, the party cannot realistically do anything but oppose an amendment which would vitiate the effect of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
And nor can anyone else on the sane side of the argument. If Parliament was of a mind to pass such a law it would simply be overruled by the UK Courts applying clear ECJ jurisprudence, not to mention Factortame.
The stupidity of these rebels is deeply and profoundly depressing.
If Knox is found guilty and the US refuses to extradite her, it'll be interesting to see what happens the next time the US attempts to extradite a suspect from Italy.
It still appears that little Ed is going to save poor Cammie from his dastardly rebel MPs.
Perhaps the obsequious Cameroonian spinners can send labour a nice gift for sparing Cammie from his own side? *chortle*
For as long as Labour claims to support membership of the European Union in principle, the party cannot realistically do anything but oppose an amendment which would vitiate the effect of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
And nor can anyone else on the sane side of the argument. If Parliament was of a mind to pass such a law it would simply be overruled by the UK Courts applying clear ECJ jurisprudence, not to mention Factortame.
The stupidity of these rebels is deeply and profoundly depressing.
It still appears that little Ed is going to save poor Cammie from his dastardly rebel MPs.
Perhaps the obsequious Cameroonian spinners can send labour a nice gift for sparing Cammie from his own side? *chortle*
For as long as Labour claims to support membership of the European Union in principle, the party cannot realistically do anything but oppose an amendment which would vitiate the effect of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
And nor can anyone else on the sane side of the argument. If Parliament was of a mind to pass such a law it would simply be overruled by the UK Courts applying clear ECJ jurisprudence, not to mention Factortame.
The stupidity of these rebels is deeply and profoundly depressing.
[Ignoring for now that fact that a number of these rebels might individually be described as quite stupid on various other measures] is it really a stupid tactic? If your aim is to destroy UK participation in the EU, then securing a Parliamentary vote in support of a measure which is contrary to EU law is a great PR move. The bit where you get to point to yet another decision by the evil unelected eurocrats to reverse the sovereign will of our great Parliament (extend as nauseum) is another propaganda win to argue that we have no option but to leave the EU.
I mean, personally I believe that leaving the EU is stupid as an aspiration, but I'm assuming that the majority of the rebels would disagree with that in the strongest possible terms.
No wonder the Chinese authorities are desperately reversing the one child policy with the working population dropping by nearly 2.5 million in the last year.
See my post upthread. It's a ludicrous point if it ignores the vast Chinese rural population. When it comes to industrialising societies THIS is the crucial stat - how many people are still out there, waiting to walk into factories, off the fields.
Maybe 100 million Chinese are still on a dollar a day.
The number of people leaving the countryside to go to the cities is now in decline.
Worse, the age profile of your remaining peasants is not encouraging. Median rural age is 47; urban is 31.
The bulk of the young, ambitious workers have already gone.
Can you do maths? The number leaving the country to go to the city is in decline but there are still millions - literally HUNDREDS of millions - who can make that journey. So the decline in potential working age population may be happening, and will become critical eventually - but in reality it won't affect Chinese industry for another two decades, as they can still import hayseeds from the paddies.
The working age thing will be a problem for China - a BIIIIIG problem - by about 2030-2035, if they haven't fixed it by then, by paying women to have kids or turning old people into diesel fuel. Or, of course, they induce the Chinese diaspora to return.
America's rural population is 16%. China's is 48%. That's how much spare potential they have, still.
There is a common view that a significant part of past voters for the Lib Dems are NOTA. It is therefore plausible that these are a large part of the LD 2010's that initially shifted to Lab after the GE. With the rise of UKIP they are now clearly seen as an alternative NOTA home. If the UKIP GE 2015 is boosted by these voters, then the talk about the Con's needing UKIP under 5% or 6% etc may not be as clear cut a fact.
It still appears that little Ed is going to save poor Cammie from his dastardly rebel MPs.
Perhaps the obsequious Cameroonian spinners can send labour a nice gift for sparing Cammie from his own side? *chortle*
For as long as Labour claims to support membership of the European Union in principle, the party cannot realistically do anything but oppose an amendment which would vitiate the effect of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
And nor can anyone else on the sane side of the argument. If Parliament was of a mind to pass such a law it would simply be overruled by the UK Courts applying clear ECJ jurisprudence, not to mention Factortame.
The stupidity of these rebels is deeply and profoundly depressing.
I doubt if most rebels wish to remain in the EU.
You can only hope that they remain back bench MPs and are never elected to anything important like, say, the mangement committee of their local golf club. Whilst you are in the Club you are bound by its' rules. It really isn't that hard.
And as for Polruan's point it would be British judges who would have to rule that the legislation was incompatible with EU law and not enforceable, not those nasty foreign ones.
Of course many of the rebels probably think British judges with their ridiculous insistence on implementing the Human Rights laws in the way that Parliament directed (that is having regard to the ECtHR jurisprudence) are just as bad anyway.
Relatedly, this is nice. An American international relations scholar on China V USA:
"In characteristically blunt fashion, Mearsheimer said that he hopes that China’s economy falters or collapses, as this would eliminate a potentially immense security threat for the United States and its allies"
"America's rural population is 16%. China's is 48%. That's how much spare potential they have, still."
For that to be true doesn't it also require big changes agricultural methods, which in turn requires investment and education and, I would guess, changes in property rights?
There is a common view that a significant part of past voters for the Lib Dems are NOTA. It is therefore plausible that these are a large part of the LD 2010's that initially shifted to Lab after the GE. With the rise of UKIP they are now clearly seen as an alternative NOTA home. If the UKIP GE 2015 is boosted by these voters, then the talk about the Con's needing UKIP under 5% or 6% etc may not be as clear cut a fact.
That makes no sense. If they were None Of The Above voters, why did they shift to One Of The Above?
NOTA in the sense that you object to some of the policies of all plausibly electable parties, so you vote for someone who doesn't have a realistic chance of doing more than moderating the policies of a senior coalition party. And of course it's much easier for a party in that position to be against a wide range of things, including simultaneously holding many contradictory oppositions.
The LDs could probably have held onto their NOTA status if they'd not rolled over quite so enthusiastically on things that they explicitly opposed, or that weren't in the Conservative manifesto - it would still have been a workable full-term coalition, and they could have maintained their image as a safe protest vote. As it is, they will be seen as fully signed-up OOTAs now.
While UKIP have good NOTA qualifications, I'm still not convinced that much shift from LD to UKIP is plausible - the stereotype of a UKIP voter has a list of things that are awful about modern Britain which they'd like to oppose; the stereotype LD voter thinks that the government has done too little to support those things.
It still appears that little Ed is going to save poor Cammie from his dastardly rebel MPs.
Perhaps the obsequious Cameroonian spinners can send labour a nice gift for sparing Cammie from his own side? *chortle*
For as long as Labour claims to support membership of the European Union in principle, the party cannot realistically do anything but oppose an amendment which would vitiate the effect of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
And nor can anyone else on the sane side of the argument. If Parliament was of a mind to pass such a law it would simply be overruled by the UK Courts applying clear ECJ jurisprudence, not to mention Factortame.
The stupidity of these rebels is deeply and profoundly depressing.
The move would certainly be illegal under EU "law", but EU law in the UK only has effect as a result of primary legislation (see s. 18 of the European Union Act 2011). Remember that Factortame did not involve a deliberate attempt to ignore EC law, indeed quite the reverse. Furthermore, the case explicitly endorsed the sovereignty of Parliament. If the amendments passed tonight, the courts in this jurisdiction would be obliged to give effect to the settled will of Parliament.
In the long run the decline in the working age population is a nightmare for the Chinese which is no doubt why they are reversing the one child policy and preparing to raise retirement age.
In the short to medium term it is trivial as there are STILL 650 million Chinese peasants, yet to be urbanised. I kid you not, there are still 650 million potential recruits for the factories, out there in the paddy fields.
There is a common view that a significant part of past voters for the Lib Dems are NOTA. It is therefore plausible that these are a large part of the LD 2010's that initially shifted to Lab after the GE. With the rise of UKIP they are now clearly seen as an alternative NOTA home. If the UKIP GE 2015 is boosted by these voters, then the talk about the Con's needing UKIP under 5% or 6% etc may not be as clear cut a fact.
That makes no sense. If they were None Of The Above voters, why did they shift to One Of The Above?
NOTA as in none of the Govt. A protest vote. But why do you think voters are leaving Lab to UKIP? What is Lab doing wrong?
There is a common view that a significant part of past voters for the Lib Dems are NOTA. It is therefore plausible that these are a large part of the LD 2010's that initially shifted to Lab after the GE. With the rise of UKIP they are now clearly seen as an alternative NOTA home. If the UKIP GE 2015 is boosted by these voters, then the talk about the Con's needing UKIP under 5% or 6% etc may not be as clear cut a fact.
That makes no sense. If they were None Of The Above voters, why did they shift to One Of The Above?
...While UKIP have good NOTA qualifications, I'm still not convinced that much shift from LD to UKIP is plausible - the stereotype of a UKIP voter has a list of things that are awful about modern Britain which they'd like to oppose; the stereotype LD voter thinks that the government has done too little to support those things.
But in past surveys a significant part of the LD vote wanted out of Europe. I recall reports of it being 30% to 40% of the LD votes.
There is a common view that a significant part of past voters for the Lib Dems are NOTA. It is therefore plausible that these are a large part of the LD 2010's that initially shifted to Lab after the GE. With the rise of UKIP they are now clearly seen as an alternative NOTA home. If the UKIP GE 2015 is boosted by these voters, then the talk about the Con's needing UKIP under 5% or 6% etc may not be as clear cut a fact.
That makes no sense. If they were None Of The Above voters, why did they shift to One Of The Above?
...While UKIP have good NOTA qualifications, I'm still not convinced that much shift from LD to UKIP is plausible - the stereotype of a UKIP voter has a list of things that are awful about modern Britain which they'd like to oppose; the stereotype LD voter thinks that the government has done too little to support those things.
But in past surveys a significant part of the LD vote wanted out of Europe. I recall reports of it being 30% to 40% of the LD votes.
I don't remember that particular stat, but I know what you mean. My impression is that the LD support is soft-left/libertarian and not as pro-European as many think it is - although this might also be a stat that shows the low salience of EU membership as a real issue (their voters prefer communitarian and libertarian policies even if it means a view of the EU they disagree with).
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 13 mins Mrs May clearly unaware that we all now know Govt will abstain on Raab amendment. Great victory for Doms, defeat for NonDoms #gameon
It still appears that little Ed is going to save poor Cammie from his dastardly rebel MPs.
Perhaps the obsequious Cameroonian spinners can send labour a nice gift for sparing Cammie from his own side? *chortle*
For as long as Labour claims to support membership of the European Union in principle, the party cannot realistically do anything but oppose an amendment which would vitiate the effect of s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
And nor can anyone else on the sane side of the argument. If Parliament was of a mind to pass such a law it would simply be overruled by the UK Courts applying clear ECJ jurisprudence, not to mention Factortame.
The stupidity of these rebels is deeply and profoundly depressing.
The move would certainly be illegal under EU "law", but EU law in the UK only has effect as a result of primary legislation (see s. 18 of the European Union Act 2011). Remember that Factortame did not involve a deliberate attempt to ignore EC law, indeed quite the reverse. Furthermore, the case explicitly endorsed the sovereignty of Parliament. If the amendments passed tonight, the courts in this jurisdiction would be obliged to give effect to the settled will of Parliament.
I don't agree. The legislation in Factortame was designed to prevent Spanish fishing boats buying up all of our quota for fish under the Common Fisheries policy at the time. It was effectively contrary to the EEC law on the right to establish businesses elsewhere in the EU because Spanish companies were setting up subsidiaries here to buy the quota and then landing the fish in Spain. It was struck down by the House of Lords on the instruction of the ECJ.
I do agree that that case made it clear that the UK Parliament remains sovereign to the extent that it is open to Parliament to repeal s2 of the ECA with the result that EU law would no longer be directly applicable. I find s18 a somewhat curious provision and it is not obvious to me what it actually adds to that proposition.
Because Parliament can repeal by implication the Courts would have to consider whether there was an intention to repeal s2 (and presumably s18) if there was primary legislation directly contrary to EU law. My understanding is that it has been made clear that that would have to be express, especially where it was quite obvious that we remained a part of the EU.
Without an express reference to the terms of s2 I do not think that the proposed amendment restricting the access rights of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants would be enforceable or binding on a UK Court. The court would simply infer that Parliament could not have intended to pass legislation that was contrary to EU law.
Comments
Still time to fix the reliability issue, but this isn't a good start for Red Bull.
If you go to Scottish Referendum Betting page and click on 'Other Markets' there's a 'Scottish Currency' sub category, but nothing happens when you click on it. Presumably they'll connect it up to an actual bet sometime this decade.
Sadly, Shadsy hasn't after all lost his marbles. The bet is not as reported. Instead it is:
Scottish Currency
Scotland to still be using GBP on Jan 1st 2016: 1/100
Scotland to be using a different currency on Jan 1st 2016: 50/1
No bet.
Well I seem to remember them saying they were going to save poor Cammie from his strangely mistrustful backbench tory rebels before today. We shall see.
"These particular MPs are simply not up to it. Climate enthusiasts will be embarrassed by them, and sceptics contemptuous."
The sooner Tim Yeo, who couldn't recognise a conflict of interest if it came in a brown envelope marked "CONFLICT OF INTEREST", is out of parliament the better, too.
http://order-order.com/2014/01/30/sketch-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/
Normally,there would be an upspring in Green support but maybe the NHA party will be the gainers this time.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/population_growth_rate_2013_0.html
Perhaps the obsequious Cameroonian spinners can send labour a nice gift for sparing Cammie from his own side?
*chortle*
But - as with Ladbrokes - you have to give me the money.
(I don't actually think there is even a 3% chance that Scotland will be using another currency in two years time. It's just that lending me money at 1.5%/year sounds like a good deal. For me.)
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/asia/story/china-working-age-population-falls-20140120
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100257403/ed-milibands-trade-union-reforms-arent-a-loosening-of-control-theyre-a-power-grab/
"So when the MPs' voting rights are removed, an electoral college currently made up of MPs, members and trade unionists is effectively going to be replaced by an electoral college of members and trade unionists. The unions had a third of the votes for leader. Now they’re basically going to have half. "
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hz6ysdf7yz/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Approval-270114.pdf
Some time ago, I ripped out all the data from election to *a* date in June, but my excel skills are struggling a bit with it.
But it is there, and an appropriate graph would be quite interesting.
"Interesting sketch from Simon Carr on the Energy and Climate Change committee, regardless of your views on AGW."
And slightly worrying. Anyone who says "the science is settled." knows absolutely nothing about science.
The models do not predict very well. Until they do, I'll stick to sitting on the fence. And I'll admit I may be proved wrong ... or right.
2. We have more immigration than China.
3. On the other hand, life expectancy is rising quite quickly in China. That said, Chinese working age population is about to start declining. While I don't want to be a Cassandra on China, it's quite hard to keep growing your economy hard, when the number of workers is in absolute decline.
As it happens, the wild divergence between the terms on offer and the media report means I won't be betting on it.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/where-in-the-uk-should-you-actually-live
Almost like shadsy released a press release to take advantage of free publicity ?
And what's so horrible about the Cook Islands? Ae they all drunk and moving to New Zealand?
Meanwhile, Christmas Island has the daftest flag
http://www.mrflag.com/content/uploads/2013/02/Christmas-Island.png
With Cote d'Ivoire the most startlingly unoriginal-and-like-Ireland's:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/flags/countrys/zzzflags/cilarge.gif
Balls has gone insane to wanting to copy the Tory playbook when poll after poll has shown that people are becoming less interested in the deficit.It could be a strategic move to ward off attacks but I cannot see the left wingers pleased by this move.
They are both going to be on TV a lot during the general election campaign
http://www.victoriacoren.com/main/blog/archive/come_along_to_only_connect
http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/shows/beonashow/only_connect10
They'll continue to grow and will overtake the USA in absolute GDP but average Chinese living standards will not. (Non-average standards in the big cities for the well connected already are way ahead of the US average).
Another point not so often talked about is: Who benefits from China's growth? Erm...London, Vancouver, New York, etc. The very rich are leaving in droves because they can and have squirreled away trillions overseas. The chinese boom manifests itself not in their rural poor doing spectacularly better but in OECD asset prices (esp property) doing spectacularly better.
Where should you live survey... I got Liverpool and the worrying thing is that I do live on the outskirts.
Must be wrong!
GDP per head probably fell by 75% after 2000. If it recovers by 20% in one year, that still leads it far lower than it was.
In the short to medium term it is trivial as there are STILL 650 million Chinese peasants, yet to be urbanised. I kid you not, there are still 650 million potential recruits for the factories, out there in the paddy fields.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/rural-population-wb-data.html
And one hundred million of these are still in total poverty: a huge army of potential workers.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/chinas-war-against-poverty/
Again, it's the sheer size of China that confounds.
As a broader illustration of the limitations of our select committee system it would be hard to improve upon. Stupid people asking stupid questions so they can write a stupid report. Where is the benefit in that? And for the avoidance of doubt the "skeptics" selected may have all been loons for all I know and for all we will ever know.
Mrs J and I have said in the past we'd be tempted to go on, and we seem to do quite well in the early stages, before the questions get harder. But that's sitting at home and not a studio situation.
Also, isn't it an advantage for the team to know each other well beforehand?
SO: I was London. Which is strange, as I picked 'outdoorsy'.
Improving from a life expectancy of 32, interest rates of 65,000% and inflation measured in millions isn't hard.
The fact that, reportedly, the South African Question Time had audience support for copying Mugabe's deranged, racist approach to farming and land was deeply worrying (yet, frankly, not hugely surprising).
Nah.
Maybe 100 million Chinese are still on a dollar a day.
Essentially, it was Anglo-Saxon England, with better weather.
I kind of knew these impoverished places existed - I've seen them before - yet every time you see them it is a total, physical shock.
Worse, the age profile of your remaining peasants is not encouraging. Median rural age is 47; urban is 31.
The bulk of the young, ambitious workers have already gone.
And nor can anyone else on the sane side of the argument. If Parliament was of a mind to pass such a law it would simply be overruled by the UK Courts applying clear ECJ jurisprudence, not to mention Factortame.
The stupidity of these rebels is deeply and profoundly depressing.
I mean, personally I believe that leaving the EU is stupid as an aspiration, but I'm assuming that the majority of the rebels would disagree with that in the strongest possible terms.
The working age thing will be a problem for China - a BIIIIIG problem - by about 2030-2035, if they haven't fixed it by then, by paying women to have kids or turning old people into diesel fuel. Or, of course, they induce the Chinese diaspora to return.
America's rural population is 16%. China's is 48%. That's how much spare potential they have, still.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/rob-ford-accused-of-conspiring-to-have-man-beaten-in-jail-1.1673498
And as for Polruan's point it would be British judges who would have to rule that the legislation was incompatible with EU law and not enforceable, not those nasty foreign ones.
Of course many of the rebels probably think British judges with their ridiculous insistence on implementing the Human Rights laws in the way that Parliament directed (that is having regard to the ECtHR jurisprudence) are just as bad anyway.
"In characteristically blunt fashion, Mearsheimer said that he hopes that China’s economy falters or collapses, as this would eliminate a potentially immense security threat for the United States and its allies"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-29/us-china-rivalry-more-dangerous-cold-war
So this agreeable old chap wants the process that has lifted 500m Chinese out of poverty to be stopped, and hopefully reversed. Bless.
For that to be true doesn't it also require big changes agricultural methods, which in turn requires investment and education and, I would guess, changes in property rights?
The LDs could probably have held onto their NOTA status if they'd not rolled over quite so enthusiastically on things that they explicitly opposed, or that weren't in the Conservative manifesto - it would still have been a workable full-term coalition, and they could have maintained their image as a safe protest vote. As it is, they will be seen as fully signed-up OOTAs now.
While UKIP have good NOTA qualifications, I'm still not convinced that much shift from LD to UKIP is plausible - the stereotype of a UKIP voter has a list of things that are awful about modern Britain which they'd like to oppose; the stereotype LD voter thinks that the government has done too little to support those things.
Mrs May clearly unaware that we all now know Govt will abstain on Raab amendment. Great victory for Doms, defeat for NonDoms #gameon
I do agree that that case made it clear that the UK Parliament remains sovereign to the extent that it is open to Parliament to repeal s2 of the ECA with the result that EU law would no longer be directly applicable. I find s18 a somewhat curious provision and it is not obvious to me what it actually adds to that proposition.
Because Parliament can repeal by implication the Courts would have to consider whether there was an intention to repeal s2 (and presumably s18) if there was primary legislation directly contrary to EU law. My understanding is that it has been made clear that that would have to be express, especially where it was quite obvious that we remained a part of the EU.
Without an express reference to the terms of s2 I do not think that the proposed amendment restricting the access rights of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants would be enforceable or binding on a UK Court. The court would simply infer that Parliament could not have intended to pass legislation that was contrary to EU law.