@Tim, @Pong I can't see the Stan James offer, the best I can see is Cameron @ 10-1 and 'None' at 8-11. Staking £10 on Cameron and £13.75 on None gives us our money back if no leader falls before the GE and £110 return if Cameron fails first Which I make 3.63-1 DC out first or your money back if no leader falls at the GE.
By-election gains (difficult in themselves) and defections often don't stay with the party at the following GE and surges also fall away as punters opt for a government rather than giving the government a good mid term kicking.
="TheScreamingEagles">Given how poorly Cameron has performed recently, Witney has to be a nailed on UKIP gain at the next election surely?
*Innocent Face*
That would be highly amusing.
As suggested upthread, I think I'll wait and see how UKIP do in the County Council elections. Currently, the Greens have 19 County Council seats, and that's the target they should be aiming to beat.
1) It looks really good. Disqus looked awful, even when it worked, and wasted too much space on the screen. This system is clear, easy to read, and attractively designed, and best of all, it actually seems to work.
2) The childish 'badges' system is a silly pain. Can it be switched off?
3) The messaging facility could be very useful indeed.
4) A plea to Edmund in Tokyo: Is there any hope of you re-engineering your excellent widget for Vanilla? I'm not too fussed about the 'Ignore' feature, but highlighting 'Favourites' was very useful indeed in helping scan long threads and not miss pearls of wisdom, especially ones which might have a betting angle.
So, because my article says a different thing to yours, I am lying. Frankly you put forward a couple of articles that didn't really contradict what I had to say.
I think the facts are broadly beyond issue:
1. The EU was not going to hand over €17bn (80% of GDP), because that would have lifted Cyprus debt-to-GDP to unsustainable levels.
2. The Cyprus government was keen to maintain its off-shore status - without realising that the EU was not particularly in a mood to bail-out Russian depositors; and Putin was keen to keep oligarchs' money in Russia.
3. The preferred EU and IMF solution was exactly how it eventually happened - i.e. bust banks being wound down, with depositors with less than €100,000 being unaffected
Nobody - not you or anybody else - has managed to come up with any sensible alternative solutions.
To be serious and on topic for a moment, Mike's bet looks a great one because there are three ways it can come in: 1) By-elections (any won now would almost certainly be held at a GE) 2) Defections 3) A UKIP surge (ooo-er Missus)
Or all three, of course.
I'm less convinced. Would a UKIP gain in a by-election translate into a GE hold? It would depend where. It's my experience that the Party which loses the seat puts in a lot of effort to get it back. As I recall, every by-election "gain" in the 1987-92 Parliament was reversed at the subsequent GE and even seats like Christchurch weren't held while the likes of Eastleigh and Romsey were only just held.
Defections: - there's a lot of rumour and talk but nothing substantial. Any defector has to take the bulk of their Association and their activists with them otherwise they've no chance of holding on. A personal vote will only get you so far - in truth, the party machine still plays the pivotal role.
UKIP surge - to what? 10%, 15% ? An evenly-distributed vote gets you nowhere as the SDP will tell you. Is anyone seriously suggesting UKIP could win 30% at the next election - I've not seen them above 20% in any poll so it would have to be a substantial surge.
Their best hope is for a sitting MP, together with the bulk of his/her Association and Membership, to defect en bloc six weeks before the election and be the Party's standard-bearer. I simply don't think that is an 8/1 chance - more like 50/1. The bet is for two MPs so that doubles the problem.
It has been ages since I read my Karl Marx, but I am right in thinking he said for communism to succeed, Capitalism needs to have been shown to have failed?
Given the banking crisis of 08 and the fun in Greece and Cyprus, perhaps the likes of Lenin were a century premature?
Gamification is the buzzword du jour amongst social network geeks.
I am sure you are correct, Mr. L., but I wonder if we are to have" gamification" and badges then shouldn't the earned badges appear after the posters names, to be displayed proudly like medal ribbons on a soldiers chest.
4) A plea to Edmund in Tokyo: Is there any hope of you re-engineering your excellent widget for Vanilla? I'm not too fussed about the 'Ignore' feature, but highlighting 'Favourites' was very useful indeed in helping scan long threads and not miss pearls of wisdom, especially ones which might have a betting angle.
Seconded but please, please, pretty please include the ignore feature.
As for the badges, welcome to the world of 'achievements'. This is a trend which started with Xbox-Live & Call of Duty (I think), has rolled into many popular games (Skyrim, World of Warcraft, Saints Row Third) (In fact pretty much all with an online component) and now seems to be heading to forums !
UKIP are beginning to perform better than I had predicted and 2+ seats at 8/1 looks a good bet to me - if they do well in 2014 Euros I can see them targeting a couple of dozen good prospects and winning a dozen of them. They are getting closer to a tipping point than I ever thought they would however I still think that they are capable of imploding overnight when the media really shine the spotlight on them. What odds Farage having a Boris-Mair type interview at some point between now and 2015? I also imagine they will select a few dodgy candidates in the run up to 2015 which the press will have great sport with when the moment is right. Depends on whether the Mail/Express/Telegraph are trying to help or hinder UKIP come 2015
On topic: A much better bet IMO is Paddy Power's 1/2 that UKIP won't win any seats at the GE (next best 2/5 from Coral, Wm Hill or Stan James).
1/2 is very short to be tying up money for two years, and there is always the hope that the price might drift in the wake of a promising Euro-election return in the mean time.
Your points are well made and equally well noted. I just have this feeling that there is a huge anti-Main-Party sentiment out there which UKIP is ideally placed to exploit. I could easily be wrong, but my guess is that they are close to a tipping point which if reached would take them well beyond 2 seats.
It's not much more than intuition at the moment, but at 8/1 I'm happy to back it. I have also backed their vote shares in bands of 15/20/25%. I agree though that they would need well above 15% to make a breakthrough.
4) A plea to Edmund in Tokyo: Is there any hope of you re-engineering your excellent widget for Vanilla? I'm not too fussed about the 'Ignore' feature, but highlighting 'Favourites' was very useful indeed in helping scan long threads and not miss pearls of wisdom, especially ones which might have a betting angle.
There's a lot still broken - the main favourite and ignore work OK, but the Next Favourite link keeps trying to bounce you to the vanilla site, and the more button doesn't rewidgetize properly yet. I'll post what I've got for now - people may be able to use it as it, and hopefully somebody cleverer than me can figure out what's wrong with the broken bits. Once it's working properly I'll update the site Mike has linked to on the sidebar.
I think the time to effectively lay UKIP is after the Euros. Might be some cracking value going against them after those, and hopefully the position on this bet may be arbable then.
TSE: capitalism has worked very well for the vast majority of people on the globe. look at China, India, Brazil, and ask them if capitalism works.
Of course what we are seeing is the consequences of globalism, where weak economies and structures are put under huge pressure. The EU is buckling under the weight of this
o/t Wed's by-election in Ireland might be close-ish. Paddy Power's initial 4/1 on FG (hope you got on it!) came in to 4/9 but in recent days has drifted back to 4/6. It's very rare for Government parties to win by-elections in Ireland but FG wont want to lose this one to FF.
TSE: capitalism has worked very well for the vast majority of people on the globe. look at China, India, Brazil, and ask them if capitalism works.
Of course what we are seeing is the consequences of globalism, where weak economies and structures are put under huge pressure. The EU is buckling under the weight of this
The collapse of the Eurozone is nothing to do with the rise of the rest. A poorly formed single currency would have faced similar problems at the first major recession, regardless of the state of the rest of the world. If anything, the rise of China etc, has helped exports stay reasonable.
One thing that worries me most after this crisis is that the emerging markets' spectacular catch-up potential has been the only thing to allow us to recover. Considering that we still haven't solved the rampant corruption in the global banking system, and we still haven't solved too big to fail, another financial crisis is likely to happen again. If, at that point, most emerging markets have caught up with Western levels of productivity, then there will be no engine to pull us out next time.
Given how poorly Cameron has performed recently, Witney has to be a nailed on UKIP gain at the next election surely?
UKIP's best bet might actually be to run against high-profile Tories in safe seats. If it looked like they had a chance a fair few Labour and LibDem supporters would vote for them just for the lulz.
They might want to take a shot at Tatton too - the Labour and LibDem parties there have form in plotting to get a third party in to get rid of an unpopular Tory.
It has been ages since I read my Karl Marx, but I am right in thinking he said for communism to succeed, Capitalism needs to have been shown to have failed?
Given the banking crisis of 08 and the fun in Greece and Cyprus, perhaps the likes of Lenin were a century premature?
Capitalism has not failed. Poor banking regulation and stupid monetary unions have failed.
@tim I just read a piece in the Indy about ATOS eating babies or some such. So that is two different welfare stories smashing CON from two different angles. I think they are doing the best job they can in the circumstances but the next GE could turn into an absolute rout if it carries on this way to 2015.
There's a lot still broken - the main favourite and ignore work OK, but the Next Favourite link keeps trying to bounce you to the vanilla site, and the more button doesn't rewidgetize properly yet. I'll post what I've got for now - people may be able to use it as it, and hopefully somebody cleverer than me can figure out what's wrong with the broken bits. Once it's working properly I'll update the site Mike has linked to on the sidebar.
? Will check the JavaScript to see if I can find the correct node.
Your stringbuilder should ignore all references to the Vanilla web-container no? [This relates also to Carola's [?] problem dereferencing PoliticalBetting from within the Vanilla container: External sites do not appear to have context from the WebServer "root". What would be needed would be a 'forward' or - at worst - a redirect.]
Given how poorly Cameron has performed recently, Witney has to be a nailed on UKIP gain at the next election surely?
UKIP's best bet might actually be to run against high-profile Tories in safe seats. If it looked like they had a chance a fair few Labour and LibDem supporters would vote for them just for the lulz.
They might want to take a shot at Tatton too - the Labour and LibDem parties there have form in plotting to get a third party in to get rid of an unpopular Tory.
That sounds suspiciously like the Lib Dem decapatation strategy employed in 2005 against the Tories that turned out very poorly.
I only chose Witney because I remember during the Cleggasm some Lib Dems overexcitedly starting talking about Witney being a LibDem gain.
As an ex Tatton voter, I can say George Osborne is highly rated and popular in the constituency.
They might want to take a shot at Tatton too - the Labour and LibDem parties there have form in plotting to get a third party in to get rid of an unpopular Tory.
That would be a mistake I think. Would they attack Osborne from the right or left on economic policy? Either choice would cost them some of their new support. What about Aylesbury?
@FluffyThoughts These are links that the widget added to the page. When clicked they're popping out of the iframe for some reason. Probably not worth trying to explain this on the thread - if anyone knows how to fix it, just fix it and give me a pull request or a link to their fixed version.
Which Nasty, spiteful, small minded little Party Leader is this?
Ed Miliband will today toughen his party's policy on immigration by promising that Labour would cut the number of people coming to this country to take low-skilled jobs.
In a party political broadcast devoted to the sensitive issue, Mr Miliband will admit that the previous Labour Government got it "wrong" on immigration and failed to understand people's concerns.
I see the Tories are in last-ditch desperation mode.
We're going to be inundated with nasty "it's all the foreigners' fault innit?" guff between now and election day.
Nasty, spiteful, small minded little Party.
Gordon Brown pledged to find "British jobs for every British worker" as the Government announced a crackdown on migrant workers - Monday 10 September 2007
Well Ben, we certainly had such guff before the last (bottled) election...
What UKIP need to maintain momentum after June14 Euros (if not before) is a byelection in a Con held seat where LDs are second and Labour under 15% - basically the reverse of Eastleigh. I could see UKIP picking up such a seat but General Elections are different.
I wonder if Dave would hold such a byelection after if MP resigned or died after November14 or leave vacant as Gordon did when Labour MP for NW Leicestershire died in December09?
@ben We're going to be inundated with nasty "it's all the foreigners' fault innit?" guff between now and election day. Nasty, spiteful, small minded little Party.
Ah but it's apparently only nasty when the Cons do it. Shouldn't you be condemning Clegg and Mrs Balls as well? Or did you miss their speeches?
@Tim, @Pong I can't see the Stan James offer, the best I can see is Cameron @ 10-1 and 'None' at 8-11. Staking £10 on Cameron and £13.75 on None gives us our money back if no leader falls before the GE and £110 return if Cameron fails first Which I make 3.63-1 DC out first or your money back if no leader falls at the GE.
@tim - That article (and the BBC coverage extolling the virtues of immigration, and the Jonathan Portes comments which BenM gets all excited about) contain a massive logical fallacy.
Yes, immigration can be, overall, a benefit to the country. But that is a classic straw-man argument, since no-one, least of all Cameron, has said there shouldn't be any immigration. Just because some or even most immigration is beneficial, doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the subset which is harmful, or deal with the absuses, or seek to keep the numbers down to a reasonable level so as to maximise the net benefit.
@Mike Smithson: I do not have your knowledge of betting I cannot see UKIP getting 2 seats in GE2015 despite wholehearted support from one SeanT who, incidentally, will vote Tory when the time comes.
Apart from Eastleigh, UKIP simply does not have the information where to concentrate their resources. Their declaration that they will contest 632 seats is utterly stupid. Apart from serial lost deposits and increasing their total votes column, it will have negative effect on their quest for MP's.
Though, I support UKIP fielding 632 candidates !!!
So, because my article says a different thing to yours, I am lying. Frankly you put forward a couple of articles that didn't really contradict what I had to say.
You lied. I then proved you were lying. You then repeated the lie. I then proved you were lying by quoting three different sources: Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, and your own favourite, the FT, which all confirmed that you were lying.
In short, you lied, lied, lied, lied and lied again. I think it is therefore safe to say that on this precise point, you were lying.
SeanT: do you deny that the original proposal from the EU/IMF/Germans was for the closure of the insolvent banks, and for the haircut to be applied to depositors above €100,000?
That is my claim. It is amply backed up by pretty much all the evidence, including the FT article I posted below.
@tim - That article (and the BBC coverage extolling the virtues of immigration, and the Jonathan Portes comments which BenM gets all excited about) contain a massive logical fallacy.
Yes, immigration can be, overall, a benefit to the country. But that is a classic straw-man argument, since no-one, least of all Cameron, has said there shouldn't be any immigration. Just because some or even most immigration is beneficial, doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the subset which is harmful, or deal with the absuses, or seek to keep the numbers down to a reasonable level so as to maximise the net benefit.
No, but there's an element of inefficiency in any system which you can only eliminate by eliminating the system itself. A subset of immigration which is "harmful" is outweighed by the overall net benefit (at least according to the sources cited).
I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't seek to minimise the harmful/abused elements of immigration and related benefits but there are two key questions: 1) why be complicit in the misleading impression that immigration is net negative for the public finances? and 2) is eliminating the inefficiency in the element of the benefits system that relates to immigration a relatively easy or relatively difficult place to target one's efforts at improving the public finances? If not, why choose this target?
(The criticism would of course apply to all party leaders to some degree, not just Cameron.)
Would they attack Osborne from the right or left on economic policy?
Both. Nobody cares what they think about economic policy, they're not going to win.
You talking about the Conservatives or UKIP there, Mr. Edmund? The statement is probably true for either.
If the latter, then I dare say people were saying much the same sort of thing in the early 20th century when Labour were just getting going. I don't suppose that UKIP will ever turn into a mass movement as Labour did, but then times are very different and maybe they don't have to in the 21st century.
Labour's mea culpa on immigration is utterly contemptible.
The party clearly think its open door immigration policy was right all along. You can see it would dearly love to roll out the 'racist' tags for anybody daring to point out what has happened.
But that won;t do any more because the mood of the country has changed a great deal.
And so we have a hastily cobbled together labour policy that nobody within labour believes in and would never stand a chance of being implemented.
Only if they start to consistently poll over 20% does the prospect of a seat become even a remote possibility.
Indeed, Rod, "We have won no seats but a great victory" (Farage, 8/5/15). I've long argued UKIP are where the Liberals were in the late 50s but without a Celtic heartland to fall back on. Eastleigh might have been their Torrington but it wasn't quite but a Torrington or Orpington-style victory is on the cards one day if the right by-election falls in the right place at the right time. General elections tend to be more sobering experiences.
On defections, if you defect TO either Labour or the Conservatives, you can be found a safe seat (John Horam, Shaun Woodward) but defecting FROM them is much harder and much less secure. It's easier if you're a local Councillor (smaller area, greater personal vote) but very tough if you're an MP.
4 were personal votes for defectors, Owen, Cartwright, Maclennan and Wrigglesworth.
1 was a by-election hold, Jenkins
Only ONE was a gain, Kennedy, in a seat the Liberals had held for decades up to 1970.
That landscape simple doesn't exist for UKIP.
Only if they start to consistently poll over 20% does the prospect of a seat become even a remote possibility.
I agree. It's very unlikely UKIP will win any seats at a GE. However they will take sufficient votes from the Tories to ensure that Labour wins a majority. The SDP split the left-of -centre vote, and this kept the Tories in power for 18 years until Blair and New Labour (and tactical voting) repaired the damage. UKIP will do the same for the right-of-centre vote, and the result is likely to be a long period of Labour domination.
I'm not convinced this bet is great value, it's hard to identify any seat at the moment where you'd be confident of UKIP coming second, let alone first. This bet only makes sense by identifying at least one seat, and then hoping UKIP get really lucky in another seat (with so many up for grabs, there will be a number where the other parties are so close the winning number is low and if you take enough samples you'll get a result sooner or later - East London / Thurrock may not be a bad shout here.)
But for targetting one seat can I suggest Mid-Bedfordshire? I think Nadine may be de-selected; her local party spikily said they wanted her to be a Tory MP for the rest of this term:
"Cllr Duckett said: “Our members felt that Nadine Dorries does a lot of hard work for her constituents and while she is an MP she may as well be represent the Conservative Party where she will have more influence than if she was an independent - she does a good job. There were negatives and positives discussed but it was a unanimous vote, even from those who had concerns.
“MPs are a protected species, they’re more protected than wildlife - we can’t fire her. We listened to councillors, members and the general public around Mid Bedfordshire and the overall consensus was in favour of Nadine Dorries. Her decision has proved correct and it’s enabled her to engage with younger voters.”
Cllr Duckett also revealed that no decision on whether the MP would stand as a Tory candidate will be made for at least a year. "
I'm sure they want rid, but are nervous of pulling the trigger because of the damage she could do running against the Tories. She's probably UKIP's best chance in this scenario, and they may end up re-selecting her out of fear though.
Regarding the Polish immigration, or immigration in general, I dont think the problem is with immigrants taking the jobs of British people. A lot of people who are anti immigration are happy working alongside immigrants, and have no time for British benefit scroungers. The anti immigrant sentiment is more about the make up of the High St changing. If the existing shops started selling a range of Polish brands, or existing manufacturers started making British versions of Polish foods, rather than Polish shops opening up, the anti immigrant sentiment would be less. It would almost certainly benefit integration, as we would shop in the same stores. I cant imagine many people who thought of themselves as anti immigration would go into a store aimed at Polish people, but would probably be more likely to buy some Polish food if it was in Sainsburys. Them & us culture I suppose I am getting at.
Far be it for me to step between you and a good punch up but the matter was covered quite succinctly this morning on the Today Programme (about 2hr 17mins in).
Sounds like the idea was discussed between the EU and the Cypriot Government, with the latter insisting the tax should apply to ALL depositors.
Of course Richard Corbett (economic advisor to van Rompuy) could be in league with young Smithson and lying too. A more plausible explanation would however be that nobody is lying, there are different stories about how the suggestion arose but in the end it was the insistence of the Cypriots that determined the outcome.
Firstly: you still haven't denied my central point: that the original EU plan is exactly what happened - i.e. the banks going bust and depositors over €100,000 being haircut.
Secondly: in the FT article it very explicity says that - although the Eurozone did propose the levy 'to break the deadlock' - that 'it was Mr Anastasiades... who set the rates.'
I agree with you that the EU should never have approved of the haircut below €100,000. In fact, a week ago I wrote:
"Only the eu did not confiscate, the government of Cyprus did. They chose, not the eu, to make it apply to all, rather than just for sums above 100k, in a vain attempt to continue to be a centre for offshore money.
Look, I hate the deal for the reasons :
1. It applies to all bank deposits, not just those at weak financial institutions.
2. It did not haircut senior bond holders.
3. It transgressed the 100k deposit insurance.
But, when you hand money over to a bank it ceases to be your money,. You have just become an unsecured creditor of the bank. You cannot offer unlimited and permanent guarantees to all banks, because that creates massive moral hazard."
Immigrants come in all shapes and sizes, and I think what really annoys people is the current system's complete inability to sort even the seriously helpful from the seriously bothersome.
It shouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility to construct a system that welcomes people who want to obey the law and work, whether skilled or unskilled, and is unwelcoming to people who want to exploit their status.
Indeed, I think the suspicion exists that the system has been deliberately constructed to be obstructive.
The difference between the SDP and UKIP is that SDP were Labour splitters, so it was impossible for them to forge a pact or "Coalition of the left" with the old Labour party.
By contrast UKIP have come from nowhere, so they have no baggage, so it will be easy for them to forge a pact with the Tories (after 2015, when Cameron has gone).
Indeed, if UKIP do well in the next GE, I am pretty confident this is what will happen: the right will reunite.
Possibly. However political pacts are much easier said than done, as the Liberals and SDP found when they merged in the late 1980s. Whether Tory MPs (and ex-MPs) will be keen to rush into a pact with a party that has cost them a large number of seats is, I think, debatable. The reunification of the left-of-centre vote did not come about through mergers or pacts - it happened only when Labour slaughtered its sacred political cows and moved toward the political centre - the Tories may need to do the same.
The difference between the SDP and UKIP is that SDP were Labour splitters, so it was impossible for them to forge a pact or "Coalition of the left" with the old Labour party.
By contrast UKIP have come from nowhere, so they have no baggage, so it will be easy for them to forge a pact with the Tories (after 2015, when Cameron has gone).
Indeed, if UKIP do well in the next GE, I am pretty confident this is what will happen: the right will reunite.
On the other hand, IF Conservatives believe that UKIP has not only cost them seats but opened the door to a Labour majority, such a rapprochement may not be so easy in the short-term.
In Opposition, between 2015-20, it will be much easier for the post-Cameron Conservatives to borrow or steal UKIP's clothes and become a coherently right or centre-right Opposition. I don't believe UKIP will prosper under a Labour majority Government as they have under the Coalition.
Basically, thinking about it, the bone of contention between us is that you believe that the EU proposed that depositors under €100,000 were haircut. And I don't believe they did. I do admit they enthusiastically acquiesced, which is - frankly - almost as bad.
@RodCrosby Note that if there are two defectors and they hold their seats like the 4 SDPple Mike will win his bet.
So the question then becomes whether there two Tory MPs who: a) Are being threatened with deselection. (Nadine?) b) Have strong personal votes and like attention. c) Are heading for a loss (especially with a UKIP rival) and would stand a better chance under the UKIP ticket than a Tory one.
The price the UK consumer has to pay is going to rise substantially, again, this year. That is going to hit the Conservatives ratings.
What would happen if just one of the tankers failed to arrive, let alone all three that are still on their way? The UK is a maritime nation with no maritime strategy beyond hoping that it will all be OK.
Corrib in Ireland comes on stream end 2014, early 2015. Currently the UK re-exports gas to Ireland, as this will largely stop when Corrib comes on, this effectively 'frees up' quite a lot of UK gas capacity.
Whether this will be in time to affect the UK gas price is another matter altogether.
The price the UK consumer has to pay is going to rise substantially, again, this year. That is going to hit the Conservatives ratings.
What would happen if just one of the tankers failed to arrive, let alone all three that are still on their way? The UK is a maritime nation with no maritime strategy beyond hoping that it will all be OK.
Re electricity generation in general: there are quite substantial reserve margins build into the UK supply at present - although that does change somewhat when we see switch-offs of nuclear and some outdated coal over the next couple of years.
For example, there is some oil fired generation that is rarely used (because its very expensive), but which can be turned on to keep the lights running. Furthermore, in extremis, the electricity company will call big electricity users and offer them money to cut electricity demand during peak periods.
Watching the highlights from last night. Utterly depressing for anyone who isn't from NZ or Australia. Cook is a world class batsman but a bloody awful captain. The field placing was shocking.
All this immigrant bashing is quite depressing. not that anyone coming to specifically game the system deserves to get away with it, but that there are so few of them, and the net benefit of immigration is huge to us.
Cameron (and Clegg, and Miliband...) need to focus on the workshy BRITISH of which there are a large number.
"Furthermore, in extremis, the electricity company will call big electricity users and offer them money to cut electricity demand during peak periods."
If she were alive that would include my Nan. All three bars switched on and 24 inch 1970s CRT TV glowing like a nuclear rod.
Is there anybody out there who still thinks it was a good idea to fit together countries such as Greece and Cyprus with the likes of Germany, into a single currency?
It all appears to such an unmitigated disaster (with worse to come, I fear, for us too) and it's hard to know exactly whose fault it it. The politicians, Eurocrats, bankers, spivs?
It's sad.
I've been on holiday to Greece and Cyprus, probably like most people, and it is tragic really, how resigned the people who live there must be to the years of relative penury ahead.
And all to remain suffocated by the Eurodream and the zealotry of the single-currency believers.
I suppose, for countries like Cyprus it was never, ever going to work? But they were sold the dream anyway, and now they are going to pay for it.
Mr. Richard, if the new field is going to come on stream in about 18 months time I am not sure how that will stop the rise in consumer prices that will happen in about six months time. Maybe some of our gas suppliers will forgo their duty to their shareholders out of a sense of solidarity with the ordinary British people. I doubt it though, don't you.
I wonder what holiday season in Cyprus is going to be like this year? If it effects businesses hugely then one of their main industries (tourism) is going to have a knock on impact.
Is there anybody out there who still thinks it was a good idea to fit together countries such as Greece and Cyprus with the likes of Germany, into a single currency?...
I'm guessing German exporters who benefitted from an artificially depressed currency continue to be quite pleased at the effective transfer of wealth from south to north.
Immigrants come in all shapes and sizes, and I think what really annoys people is the current system's complete inability to sort even the seriously helpful from the seriously bothersome.
It shouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility to construct a system that welcomes people who want to obey the law and work, whether skilled or unskilled, and is unwelcoming to people who want to exploit their status.
Indeed, I think the suspicion exists that the system has been deliberately constructed to be obstructive.
If we included skilled and unskilled, we would still be swamped with millions, even if we limited it to the law-abiding who want to work. A skill restriction is crucial to get immigration down to reasonable numbers.
But, on the other hand, hopefully this Kiwi performance puts paid to the arrogant suggestions of making a two-tier Test setup. New Zealand have always deserved their place in the calendar, especially with their home record.
Mr. Richard, sorry, just seen your other post. I wasn't thinking about electricity generation. How many people use the electric to heat their homes? Now think about this cold spell if those tankers don't arrive - what would happen?
@tim - That article (and the BBC coverage extolling the virtues of immigration, and the Jonathan Portes comments which BenM gets all excited about) contain a massive logical fallacy.
Yes, immigration can be, overall, a benefit to the country. But that is a classic straw-man argument, since no-one, least of all Cameron, has said there shouldn't be any immigration. Just because some or even most immigration is beneficial, doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the subset which is harmful, or deal with the absuses, or seek to keep the numbers down to a reasonable level so as to maximise the net benefit.
Absolutely. But that equally applies to EU migration as non-EU migration.
There's also the situation that low-skilled immigration puts downwards pressure of low-skilled wages. The fact that high-skilled immigration makes up for it, doesn't change this.
Greece and Cyprus are in for total disaster unless this gets sorted quickly. We are about to book a cheap and cheerful holiday. Way is the chance of selecting Greece/Cyprus? Almost nil.
Is there anybody out there who still thinks it was a good idea to fit together countries such as Greece and Cyprus with the likes of Germany, into a single currency?
It all appears to such an unmitigated disaster (with worse to come, I fear, for us too) and it's hard to know exactly whose fault it it. The politicians, Eurocrats, bankers, spivs?
It's sad.
I've been on holiday to Greece and Cyprus, probably like most people, and it is tragic really, how resigned the people who live there must be to the years of relative penury ahead.
And all to remain suffocated by the Eurodream and the zealotry of the single-currency believers.
I suppose, for countries like Cyprus it was never, ever going to work? But they were sold the dream anyway, and now they are going to pay for it.
Bonkers.
Fenster, I would say there are two types of problems among Eurozone countries - those caused by the Euro, and those not.
In the case of Ireland and Spain, there was a massive property boom caused by artificially low interest rates, that led to massive private debt accumulation, secured on said property. Those were problems specifically caused by the application of Eurozone interest rates to overheated local economies. In the case of Greece, the Eurozone caused wage inflation, without corresponding improvements in productivity.
Cyprus is not a problem caused by the Eurozone. Long before Cyprus was a member, its local banks took in money - in dollars and Euros - from a large number of people attracted by its banking secrecy laws. These banks had dollar and Euro liabilities, even before the country entered the Eurozone. Had Cyprus not been in the Eurozone, it would have had exactly the same problem: bank liabilities - worth eight times the size of the country's GDP - that the local central bank could not meet by printing money. Cyprus is Iceland on the Med, and its problems are largely the result of having a banking sector both over-levered and totally disproportionate to the underlying economy.
But, on the other hand, hopefully this Kiwi performance puts paid to the arrogant suggestions of making a two-tier Test setup. New Zealand have always deserved their place in the calendar, especially with their home record.
Yep, and they are always good when they are tight as a team. Better than the sum of their parts. McCullum looks a good, positive good ringleader. I thought withour Vettori, Ryder, Martin and Guptill they'd really struggle but the Brownlie's and Boult's have shown a real doggedness.
I'd like NZ to do well because I think they are good to watch. That Fleming side of 10 years back with Astle, MacMillan, Cairns, Styris, Bond and co was really exiting, and with a little luck, could've won a WC and shocked some sides in Test series'.
Comments
Staking £10 on Cameron and £13.75 on None gives us our money back if no leader falls before the GE and £110 return if Cameron fails first
Which I make 3.63-1 DC out first or your money back if no leader falls at the GE.
Here is the page I am viewing : http://www.stanjames.com/UK/541/betting#action=market-group-list&bo-navigation=59275.2,59276.2&market-group=955.2
Have I missed something ?
No, we're both senile ....
But you're three options are a wee bit dodgy :
By-election gains (difficult in themselves) and defections often don't stay with the party at the following GE and surges also fall away as punters opt for a government rather than giving the government a good mid term kicking.
*Innocent Face*
That would be highly amusing.
As suggested upthread, I think I'll wait and see how UKIP do in the County Council elections. Currently, the Greens have 19 County Council seats, and that's the target they should be aiming to beat.
1) It looks really good. Disqus looked awful, even when it worked, and wasted too much space on the screen. This system is clear, easy to read, and attractively designed, and best of all, it actually seems to work.
2) The childish 'badges' system is a silly pain. Can it be switched off?
3) The messaging facility could be very useful indeed.
4) A plea to Edmund in Tokyo: Is there any hope of you re-engineering your excellent widget for Vanilla? I'm not too fussed about the 'Ignore' feature, but highlighting 'Favourites' was very useful indeed in helping scan long threads and not miss pearls of wisdom, especially ones which might have a betting angle.
Oh. I thought a banking crisis had precipitated a fiscal crisis.
A bit like here.
My mistake.
So, because my article says a different thing to yours, I am lying. Frankly you put forward a couple of articles that didn't really contradict what I had to say.
I think the facts are broadly beyond issue:
1. The EU was not going to hand over €17bn (80% of GDP), because that would have lifted Cyprus debt-to-GDP to unsustainable levels.
2. The Cyprus government was keen to maintain its off-shore status - without realising that the EU was not particularly in a mood to bail-out Russian depositors; and Putin was keen to keep oligarchs' money in Russia.
3. The preferred EU and IMF solution was exactly how it eventually happened - i.e. bust banks being wound down, with depositors with less than €100,000 being unaffected
Nobody - not you or anybody else - has managed to come up with any sensible alternative solutions.
Defections: - there's a lot of rumour and talk but nothing substantial. Any defector has to take the bulk of their Association and their activists with them otherwise they've no chance of holding on. A personal vote will only get you so far - in truth, the party machine still plays the pivotal role.
UKIP surge - to what? 10%, 15% ? An evenly-distributed vote gets you nowhere as the SDP will tell you. Is anyone seriously suggesting UKIP could win 30% at the next election - I've not seen them above 20% in any poll so it would have to be a substantial surge.
Their best hope is for a sitting MP, together with the bulk of his/her Association and Membership, to defect en bloc six weeks before the election and be the Party's standard-bearer. I simply don't think that is an 8/1 chance - more like 50/1. The bet is for two MPs so that doubles the problem.
Given the banking crisis of 08 and the fun in Greece and Cyprus, perhaps the likes of Lenin were a century premature?
Thanks Stodge.
Your points are well made and equally well noted. I just have this feeling that there is a huge anti-Main-Party sentiment out there which UKIP is ideally placed to exploit. I could easily be wrong, but my guess is that they are close to a tipping point which if reached would take them well beyond 2 seats.
It's not much more than intuition at the moment, but at 8/1 I'm happy to back it. I have also backed their vote shares in bands of 15/20/25%. I agree though that they would need well above 15% to make a breakthrough.
https://github.com/edmundedgar/greasemonkey-widgets/raw/master/pb/pb_vanilla_edmund_widget.user.js
Thanks Edmund - sounds hopeful.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
@AndrewSparrow @TimMontgomerie , of course, is the Tory party's answer to @DPJHodges
Happy to concede I may be wrong on this, JackW, but I do sense a strong opportunity for UKIP here which could easily carry through to the next GE.
Glad to learn I am not the only one going senile. Perhaps Mike could issue us with badges?
Of course what we are seeing is the consequences of globalism, where weak economies and structures are put under huge pressure. The EU is buckling under the weight of this
"The Tory party's answer to Dan Hodges"?
What on earth was the question?
Dan Hodges replies to OGH
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges
@MSmithsonPB @AndrewSparrow @TimMontgomerie Tim, if you want to get the lawyers in, I understand completely..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9951667/Economic-reality-confounds-the-gloomsters.html
So the Bundestag gets a vote on the Cyprus "rescue" package but the Cypriot parliament doesn't? Nothing like democracy EU-style!
Boris: "Fair play to Eddie Mair, he landed a good one. If the BBC can't bash Tory politicians then what is the point of the BBC?"
It's not as bad as the monstering he received on HIGNFY back in the 90s.
That was car crash TV.
One thing that worries me most after this crisis is that the emerging markets' spectacular catch-up potential has been the only thing to allow us to recover. Considering that we still haven't solved the rampant corruption in the global banking system, and we still haven't solved too big to fail, another financial crisis is likely to happen again. If, at that point, most emerging markets have caught up with Western levels of productivity, then there will be no engine to pull us out next time.
They might want to take a shot at Tatton too - the Labour and LibDem parties there have form in plotting to get a third party in to get rid of an unpopular Tory.
Your stringbuilder should ignore all references to the Vanilla web-container no? [This relates also to Carola's [?] problem dereferencing PoliticalBetting from within the Vanilla container: External sites do not appear to have context from the WebServer "root". What would be needed would be a 'forward' or - at worst - a redirect.]
I only chose Witney because I remember during the Cleggasm some Lib Dems overexcitedly starting talking about Witney being a LibDem gain.
As an ex Tatton voter, I can say George Osborne is highly rated and popular in the constituency.
Congratulations to Mr. Putney for his winning Hamilton tip. My own (Massa podium) failed, alas.
We're going to be inundated with nasty "it's all the foreigners' fault innit?" guff between now and election day.
Nasty, spiteful, small minded little Party.
Monday 10 September 2007
Well Ben, we certainly had such guff before the last (bottled) election...
I wonder if Dave would hold such a byelection after if MP resigned or died after November14 or leave vacant as Gordon did when Labour MP for NW Leicestershire died in December09?
We're going to be inundated with nasty "it's all the foreigners' fault innit?" guff between now and election day.
Nasty, spiteful, small minded little Party.
Ah but it's apparently only nasty when the Cons do it. Shouldn't you be condemning Clegg and Mrs Balls as well? Or did you miss their speeches?
Thanks for linking me through to SJ's politics markets, though. I've just lumped on a 40/1 shot - subsequently slashed to 14/1.
See if you can spot it (down near the bottom of the page)....
http://www.stanjames.com/UK/541/betting#bo-navigation=59275.2,59276.2&action=market-group-list&market-group=955.2
Yes, immigration can be, overall, a benefit to the country. But that is a classic straw-man argument, since no-one, least of all Cameron, has said there shouldn't be any immigration. Just because some or even most immigration is beneficial, doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the subset which is harmful, or deal with the absuses, or seek to keep the numbers down to a reasonable level so as to maximise the net benefit.
I wanted regulation backed by statute. Regulation backed by statute is coming.
Another victory.
He was on The Sunday Politics yesterday and didnt 100% rule it out although didnt say he was a runner either.
Apart from Eastleigh, UKIP simply does not have the information where to concentrate their resources. Their declaration that they will contest 632 seats is utterly stupid. Apart from serial lost deposits and increasing their total votes column, it will have negative effect on their quest for MP's.
Though, I support UKIP fielding 632 candidates !!!
That is my claim. It is amply backed up by pretty much all the evidence, including the FT article I posted below.
I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't seek to minimise the harmful/abused elements of immigration and related benefits but there are two key questions: 1) why be complicit in the misleading impression that immigration is net negative for the public finances? and 2) is eliminating the inefficiency in the element of the benefits system that relates to immigration a relatively easy or relatively difficult place to target one's efforts at improving the public finances? If not, why choose this target?
(The criticism would of course apply to all party leaders to some degree, not just Cameron.)
If the latter, then I dare say people were saying much the same sort of thing in the early 20th century when Labour were just getting going. I don't suppose that UKIP will ever turn into a mass movement as Labour did, but then times are very different and maybe they don't have to in the 21st century.
I have received a number of useful and interesting messages from you and others via the Vanilla messaging system.
How the hell do you use it?
(Remember that I am senile.)
The party clearly think its open door immigration policy was right all along. You can see it would dearly love to roll out the 'racist' tags for anybody daring to point out what has happened.
But that won;t do any more because the mood of the country has changed a great deal.
And so we have a hastily cobbled together labour policy that nobody within labour believes in and would never stand a chance of being implemented.
How many seats did the SDP win on 26% in 1983?
6, including two by a razor's edge.
4 were personal votes for defectors, Owen, Cartwright, Maclennan and Wrigglesworth.
1 was a by-election hold, Jenkins
Only ONE was a gain, Kennedy, in a seat the Liberals had held for decades up to 1970.
That landscape simple doesn't exist for UKIP.
Only if they start to consistently poll over 20% does the prospect of a seat become even a remote possibility.
So far the only "press" definitively covered by the new system seems to be Left wing blogs who are now squealing like little piggies.
He also says papers from your favourite media mogul were "out of control".
Statute is coming. If the newspapers don't sign up voluntarily, well, then they'll be forced to do so.
However much you might wish they did, Newspapers don't run this country.
On defections, if you defect TO either Labour or the Conservatives, you can be found a safe seat (John Horam, Shaun Woodward) but defecting FROM them is much harder and much less secure. It's easier if you're a local Councillor (smaller area, greater personal vote) but very tough if you're an MP.
But for targetting one seat can I suggest Mid-Bedfordshire? I think Nadine may be de-selected; her local party spikily said they wanted her to be a Tory MP for the rest of this term:
http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Tories-call-for-Nadine-Dorries-suspension-to-be-lifted-20121210160657.htm
"Cllr Duckett said: “Our members felt that Nadine Dorries does a lot of hard work for her constituents and while she is an MP she may as well be represent the Conservative Party where she will have more influence than if she was an independent - she does a good job. There were negatives and positives discussed but it was a unanimous vote, even from those who had concerns.
“MPs are a protected species, they’re more protected than wildlife - we can’t fire her. We listened to councillors, members and the general public around Mid Bedfordshire and the overall consensus was in favour of Nadine Dorries. Her decision has proved correct and it’s enabled her to engage with younger voters.”
Cllr Duckett also revealed that no decision on whether the MP would stand as a Tory candidate will be made for at least a year. "
I'm sure they want rid, but are nervous of pulling the trigger because of the damage she could do running against the Tories. She's probably UKIP's best chance in this scenario, and they may end up re-selecting her out of fear though.
That's like arguing that, because more than 99% of credit card transactions are not fraudulent, we don't need to do anything about credit-card fraud.
In any case it's not just JSA.
Still, if Labour want to keep their heads in the sand on this issue, I'm sure Cameron will be delighted.
Far be it for me to step between you and a good punch up but the matter was covered quite succinctly this morning on the Today Programme (about 2hr 17mins in).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rfz5n
Sounds like the idea was discussed between the EU and the Cypriot Government, with the latter insisting the tax should apply to ALL depositors.
Of course Richard Corbett (economic advisor to van Rompuy) could be in league with young Smithson and lying too. A more plausible explanation would however be that nobody is lying, there are different stories about how the suggestion arose but in the end it was the insistence of the Cypriots that determined the outcome.
Reasonable?
Firstly: you still haven't denied my central point: that the original EU plan is exactly what happened - i.e. the banks going bust and depositors over €100,000 being haircut.
Secondly: in the FT article it very explicity says that - although the Eurozone did propose the levy 'to break the deadlock' - that 'it was Mr Anastasiades... who set the rates.'
I agree with you that the EU should never have approved of the haircut below €100,000. In fact, a week ago I wrote:
"Only the eu did not confiscate, the government of Cyprus did. They chose, not the eu, to make it apply to all, rather than just for sums above 100k, in a vain attempt to continue to be a centre for offshore money.
Look, I hate the deal for the reasons :
1. It applies to all bank deposits, not just those at weak financial institutions.
2. It did not haircut senior bond holders.
3. It transgressed the 100k deposit insurance.
But, when you hand money over to a bank it ceases to be your money,. You have just become an unsecured creditor of the bank. You cannot offer unlimited and permanent guarantees to all banks, because that creates massive moral hazard."
It shouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility to construct a system that welcomes people who want to obey the law and work, whether skilled or unskilled, and is unwelcoming to people who want to exploit their status.
Indeed, I think the suspicion exists that the system has been deliberately constructed to be obstructive.
Thanks Tim.
I am particularly good at weeing. I have a badge for it.
In Opposition, between 2015-20, it will be much easier for the post-Cameron Conservatives to borrow or steal UKIP's clothes and become a coherently right or centre-right Opposition. I don't believe UKIP will prosper under a Labour majority Government as they have under the Coalition.
Basically, thinking about it, the bone of contention between us is that you believe that the EU proposed that depositors under €100,000 were haircut. And I don't believe they did. I do admit they enthusiastically acquiesced, which is - frankly - almost as bad.
So the question then becomes whether there two Tory MPs who:
a) Are being threatened with deselection. (Nadine?)
b) Have strong personal votes and like attention.
c) Are heading for a loss (especially with a UKIP rival) and would stand a better chance under the UKIP ticket than a Tory one.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/uk-britain-lng-idUKBRE92N0G020130324
Two thoughts:
The price the UK consumer has to pay is going to rise substantially, again, this year. That is going to hit the Conservatives ratings.
What would happen if just one of the tankers failed to arrive, let alone all three that are still on their way? The UK is a maritime nation with no maritime strategy beyond hoping that it will all be OK.
Corrib in Ireland comes on stream end 2014, early 2015. Currently the UK re-exports gas to Ireland, as this will largely stop when Corrib comes on, this effectively 'frees up' quite a lot of UK gas capacity.
Whether this will be in time to affect the UK gas price is another matter altogether.
I see this as a shot in the dark, to be honest.
For example, there is some oil fired generation that is rarely used (because its very expensive), but which can be turned on to keep the lights running. Furthermore, in extremis, the electricity company will call big electricity users and offer them money to cut electricity demand during peak periods.
Cameron (and Clegg, and Miliband...) need to focus on the workshy BRITISH of which there are a large number.
It all appears to such an unmitigated disaster (with worse to come, I fear, for us too) and it's hard to know exactly whose fault it it. The politicians, Eurocrats, bankers, spivs?
It's sad.
I've been on holiday to Greece and Cyprus, probably like most people, and it is tragic really, how resigned the people who live there must be to the years of relative penury ahead.
And all to remain suffocated by the Eurodream and the zealotry of the single-currency believers.
I suppose, for countries like Cyprus it was never, ever going to work? But they were sold the dream anyway, and now they are going to pay for it.
Bonkers.
Paging Mark Senior
There's also the situation that low-skilled immigration puts downwards pressure of low-skilled wages. The fact that high-skilled immigration makes up for it, doesn't change this.
In the case of Ireland and Spain, there was a massive property boom caused by artificially low interest rates, that led to massive private debt accumulation, secured on said property. Those were problems specifically caused by the application of Eurozone interest rates to overheated local economies. In the case of Greece, the Eurozone caused wage inflation, without corresponding improvements in productivity.
Cyprus is not a problem caused by the Eurozone. Long before Cyprus was a member, its local banks took in money - in dollars and Euros - from a large number of people attracted by its banking secrecy laws. These banks had dollar and Euro liabilities, even before the country entered the Eurozone. Had Cyprus not been in the Eurozone, it would have had exactly the same problem: bank liabilities - worth eight times the size of the country's GDP - that the local central bank could not meet by printing money. Cyprus is Iceland on the Med, and its problems are largely the result of having a banking sector both over-levered and totally disproportionate to the underlying economy.
I'd like NZ to do well because I think they are good to watch. That Fleming side of 10 years back with Astle, MacMillan, Cairns, Styris, Bond and co was really exiting, and with a little luck, could've won a WC and shocked some sides in Test series'.