''The country is crying out for his dead hand on the tiller''
This is what is baffling me a bit. If Ed is cruising to victory why are so many labour insiders so patently unhappy??
If they win they fear another gordon brown situation where Ed flip-flops and basically makes no right decisions, and policy is stifled or u-turned.
Remember Ed can't make a decision and stick to it, unless it is a terrible one.
Being elected just for not being the Tories is no basis for a mandate. Throw in a clear lack of preparedness and a complete failure to engage with all the realities of the 21st century economy, and you have a recipe for disaster: a regime that would put back the centre left in this country for a generation. Ed is good at asking questions of the types of people and institutions that Labour folk are instinctively suspicious of; he is abysmal at asking similar questions of the things that Labour holds dear. But when you are in government you cannot ignore the latter. That's what Labour did far too often last time and look what happened.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
Yes. All Savile impressions at school involved now then now then, I have a small boy here on my lap etc etc Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
I always found him "creepy" but never knew why. Could never quite put my finger on it. But even as a five year old watching him TOTP I didn't like the man...
It's the problem with the 70s culture in a nutshell. TOTP had girls of young age hanging off him. It was happening on screen and therefore legitimised in the minds of the viewing public.
Saville exploited a general tendency in this country to let depraved men get away with abusing the vulnerable by turning a blind eye. It has been happening since God knows when. Child prostitutes in Victorian England, young boys preyed on by predatory figures of authority throughout the 20th century, young white women targeted by Asian grooming gangs, and so on. There is always a reason to look away and/or to blame the victim. And then we moan about checks and PC gone made and all the rest of it. But if what is done now had been done when Jimmy Saville was stalking the wards and mortuaries of NHS hospitals he would not have got away with his crimes and hundreds of damaged people may not have become so.
What is done now hasn't stopped the Asian grooming gangs though has it? There was another case at the weekend
No, it has not stopped them. But it has probably prevented a lot of other cases. As we know, it is not only Moslem Asians that abuse and exploit vulnerable children. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done to tackle the grooming gangs, but that does not invalidate what has been done in other areas
You specified Asians. What has been done that has prevented other cases of Asian grooming gangs?
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
...What the UK really wants now, I think, is a different sort of settlement with the EU which allows us to retain membership of some sort but without the silly pretence that we are ever going to join the Euro, that we are subject to mission creep and the extension of jurisdiction by the ECJ and the general premise that we are in any way committed to an ever closer union.
It is far from clear such an option will be available and not just because Jonny Foreigner is dastardly. ...
I agree that it is far from clear, but there is a counter-argument which suggests it might be available. If we accept the premise that there is still a political drive in the EU institutions, as well as in many of our EU partner countries, for closer political and economic union, then the current anomalous position of the UK is an obstacle to that, and a big one. The crucial point is that, in reality, the Eurozone is already a separate union-within-the-union. From the point of view of the central core, the fact that we and a handful of other countries are outside the Eurozone is a big fudge, and it is one which causes increasing difficulties as they try to integrate more closely. What's more, there is general agreement that, if they are keep the Euro and make a success of it, they really do need to do something about the institutional framework - the problems which led to the Eurozone crisis have not gone away.
To a lesser extent, similar arguments apply to some of the other areas where we have opt-outs, notably Schengen.
All this points to some sort of Associate or special status for the UK (and maybe a couple of other countries). The logic is actually inexorable. Of course logic doesn't always triumph, and we may get just more fudge and drift for a long time. Cameron's 2017 deadline may serve to focus minds, subject obviously to what happens in GE 2015.
Whilst I agree with the logic having a clear understanding of the end game by the time the UK is being asked to vote on it in 2017 is a really big ask. I doubt we will have all this sorted before 2020 myself.
Further to my previous post: It's worth reading what Jean-Claude Juncker himself said in the five-point set of priorities he issued before he nominated:
A fifth and last priority for me as Commission President will be to give an answer to the British question. No reasonable politician can ignore the fact that, during the next five years, we will have to find solutions for the political concerns of the United Kingdom. We have to do this if we want to keep the UK within the European Union – which I would like to do as Commission President. As Commission President, I will work for a fair deal with Britain. A deal that accepts the specificities of the UK in the EU, while allowing the Eurozone to integrate further. The UK will need to understand that in the Eurozone, we need more Europe, not less. On the other hand, the other EU countries will have to accept that the UK will never participate in the euro, even if we may regret this. We have to accept that the UK will not become a member of the Schengen area. And I am also ready to accept that the UK will stay outside new EU institutions such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, meant to improve the fight against fraud in the EU, but clearly rejected by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We have to respect such clear positions of the British Parliament, based on the British “opt out” Protocol. David Cameron has recently written down a number of further key demands in an article published in the Daily Telegraph. As Commission President, I will be ready to talk to him about these demands in a fair and reasonable manner. My red line in such talks would be the integrity of the single market and its four freedoms; and the possibility to have more Europe within the Eurozone to strengthen the single currency shared so far by 18 and soon by 19 Member States. But I have the impression that this is as important for Britain as it will be for the next President of the Commission. A deal that accepts the specificities of the UK in the EU.
That's a pretty clear outline of an EU where the Eurozone continues with 'ever closer union' and we sit on the sidelines, albeit nominally 'In' the EU.
We might not like him, but perhaps we can do business with him.
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
Whilst I agree with the logic having a clear understanding of the end game by the time the UK is being asked to vote on it in 2017 is a really big ask. I doubt we will have all this sorted before 2020 myself.
There is no chance of a new treaty being ready for 2017.
So therefore, either the referendum will be postponed (Cameron: traitor!) or it will be on the basis of a letter of understanding between Cameron, Hollande, Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi (Cameron: naieve! It's not worth the paper it's written on!)
That said, the logical end point - assuming France does not implode, which is far from assured - is that there will be a 'settlement' that will see a clearer distinction between Eurozone and non-Eurozone, with the latter group taking on more 'associate' membership of the EU.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
Yes. All Savile impressions at school involved now then now then, I have a small boy here on my lap etc etc Everyone knew he was a nonce, nobody did anything about it
I always found him "creepy" but never knew why. Could never quite put my finger on it. But even as a five year old watching him TOTP I didn't like the man...
It's the problem with the 70s culture in a nutshell. TOTP had girls of young age hanging off him. It was happening on screen and therefore legitimised in the minds of the viewing public.
Saville exploited a general tendency in this country to let depraved men get away with abusing the vulnerable by turning a blind eye. It has been happening since God knows when. Child prostitutes in Victorian England, young boys preyed on by predatory figures of authority throughout the 20th century, young white women targeted by Asian grooming gangs, and so on. There is always a reason to look away and/or to blame the victim. And then we moan about checks and PC gone made and all the rest of it. But if what is done now had been done when Jimmy Saville was stalking the wards and mortuaries of NHS hospitals he would not have got away with his crimes and hundreds of damaged people may not have become so.
What is done now hasn't stopped the Asian grooming gangs though has it? There was another case at the weekend
No, it has not stopped them. But it has probably prevented a lot of other cases. As we know, it is not only Moslem Asians that abuse and exploit vulnerable children. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done to tackle the grooming gangs, but that does not invalidate what has been done in other areas
You specified Asians. What has been done that has prevented other cases of Asian grooming gangs?
I did not specify Asian gangs. I mentioned them as an example of how child abuse has been all too often ignored in this country. What I said specifically is that if what is in place now had been in place when Jimmy Saville was active he would not have got away with what he did.
...What the UK really wants now, I think, is a different sort of settlement with the EU which allows us to retain membership of some sort but without the silly pretence that we are ever going to join the Euro, that we are subject to mission creep and the extension of jurisdiction by the ECJ and the general premise that we are in any way committed to an ever closer union.
It is far from clear such an option will be available and not just because Jonny Foreigner is dastardly. ...
I agree that it is far from clear, but there is a counter-argument which suggests it might be available. If we accept the premise that there is still a political drive in the EU itself, as well as in many of our EU partner countries, for closer political and economic union, then the current anomalous position of the UK is an obstacle to that, and a big one. The crucial point is that, in reality, the Eurozone is already a separate union-within-the-union. From the point of view of the central core, the fact that we and a handful of other countries are outside the Eurozone is a big fudge, and it is one which causes increasing difficulties as they try to integrate more closely. What's more, there is general agreement that, if they are keep the Euro and make a success of it, they really do need to do something about the institutional framework - the problems which led to the Eurozone crisis have not gone away.
To a lesser extent, similar arguments apply to some of the other areas where we have opt-outs, notably Schengen.
All this points to some sort of Associate or special status for the UK (and maybe a couple of other countries). The logic is actually inexorable. Of course logic doesn't always triumph, and we may get just more fudge and drift for a long time. Cameron's 2017 deadline may serve to focus minds, subject obviously to what happens in GE 2015.
The UK has lived with anomalies like this for a long time with Scotland and Northern Ireland. We really need to talk specifics to have a meaningful discussion about this but I'm not generally sure you could come up with a solution that would satisfy either side more than the existing fudge. You want immunity from even more areas of normal European control? Hello, West Lothian Question!
Do you have a link demonstrating that healthcare is denied to people in Italy and France? I don't disbelieve you, I would just like to understand more.
As for your system, the problem with the "market" approach is that there are externalities here that are not included within private decision making. If you imagine the skilled graduate example I mentioned, then the private employer would probably assume that they're not going to be with them in five years due to the rate at which people move jobs. Thus they're not going to pay the up to £5k pay bump for graduates to make it worth the graduate's while to come here over Geneva or Singapore. However, that graduate, unlike a construction worker, would likely be on an accelerating salary and productivity spiral over the course of their life which probably would make it worth it for the country as a whole. That's why the government needs to judge things on long term earnings potential, in a way a business would not consider.
Also, how is someone earning £30k+ for their first few years here not already contributing? Particularly if they're young and don't use much healthcare.
The UK has lived with anomalies like this for a long time with Scotland and Northern Ireland. We really need to talk specifics to have a meaningful discussion about this but I'm not generally sure you could come up with a solution that would satisfy either side more than the existing fudge. You want immunity from even more areas of normal European control? Hello, West Lothian Question!
Sure, anomalies can and do persist for a long time. Where they have to be addressed is at the point where they prevent something which is seen as important from happening - in this case, the closer union and the strengthening of the institutions of the Eurozone.
Yes I would go along with that. I see no reason why a referendum was not possible by 2017 and a treaty if needs be after that or based on a draft treaty and the outcome would be I think some sort of associate status. It ought to be in the intersts of everybody to sort it out quickly. But we have to hope UKIP do not gift us a labour govt because otherwise we will be drawn closer into Europe. It would be a major triumph if as an alternative the EU agreed to hand back more powers to individual parliaments over issues like free movement of labour (even if it was related to population size or relative wealth the the net immigrant nations). The UK needs to protect its membership of the single market encourage inward investment and stay out of Schengen.
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
Further to my previous post: It's worth reading what Jean-Claude Juncker himself said in the five-point set of priorities he issued before he nominated:
A fifth and last priority for me as Commission President will be to give an answer to the British question. No reasonable politician can ignore the fact that, during the next five years, we will have to find solutions for the political concerns of the United Kingdom. We have to do this if we want to keep the UK within the European Union – which I would like to do as Commission President. As Commission President, I will work for a fair deal with Britain. A deal that accepts the specificities of the UK in the EU, while allowing the Eurozone to integrate further. The UK will need to understand that in the Eurozone, we need more Europe, not less. On the other hand, the other EU countries will have to accept that the UK will never participate in the euro, even if we may regret this. We have to accept that the UK will not become a member of the Schengen area. And I am also ready to accept that the UK will stay outside new EU institutions such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, meant to improve the fight against fraud in the EU, but clearly rejected by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We have to respect such clear positions of the British Parliament, based on the British “opt out” Protocol. David Cameron has recently written down a number of further key demands in an article published in the Daily Telegraph. As Commission President, I will be ready to talk to him about these demands in a fair and reasonable manner. My red line in such talks would be the integrity of the single market and its four freedoms; and the possibility to have more Europe within the Eurozone to strengthen the single currency shared so far by 18 and soon by 19 Member States. But I have the impression that this is as important for Britain as it will be for the next President of the Commission. A deal that accepts the specificities of the UK in the EU.
That's a pretty clear outline of an EU where the Eurozone continues with 'ever closer union' and we sit on the sidelines, albeit nominally 'In' the EU.
We might not like him, but perhaps we can do business with him.
The Common Agricultural Policy, the ECHR, ECJ, home affairs, and the Social Chapter are not fundamental parts of the single market. On the other hand, we would still not be able to limit immigration (the biggest concern and most desired repatriation for UK voters), and would not be able to sign free trade deals with India, Canada etc.
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
The bext proxies would these surely? The Next Government
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
You can bribe placate The DUP not with Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but with more money and devolved powers for the Northern Ireland government.
We don't border any countries from which legitimate asylum seekers would originate, they are coming here for financial reasons.
Even if an immigrant is high skilled I question the need, it harms another sector of society, consider the disastrous employment prospects of IT graduates, and I don't think having an elite with little sympathy towards the indigenous population has proven successful anywhere. Would need to be clear short term work permits with removal if needed with employer or immigrant paying the full cost to society.
Do you have a link demonstrating that healthcare is denied to people in Italy and France? I don't disbelieve you, I would just like to understand more.
As for your system, the problem with the "market" approach is that there are externalities here that are not included within private decision making. If you imagine the skilled graduate example I mentioned, then the private employer would probably assume that they're not going to be with them in five years due to the rate at which people move jobs. Thus they're not going to pay the up to £5k pay bump for graduates to make it worth the graduate's while to come here over Geneva or Singapore. However, that graduate, unlike a construction worker, would likely be on an accelerating salary and productivity spiral over the course of their life which probably would make it worth it for the country as a whole. That's why the government needs to judge things on long term earnings potential, in a way a business would not consider.
Also, how is someone earning £30k+ for their first few years here not already contributing? Particularly if they're young and don't use much healthcare.
What would you do about asylum seekers?
Re Italy, provision to healthcare - you are required to have a Libretto Sanitario to get access to full (non-emergency) provision of healthcare in Italy. This means you need to demonstrate you have a job and are paying into the Italian NHS fund. There are some detals here (http://www.europe-cities.com/en/633/italy/health/), and I have a paper copy of a report on the Italian heath system I can scan and send if you're desparate :-)
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
The bext proxies would these surely? The Next Government
Backing 2 4-1 shots is 40% probability, my guess of 2.6 price for Lib Dem cabinet ministers is 38%. So these odds sound about right to me. Maybe a smidgen of value on the Lab-LD one, but Lab most seats, Con most votes is I think a far better proxy (And also covers Labour minority) for that which I am on at longer than 4-1 already.
Those odds are fair, but not particularly enthralling.
''The country is crying out for his dead hand on the tiller''
This is what is baffling me a bit. If Ed is cruising to victory why are so many labour insiders so patently unhappy??
If they win they fear another gordon brown situation where Ed flip-flops and basically makes no right decisions, and policy is stifled or u-turned.
Remember Ed can't make a decision and stick to it, unless it is a terrible one.
Being elected just for not being the Tories is no basis for a mandate. Throw in a clear lack of preparedness and a complete failure to engage with all the realities of the 21st century economy, and you have a recipe for disaster: a regime that would put back the centre left in this country for a generation. Ed is good at asking questions of the types of people and institutions that Labour folk are instinctively suspicious of; he is abysmal at asking similar questions of the things that Labour holds dear. But when you are in government you cannot ignore the latter. That's what Labour did far too often last time and look what happened.
you'll be a PBHodges before long... a fate that all Spurs fans know is inevitable.
There's an unfortunate line in this guardian story, and I'm not sure why the Guardian put it in.
Note, I know the works of Keir Starmer, and know he is impartial and fair, for he was the chap under his watch the CPS prosecuted several Labour MPs over their expenses.
Bold is my emphasis
Prosecutors were right to charge Rebekah Brooks and other News of the World executives over conspiracy to hack phones as the trials have helped determine who knew about widespread malpractice at the newspaper, Sir Keir Starmer, the former director of public prosecutions, has said.
The senior QC, who is understood to be considering running as a Labour MP, said the court cases exposed vital details about phone-hacking at the newspaper, even though Brooks, her assistant Cheryl Carter, husband Charlie Brooks and managing editor Stuart Kuttner were cleared.
The Juncker link posted by Richard N is interesting, and makes it all the stranger than Cameron portrayed him as utterly unacceptable. For my taste it's too willing to accept a permanent difference between the UK and everyone else - I don't think public opinion on anything remains in one place forever, and while it's clear that people are dubious about free movement and the Euro, it's not really clear that people want us in an outer ring with the difficulties that follow. In particular, note that the two countries that have had MOST migration per head in recent years are the two non-EU associates Norway and Switzerland, so are we talking about some association looser than they have?
What I think we should aim for is a multi-speed EU with countries having the right to move in and out of major elements of it. This does exist to some extent, viz. the common justice sphere which we withdrew from and now seem about to opt back into. A fundamental difficulty is that there isn't any chance of including migration barriers in the optional mix - that's been in the EC so long that it's seen as indissoluble as free trade. But if the benefits issue - which is peripheral to most European migrants - can be addressed, I'm not convinced that people are really that worried about free movement within Europe per se.
Further to my previous post: It's worth reading what Jean-Claude Juncker himself said in the five-point set of priorities he issued before he nominated:
A fifth and last priority for me as Commission President will be to give an answer to the British question. No reasonable politician can ignore the fact that, during the next five years, we will have to find solutions for the political concerns of the United Kingdom. [snip]
That's a pretty clear outline of an EU where the Eurozone continues with 'ever closer union' and we sit on the sidelines, albeit nominally 'In' the EU.
We might not like him, but perhaps we can do business with him.
The Common Agricultural Policy, the ECHR, ECJ, home affairs, and the Social Chapter are not fundamental parts of the single market. On the other hand, we would still not be able to limit immigration (the biggest concern and most desired repatriation for UK voters), and would not be able to sign free trade deals with India, Canada etc.
I don't know what you mean by the ECJ in this context, and one could argue over each of the points, but I think the thrust is right.
What I would add is that the free market is not uncontroversial in a couple more respects: one being the "wonky banana" objection to the free movement of goods (or more precisely, measures taken by the EU to further it) - which, in a far more refined form, I recall one pber objecting to on the basis that single technical standards inter alia created large one-off retooling costs for small businesses; and secondly alongside the immigration/social cohesion argument there is the immigration/driving down wages argument (which Farage did touch on during the debates - echoing the objection of Tony Benn and trade unionists). A "four freedoms" approach would, therefore, not answer those concerns either.
F1: more on standing start stupidity: "Reportedly, though, in the interest of safety, the race director can pick and choose when he wishes to do a rolling restart or a standing restart. It’s getting sillier by the sentence, isn’t it?"
"Although this should not be overstated, as the contest next year will be mainly about the economy and questions of leadership, Europe will come up at various crucial points. And when it does, what will Ed Miliband say beyond offering a promise not to be isolated in the EU?
Hearing this, voters and interviewers will press him repeatedly by asking: What do you mean? Why won't you let voters decide in a referendum?
Miliband's inability to answer very basic questions on the EU will look awful when magnified by the media during the election campaign. "
The Common Agricultural Policy, the ECHR, ECJ, home affairs, and the Social Chapter are not fundamental parts of the single market. On the other hand, we would still not be able to limit immigration (the biggest concern and most desired repatriation for UK voters), and would not be able to sign free trade deals with India, Canada etc.
Yes, I think that is roughly right, in fact I'd be a bit more pessimistic and assume we won't get much progress on CAP. In other words, if we assume for the sake of argument that a renegotiation deal giving us some kind of special status can be done, then I am pretty certain that you, Richard T, Nigel Farage, Dan Hannan, and many others will not be satisfied that it is enough.
However, what matters in political terms is whether it will be enough to satisfy those who are broadly in favour of the EU but think it has become too bossy and who don't want political union. To take one example, I don't share your view that we need to be able to sign our own free trade deals, in fact I think the EU has been quite successful at opening up free trade and anyway the Germans don't seem to have any problem trading with China and other world markets from within the EU, so that wouldn't be a factor in persuading me to vote for Out.
That said, the logical end point - assuming France does not implode, which is far from assured - is that there will be a 'settlement' that will see a clearer distinction between Eurozone and non-Eurozone, with the latter group taking on more 'associate' membership of the EU.
The problem with this is that apart from the UK, long-term it's not clear that there is a non-Eurozone, except as a transitional phase for new members that are trying to get in.
Other people here can tell us more about Swedish and Danish politics but IIUC the political parties have generally been in favour, and the issue is getting the thing through referendums. Even if they stay out for a long time, they're still going to be surrounded by Eurozone countries and quite tightly integrated with them, and de-facto the Euro is going to circulate a lot in their territory. It's not obvious that they be happy with the kind of "none of our business, we just don't want anything to do with it" approach that the British seem to want.
Obviously if the Euro turns out to be the enduring kiss of death for any economy involved in it this will change, but in that situation we also get the current "in" countries starting to try to get out, which is a different dynamic altogether.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
it
Saville exploited a general tendency in this country to let depraved men get away with abusing the vulnerable by turning a blind eye. It has been happening since God knows when. Child prostitutes in Victorian England, young boys preyed on by predatory figures of authority throughout the 20th century, young white women targeted by Asian grooming gangs, and so on. There is always a reason to look away and/or to blame the victim. And then we moan about checks and PC gone made and all the rest of it. But if what is done now had been done when Jimmy Saville was stalking the wards and mortuaries of NHS hospitals he would not have got away with his crimes and hundreds of damaged people may not have become so.
What is done now hasn't stopped the Asian grooming gangs though has it? There was another case at the weekend
No, it has not stopped them. But it has probably prevented a lot of other cases. As we know, it is not only Moslem Asians that abuse and exploit vulnerable children. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done to tackle the grooming gangs, but that does not invalidate what has been done in other areas
You specified Asians. What has been done that has prevented other cases of Asian grooming gangs?
I did not specify Asian gangs. I mentioned them as an example of how child abuse has been all too often ignored in this country. What I said specifically is that if what is in place now had been in place when Jimmy Saville was active he would not have got away with what he did.
What is it that is in place now that has stopped child abuse?
We don't border any countries from which legitimate asylum seekers would originate, they are coming here for financial reasons.
Even if an immigrant is high skilled I question the need, it harms another sector of society, consider the disastrous employment prospects of IT graduates, and I don't think having an elite with little sympathy towards the indigenous population has proven successful anywhere. Would need to be clear short term work permits with removal if needed with employer or immigrant paying the full cost to society.
There are sectors of the economy - like finance, law, consulting, semiconductor design, oil & gas, engineering - which are inherently multi-lingual and multi-country. The City of London services pretty much all of continental Europe, and would not do so if everyone employed was from the UK. Likewise, good luck getting a Brit with enough experience of Italian law. And McKinsey hires from all over Europe. If it could not move people to their offices on Jermyn Street, they would move to some other European country. The oil & gas industry is the same: go work on an oil & gas project and you will find there will be people from a dozen nationalities working on it.
If you want to say that we don't need these industries, then that's a fair view. But you do need to recognise that specialist industries tend to congregate in places, and then suck talent from across Europe and the world.
That said, the logical end point - assuming France does not implode, which is far from assured - is that there will be a 'settlement' that will see a clearer distinction between Eurozone and non-Eurozone, with the latter group taking on more 'associate' membership of the EU.
The problem with this is that apart from the UK, long-term it's not clear that there is a non-Eurozone, except as a transitional phase for new members that are trying to get in.
Other people here can tell us more about Swedish and Danish politics but IIUC the political parties have generally been in favour, and the issue is getting the thing through referendums. Even if they stay out for a long time, they're still going to be surrounded by Eurozone countries and quite tightly integrated with them, and de-facto the Euro is going to circulate a lot in their territory. It's not obvious that they be happy with the kind of "none of our business, we just don't want anything to do with it" approach that the British seem to want.
Obviously if the Euro turns out to be the enduring kiss of death for any economy involved in it this will change, but in that situation we also get the current "in" countries starting to try to get out, which is a different dynamic altogether.
There's an unfortunate line in this guardian story, and I'm not sure why the Guardian put it in.
Perhaps because Sir Keir is considering standing as a Labour MP? There is no doubt that he was politically impartial as Director of Public Prosecutions. That is no bar to a subsequent political rôle. His predecessor as DPP is now a LibDem peer. In the same way, a party political rôle is not a barrier to taking a job which requires political impartiality. No one has a problem with the fact that Cranston J used to be a Labour MP.
The Common Agricultural Policy, the ECHR, ECJ, home affairs, and the Social Chapter are not fundamental parts of the single market. On the other hand, we would still not be able to limit immigration (the biggest concern and most desired repatriation for UK voters), and would not be able to sign free trade deals with India, Canada etc.
Yes, I think that is roughly right, in fact I'd be a bit more pessimistic and assume we won't get much progress on CAP. In other words, if we assume for the sake of argument that a renegotiation deal giving us some kind of special status can be done, then I am pretty certain that you, Richard T, Nigel Farage, Dan Hannan, and many others will not be satisfied that it is enough.
However, what matters in political terms is whether it will be enough to satisfy those who are broadly in favour of the EU but think it has become too bossy and who don't want political union. To take one example, I don't share your view that we need to be able to sign our own free trade deals, in fact I think the EU has been quite successful at opening up free trade and anyway the Germans don't seem to have any problem trading with China and other world markets from within the EU, so that wouldn't be a factor in persuading me to vote for Out.
The CAP is such an odd creature: not in principle at the heart of the free market (and indeed to some extent, the opposite) but in practice one of the cornerstones on which the EU was based, in order to further post-War prosperity and recovery. Thus as we sit here in 2014, almost seventy years sincce the end of the war, it is at once both anachronistic and fiercely adhered to.
(The "official journal" has many columns taken up reporting various moves - on a daily basis - of prices of milk, etc. It consumes many more inches than information of a far mroe general nature.)
I note Hills have "Any coalition involving UKIP" priced up at 14-1. Given that pigs will fly before the Lib Dems are involved in a UKIP coalition even if UKIP achieve say 8 seats (On the very highest end of expectations) that is incredibly poor value.
Labour Minority @ 11-2, Con Minority @ 5-1 aren't awful but not particularly great I think either.
The Common Agricultural Policy, the ECHR, ECJ, home affairs, and the Social Chapter are not fundamental parts of the single market. On the other hand, we would still not be able to limit immigration (the biggest concern and most desired repatriation for UK voters), and would not be able to sign free trade deals with India, Canada etc.
Yes, I think that is roughly right, in fact I'd be a bit more pessimistic and assume we won't get much progress on CAP. In other words, if we assume for the sake of argument that a renegotiation deal giving us some kind of special status can be done, then I am pretty certain that you, Richard T, Nigel Farage, Dan Hannan, and many others will not be satisfied that it is enough.
If we don't get anything on immigration limits, or anything on trade barriers, I would expect major repatriations elsewhere would be needed. CAP is the only big one left. Even if we got opt-outs of the ECJ, the ECHR and the social chapter, would you really think that's addressing the big stuff of the EU?
However, what matters in political terms is whether it will be enough to satisfy those who are broadly in favour of the EU but think it has become too bossy and who don't want political union. To take one example, I don't share your view that we need to be able to sign our own free trade deals, in fact I think the EU has been quite successful at opening up free trade and anyway the Germans don't seem to have any problem trading with China and other world markets from within the EU, so that wouldn't be a factor in persuading me to vote for Out.
What matters for the long term political health of the country is that those people who think the EU has become too bossy feel comfortable that it's not too bossy for the long term after a renegotiation. It will be very dangerous if hopes are raised during the renegotiation, but we find out six to eighteen months down the line the EU is still telling us what to do in major regulatory areas.
I have to say I really do not understand your position on trade. When it comes to trade with China, India etc, you seem to feel that the complete lack of any free trade deal is really not much to worry about. Yet your entire argument for staying in the EU is based on the idea that the minor trade barriers between an FTA (of the Korea-EU kind) and full single market access is massively important. Important enough to make up for the huge regulatory burden , the lack of self-rule, the court judgments, unfiltered immigration, the expensive food costs, etc.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
it
Saville exploited a general tendency in this country to let depraved men get away with abusing the vulnerable by turning a blind eye. It has been happening since God knows when. Child prostitutes in Victorian England, young boys preyed on by predatory figures of authority throughout the 20th century, young white women targeted by Asian grooming gangs, and so on. There is always a reason to look away and/or to blame the victim. And then we moan about checks and PC gone made and all the rest of it. But if what is done now had been done when Jimmy Saville was stalking the wards and mortuaries of NHS hospitals he would not have got away with his crimes and hundreds of damaged people may not have become so.
What is done now hasn't stopped the Asian grooming gangs though has it? There was another case at the weekend
No, it has not stopped them. But it has probably prevented a lot of other cases. As we know, it is not only Moslem Asians that abuse and exploit vulnerable children. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done to tackle the grooming gangs, but that does not invalidate what has been done in other areas
You specified Asians. What has been done that has prevented other cases of Asian grooming gangs?
I did not specify Asian gangs. I mentioned them as an example of how child abuse has been all too often ignored in this country. What I said specifically is that if what is in place now had been in place when Jimmy Saville was active he would not have got away with what he did.
What is it that is in place now that has stopped child abuse?
The various background checks that are done on people before they are able to work with and/or supervise children; as well as the much stricter controls around accessing areas in which children are playing, being taught, being treated and so on.
There's an unfortunate line in this guardian story, and I'm not sure why the Guardian put it in.
Perhaps because Sir Keir is considering standing as a Labour MP? There is no doubt that he was politically impartial as Director of Public Prosecutions. That is no bar to a subsequent political rôle. His predecessor as DPP is now a LibDem peer. In the same way, a party political rôle is not a barrier to taking a job which requires political impartiality. No one has a problem with the fact that Cranston J used to be a Labour MP.
It was interesting watching him pivot between questions over the hacking cases - where he answered eloquently and impartially - and those of a political nature - where he was partisan - on one of the political programmes yesterday.
''And McKinsey hires from all over Europe. If it could not move people to their offices on Jermyn Street, they would move to some other European country. ''
I don;t think UKIP wants to stop potential McKinsey workers, either from inside or outside the EU.
It wants to stop people traffickers, benefit claimants, health tourists etc. And probably some of the people who clean the flats of the McKinsey workers and launder their shirts.
UKIP draws a distinction between these classes of immigrants, whereas the big three parties have a 'rough with the smooth' policy.
Mr. Scrapheap/Mr. Gin, the Savile stuff is less surprising than it might be.
I have vague memories of his rumoured proclivities being known about even in the primary school playground.
it
Saville exploited a general tendency in this country to let depraved men get away with abusing the vulnerable by turning a blind eye. It has been happening since God knows when. Child prostitutes in Victorian England, young boys preyed on by predatory figures of authority throughout the 20th century, young white women targeted by Asian grooming gangs, and so on. There is always a reason to look away and/or to blame the victim. And then we moan about checks and PC gone made and all the rest of it. But if what is done now had been done when Jimmy Saville was stalking the wards and mortuaries of NHS hospitals he would not have got away with his crimes and hundreds of damaged people may not have become so.
What is done now hasn't stopped the Asian grooming gangs though has it? There was another case at the weekend
No, it has not stopped them. But it has probably prevented a lot of other cases. As we know, it is not only Moslem Asians that abuse and exploit vulnerable children. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done to tackle the grooming gangs, but that does not invalidate what has been done in other areas
You specified Asians. What has been done that has prevented other cases of Asian grooming gangs?
I did not specify Asian gangs. I mentioned them as an example of how child abuse has been all too often ignored in this country. What I said specifically is that if what is in place now had been in place when Jimmy Saville was active he would not have got away with what he did.
What is it that is in place now that has stopped child abuse?
The various background checks that are done on people before they are able to work with and/or supervise children; as well as the much stricter controls around accessing areas in which children are playing, being taught, being treated and so on.
I agree with you that those checks must help in day to day life, but in the case of someone like Saville, don't you think the power of celebrity would trump them?
The Juncker link posted by Richard N is interesting, and makes it all the stranger than Cameron portrayed him as utterly unacceptable.
I think I get what happened here, which was a series of accidents. Merkel planned to squish Juncker, Cameron thought he could tag along for the victory, Merkel reversed course, Cameron was left exposed and had to double down. Fair enough, accidents happen, politicians have to politic.
What's harder to understand it that he wouldn't even talk to the guy on the phone until yesterday, or try to get concessions on his "reform agenda" when they were actually drawing up the plan for the next four years. The obvious conclusion is that there's no actual concrete reform agenda, and the whole thing is PR.
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
The bext proxies would these surely? The Next Government
Backing 2 4-1 shots is 40% probability, my guess of 2.6 price for Lib Dem cabinet ministers is 38%. So these odds sound about right to me. Maybe a smidgen of value on the Lab-LD one, but Lab most seats, Con most votes is I think a far better proxy (And also covers Labour minority) for that which I am on at longer than 4-1 already.
Those odds are fair, but not particularly enthralling.
Remember the over round,... Those 4/1 shots are probably 16.5% chances
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
You can bribe placate The DUP not with Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but with more money and devolved powers for the Northern Ireland government.
I am not sure that the DUP's say, 8, seats, would ever be determinative enough. If Labour or the Tories are less than 8 seats short, then the Lib Dems would be their target partner: a majority of two or three is unlikely to be worth the political capital, in my opinion. After 2010, it was "a stable government for tough times" that justified the horse-trading, but a slenbder majority - potentially whittled down in a couple of years to nothing - would be much less attractive, not to mention the potential effect on Northern Ireland of a carefully balanced devolved government now overseen from the Westminster end by a single party.
And McKinsey hires from all over Europe. If it could not move people to their offices on Jermyn Street, they would move to some other European country.
I don;t think UKIP wants to stop potential McKinsey workers, either from inside or outside the EU.
It wants to stop people traffickers, benefit claimants, health tourists etc. And probably some of the people who clean the flats of the McKinsey workers and launder their shirts.
UKIP draws a distinction between these classes of immigrants, whereas the big three parties have a 'rough with the smooth' policy.
While I appreciate and agree with your main point, the major strategy consultancies have dozens of offices around the world. As long as London remains a major business hub, McKinsey would have to be here. If McKinsey and BCG can operate from Luanda, they can operate from London.
That said, the logical end point - assuming France does not implode, which is far from assured - is that there will be a 'settlement' that will see a clearer distinction between Eurozone and non-Eurozone, with the latter group taking on more 'associate' membership of the EU.
The problem with this is that apart from the UK, long-term it's not clear that there is a non-Eurozone, except as a transitional phase for new members that are trying to get in.
Other people here can tell us more about Swedish and Danish politics but IIUC the political parties have generally been in favour, and the issue is getting the thing through referendums. Even if they stay out for a long time, they're still going to be surrounded by Eurozone countries and quite tightly integrated with them, and de-facto the Euro is going to circulate a lot in their territory. It's not obvious that they be happy with the kind of "none of our business, we just don't want anything to do with it" approach that the British seem to want.
Obviously if the Euro turns out to be the enduring kiss of death for any economy involved in it this will change, but in that situation we also get the current "in" countries starting to try to get out, which is a different dynamic altogether.
Sweden, Denmark, the UK...
Sure, but like I say I'm not sure they're either: 1) Permanently out. 2) As happy is the UK seems to be to be kicked out of the discussions in return for a bit more independence.
''And McKinsey hires from all over Europe. If it could not move people to their offices on Jermyn Street, they would move to some other European country. ''
I don;t think UKIP wants to stop potential McKinsey workers, either from inside or outside the EU.
It wants to stop people traffickers, benefit claimants, health tourists etc. And probably some of the people who clean the flats of the McKinsey workers and launder their shirts.
UKIP draws a distinction between these classes of immigrants, whereas the big three parties have a 'rough with the smooth' policy.
I'm not arguing with UKIP, I'm arguing with FalseFlag who raised the spectre of even skilled immigration being bad for an economy!
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
The bext proxies would these surely? The Next Government
Backing 2 4-1 shots is 40% probability, my guess of 2.6 price for Lib Dem cabinet ministers is 38%. So these odds sound about right to me. Maybe a smidgen of value on the Lab-LD one, but Lab most seats, Con most votes is I think a far better proxy (And also covers Labour minority) for that which I am on at longer than 4-1 already.
Those odds are fair, but not particularly enthralling.
Remember the over round,... Those 4/1 shots are probably 16.5% chances
If you take those prices as correct from the bookie's perspective then Lib Dem cabinet ministers "real" price is 2-1, and a bookie would price it 7-4 then maybe ?
So far, Mega Polling Monday looks both good (Populus) and bad (ComRes marginals) for Lab?
We await new from The Good Lord.
Meanwhile didn't I say Coulson would face a retrial? CPS need to get more out of the multi-million pound hacking inquiry than they've hitherto achieved.
If we don't get anything on immigration limits, or anything on trade barriers, I would expect major repatriations elsewhere would be needed. CAP is the only big one left. Even if we got opt-outs of the ECJ, the ECHR and the social chapter, would you really think that's addressing the big stuff of the EU?
There's a whole raft of further stuff including most notably financial regulation.
On EU immigration, I'm not personally persuaded that this is as big an issue as many make out. (If I didn't live in the depths of the countryside you might conclude this is because I'm part of the metropolitan elite!). A lot of the disquiet about immigration actually relates to non-EU immigration and the disastrous encouragement of lack of integration in the name of 'multi-culturalism'. I'm also not convinced that, even if we left the EU, we'd end up with much reduction in immigration from EU countries - it is ultimately economic forces which drive much of it, and those forces won't disappear. As Maggie said, you can't buck the market.
I accept, however, that for many EU immigration is seen as a big issue; realistically, it's one of the 'four freedoms', so I can't see it being up for negotiation (except at the margins in terms of changing benefit entitlements). Those for whom this is a red line will no doubt vote for Out, but it's not a red line for me.
I have to say I really do not understand your position on trade. When it comes to trade with China, India etc, you seem to feel that the complete lack of any free trade deal is really not much to worry about. Yet your entire argument for staying in the EU is based on the idea that the minor trade barriers between an FTA (of the Korea-EU kind) and full single market access is massively important. .
No, I do think that free trade deals are important, but I think this is genuinely one example where doing things at the pan-European level is more effective. The bigger the economic areas you are combining in a free-trade deal, the better.
So far, Mega Polling Monday looks both good (Populus) and bad (ComRes marginals) for Lab?
We await new from The Good Lord.
Meanwhile didn't I say Coulson would face a retrial? CPS need to get more out of the multi-million pound hacking inquiry than they've hitherto achieved.
The Comres poll isn't that bad for Labour given they are +2 and Con is -1 from the last poll. As Mr Senior posted below it needs alot of weighting and is far less extensive than the Ashcroft marginals poll. Threading the needle of JACKW's ARSE, the local election results and this (And the last) Comres Battlebus poll (And the Ashcroft polls...) leads me to think there may be some value in Conservatives holding Pudsey @ 9-4 (Though I'm only in for a fiver on this one - alot of the huge constituency prices where Con was far too long have gone)
There's an unfortunate line in this guardian story, and I'm not sure why the Guardian put it in.
Perhaps because Sir Keir is considering standing as a Labour MP? There is no doubt that he was politically impartial as Director of Public Prosecutions. That is no bar to a subsequent political rôle. His predecessor as DPP is now a LibDem peer. In the same way, a party political rôle is not a barrier to taking a job which requires political impartiality. No one has a problem with the fact that Cranston J used to be a Labour MP.
I know, but the article would have worked fine without that line, especially given the accusations by some that the hacking trials were politically motivated.
''And McKinsey hires from all over Europe. If it could not move people to their offices on Jermyn Street, they would move to some other European country. ''
I don;t think UKIP wants to stop potential McKinsey workers, either from inside or outside the EU.
It wants to stop people traffickers, benefit claimants, health tourists etc. And probably some of the people who clean the flats of the McKinsey workers and launder their shirts.
UKIP draws a distinction between these classes of immigrants, whereas the big three parties have a 'rough with the smooth' policy.
Under my masterplan for a fully independent City of London (one corporation, one vote) McKinsey will have the authority to issue their own visas, so they'll be able to get anybody they like over with no more delay than their normal Human Resources bureaucracy. They may not be allowed into the UK (presumably they'll bring back the checkpoints they used to have to stop the IRA) but the McKinsey people may as well sleep under their desks, since the poor bastards never get any time off in the first place.
So far, Mega Polling Monday looks both good (Populus) and bad (ComRes marginals) for Lab?
We await new from The Good Lord.
Meanwhile didn't I say Coulson would face a retrial? CPS need to get more out of the multi-million pound hacking inquiry than they've hitherto achieved.
The Comres poll isn't that bad for Labour given they are +2 and Con is -1 from the last poll. As Mr Senior posted below it needs alot of weighting and is far less extensive than the Ashcroft marginals poll.
OGH's interpretation is that ComRes marginals isn't very good for Lab and I'll stick with that.
I always think when people go trawling through the weightings to try and rubbish a poll they don't like it's a bit desperate...
There's no chance of a renegotiation or a new treaty before 2017. So a referendum would be based on pretty much the status quo - apart from one massive gamechanging difference: The likelihood of getting to 2017 without another recession/banking crisis/credit meltdown/stockmarket crash is pretty low. We're going to find out just how 'fixed' the Eurozone is in the next couple of years. (and just how 'fixed' the UK welfare state is).
The serious BOO'ers (of which I am definitely one, given the impossibility of meaningful reform) can buy some popcorn. France is more likely going to be the spark that ignites the bonfire rather than the permaslump garlic zone. But a bonfire there will be. The Eurozone banking system cannot survive another bout of 2008ishness - so it's massive money printing and QE and a German teddy in the corner. And the end of nation states in the Eurozone. Which may be the exact objective of Eurozone politicians - but I'm not sure their electorates or constitutional courts have given their consent.
So far, Mega Polling Monday looks both good (Populus) and bad (ComRes marginals) for Lab?
We await new from The Good Lord.
Meanwhile didn't I say Coulson would face a retrial? CPS need to get more out of the multi-million pound hacking inquiry than they've hitherto achieved.
The Comres poll isn't that bad for Labour given they are +2 and Con is -1 from the last poll. As Mr Senior posted below it needs alot of weighting and is far less extensive than the Ashcroft marginals poll.
OGH's interpretation is that ComRes marginals isn't very good for Lab and I'll stick with that.
I always think when people go trawling through the weightings to try and rubbish a poll they don't like it's a bit desperate...
OGH also interprets losing almost 3/4 of the student vote as good for the Lib Dems
As a ukip Supporter I like the recent unweighted election results , and I include Newark, Wythenshawe & South Shields in that
Twitter Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 7m Ladbrokes just taken £1k @ 25/1 on Elizabeth Warren to be next US President. Odds cut to 20/1. http://bit.ly/1r531Ox
There's no chance of a renegotiation or a new treaty before 2017. So a referendum would be based on pretty much the status quo - apart from one massive gamechanging difference: The likelihood of getting to 2017 without another recession/banking crisis/credit meltdown/stockmarket crash is pretty low. We're going to find out just how 'fixed' the Eurozone is in the next couple of years. (and just how 'fixed' the UK welfare state is).
The serious BOO'ers (of which I am definitely one, given the impossibility of meaningful reform) can buy some popcorn. France is more likely going to be the spark that ignites the bonfire rather than the permaslump garlic zone. But a bonfire there will be. The Eurozone banking system cannot survive another bout of 2008ishness - so it's massive money printing and QE and a German teddy in the corner. And the end of nation states in the Eurozone. Which may be the exact objective of Eurozone politicians - but I'm not sure their electorates or constitutional courts have given their consent.
Tier one capital in Eurozone Banks 2008: 3.1% Now: 10.4%
More than €700bn of bad loans have been written off across the Eurozone.
More than €500bn of new equity has been raised.
More than 100 institutions have been shuttered.
In Spain, property prices in unfashionable developments 30 miles or so inland from Marbella are being bought by financial investors, who are stripping the houses for their tiles, copper and lead. I think we can reasonably assume that property prices there do not have another 50% down.
Meanwhile .... one of the final planks of the Coalitions Economics Plan A is likely to fall into place and may also have significant consequences for the Scottish referendum debate and a huge boost to the Scottish economy as oil revenue dips :
An interesting question is which seat will be "Most seats"
Electoral calculus currently shows 19 Lib Dem MPs in it's numbers. I think this is a safe working assumption as an upper bound. So adding in the 58 "Non Lab-con" gives 650 - 58 = 592/2 =
296th seat
An Upper Lib Dem bound of say 40 gives 79 "Non Lab-Con seats" assuming Nat numbers stay the same, given that if the Lib Dems keep 40 seats then I think the Nats must lose ground relative to Lib Dem 19 seats that is a fairly safish assumption of a lower bound on the nth seat for most seats: 650-79 =
286th seat.
My projection gives 63 Non Lab-Con seats (64 for Speaker actually), JackW's ARSE 650 - 586 = 64 seats
You think immigration/integration is the biggest issue of concern to voters purely on the basis of benefits?
I very much doubt that is the case
Depression of wages and change in the nature of hometown would be far far more of a concern I reckon
There is quite a lot of talk just now about the problems in the NHS caused by a shortage of GPs. No one seems to be making the link with the rapidly expanding population. The number of people in the UK has gone up by, what was it, five million in the last decade or so - that is the equivalent of five cities the size Birmingham. Yet the number of doctors, hospitals and ambulances has not increased in anything like proportion. Increase demand but hold supply static or even allow it to decline and service is going to get worse. The same can be seen in schools, transport, housing, indeed almost all aspects of public life.
If memory serves net immigration was officially 180,000 last year. A city the size of Brighton's worth of demand in just one year. Yet investment in public infrastructure (health, education transport etc.) is static or falling. Why? Well, because there is not the money to spend on it, HMG is running up an extra £100bn of debt each year just to pay the bills. Somehow all these extra people don't seem to be generating enough taxes to pay their own costs let alone increase the wealth of the UK.
An interesting question is which seat will be "Most seats"
Electoral calculus currently shows 19 Lib Dem MPs in it's numbers. I think this is a safe working assumption as an upper bound. So adding in the 58 "Non Lab-con" gives 650 - 58 = 592/2 =
296th seat
An Upper Lib Dem bound of say 40 gives 79 "Non Lab-Con seats" assuming Nat numbers stay the same, given that if the Lib Dems keep 40 seats then I think the Nats must lose ground relative to Lib Dem 19 seats that is a fairly safish assumption of a lower bound on the nth seat for most seats: 650-79 =
286th seat.
My projection gives 63 Non Lab-Con seats (64 for Speaker actually), JackW's ARSE 650 - 586 = 64 seats
293rd seat:
Bury North is Labour's 293rd,
Worcester is Conservative's 293rd.
On Electoral Calculus lists.
Cunning analysis. For interest, Labour are 1/2 to win Bury North with the Tories 6/4. No obvious sign of odds on Worcester.
Northern Ireland could be crucial, if we have 5 or 6 non voting Sinn Fein MPs, and 8/9 DUPers, the target for a majority falls below the 326 line.
Do bets on an Overall Majority adjust the line in this way, or require 326 MPs for the winner regardless?
No the bookies don't adjust for that.
It should be noted, IIRC last time, the BBC classed John Bercow as a Tory MP in their final seat totals.
Which is what most bookies used for their totals.
Perhaps Shadsy can come here and clarify ?
Speaker Bercow is the Speaker - and not a Conservative MP. It is a long shot that Conservatives get 325 MPs anyway, but clarification is important.
Edit !:
Seems I am wrong:
The current Speaker, John Bercow, is standing for election in Buckingham. The Speaker is a neutral figure in Parliament, so Mr Bercow is no longer a member of the Conservative Party as he was before his election to the role (by all the other MPs). However, for the purposes of calculating the number of seats belonging to each party - and calculating those held, gained or lost by each party - Mr Bercow is regarded as a Conservative MP and the seat is regarded as being held by the Conservatives in 2005.
So Labour need 326 seats, Conservatives 325 seats.
''And McKinsey hires from all over Europe. If it could not move people to their offices on Jermyn Street, they would move to some other European country. ''
I don;t think UKIP wants to stop potential McKinsey workers, either from inside or outside the EU.
It wants to stop people traffickers, benefit claimants, health tourists etc. And probably some of the people who clean the flats of the McKinsey workers and launder their shirts.
UKIP draws a distinction between these classes of immigrants, whereas the big three parties have a 'rough with the smooth' policy.
Under my masterplan for a fully independent City of London (one corporation, one vote) McKinsey will have the authority to issue their own visas, so they'll be able to get anybody they like over with no more delay than their normal Human Resources bureaucracy. They may not be allowed into the UK (presumably they'll bring back the checkpoints they used to have to stop the IRA) but the McKinsey people may as well sleep under their desks, since the poor bastards never get any time off in the first place.
Sympathy for McKinseyites. Now I've seen everything.
I don't believe another crisis is coming for the Eurozone. Just a long, miserable period of stagnation and unemployment.
The big danger - in the short to medium term - for the Eurozone is that either:
a) France refuses to reform, and it's slow motion car crash as it attempts to legislate against modernity.
or
a) Grinding austerity and low growth leads to a genuinely anti-EU party (I wouldn't count Five Star or the AfD as this, I would could the FN) taking power in major European country and that triggers the collapse of the whole edifice
1 and 2 are inter-related, but either could happen on their own.
I continue to be very bullish on Spanish prospects over the next five years, and I would expect them to be by far the fastest growing major country in the Eurozone over that period, whipping Germany handily. Italy seems like it may reform, we shall see.
But the banks across Europe are now well capitalised. Consumer debt levels are low in most of the Eurozone (low 50s as a percent of GDP in most countries, against 150% or so in the UK). Corporates have also been hoarding cash and paying back debts, which is why I'd doubt that you'll see serious problems in the banking sector going forward.
The big danger - in the short to medium term - for the Eurozone is that either:
a) France refuses to reform, and it's slow motion car crash as it attempts to legislate against modernity.
or
a) Grinding austerity and low growth leads to a genuinely anti-EU party (I wouldn't count Five Star or the AfD as this, I would could the FN) taking power in major European country and that triggers the collapse of the whole edifice
The first of those is nailed-on, though.
I think Socrates is right, it won't necessarily be a crisis (although there's always the risk of something nasty popping up, from the Ukraine, for example), but a long period of stagnation.
It won't be uniform, though; some countries, and some sectors, will do quite well.
I don't believe another crisis is coming for the Eurozone. Just a long, miserable period of stagnation and unemployment.
The big danger - in the short to medium term - for the Eurozone is that either:
a) France refuses to reform, and it's slow motion car crash as it attempts to legislate against modernity.
or
a) Grinding austerity and low growth leads to a genuinely anti-EU party (I wouldn't count Five Star or the AfD as this, I would could the FN) taking power in major European country and that triggers the collapse of the whole edifice
1 and 2 are inter-related, but either could happen on their own.
I continue to be very bullish on Spanish prospects over the next five years, and I would expect them to be by far the fastest growing major country in the Eurozone over that period, whipping Germany handily. Italy seems like it may reform, we shall see.
But the banks across Europe are now well capitalised. Consumer debt levels are low in most of the Eurozone (low 50s as a percent of GDP in most countries, against 150% or so in the UK). Corporates have also been hoarding cash and paying back debts, which is why I'd doubt that you'll see serious problems in the banking sector going forward.
Would you (or anyone else) be able to fill out the mechanics of those two different dangers? If France is a slow-motion economic car crash, what does that do to everybody else? And say the FN get elected, and stay true to their principles rather than pivoting to the centre. What happens next?
" The OUT campaign has one essential task – to neutralise the fear that leaving may be bad for jobs and living standards.
This requires a grassroots movement based on small businesses.
If when voting comes on a referendum, people think ‘all the local businesses are voting IN and they say they’ll be firing people and going bust if there’s an OUT vote’, then the IN campaign will win.
If people think ‘small businesses are clearly in favour of OUT’, then OUT will win easily. If people think ‘business seems divided’, then OUT should win."
"The Times today has a report by Robert Ford, the psephologist and the politics analyst Ian Warren that will make for sobering reading in Number 10 and One Brewer's Green.
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
You can bribe placate The DUP not with Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but with more money and devolved powers for the Northern Ireland government.
The big danger - in the short to medium term - for the Eurozone is that either:
a) France refuses to reform, and it's slow motion car crash as it attempts to legislate against modernity.
or
a) Grinding austerity and low growth leads to a genuinely anti-EU party (I wouldn't count Five Star or the AfD as this, I would could the FN) taking power in major European country and that triggers the collapse of the whole edifice
The first of those is nailed-on, though.
I think it is likely, but not certain. In 1981, Francois Mitterand - a socialist - was elected as French President. His economic policy was anti-Thatcherite, and was that he would get the economy moving by giving money to people which they would then spend on goods and services.
Needless to say, this strategy did not work, and provoked a crisis.
Mitterand then tacked right, a long way right. He cut government spending, dismantled regulations that protected vested interests, and even relaxed the French labour market somewhat.
Economic success followed.
Hollande is not, I suspect, a Mitterand. But the French have reformed before, and under socialist leaders. Let us not forget that the Haartz reforms in Germany (the ones which stripped away worker protections and paved the way for the economic boom that country has had over the last 10 years) came from the socialist Schroder.
In particular, note that the two countries that have had MOST migration per head in recent years are the two non-EU associates Norway and Switzerland, so are we talking about some association looser than they have?
Perhaps because they have the most attractive economies?
This obsession with "weirdness" by whichever comedian is commissioning this polling questions is, frankly, weird. We are now told that Nigel is the "most weird" of all the leaders. Who cares? Farage is doing well for his party, as is Ed for his. Nobody gives a hoot whether they are considered "weird" by some people. Hitchens was right about this - shameful and childish name calling. End.
The retrial is bad news for Dave methinks - I bet he wishes it wasn't taking place.
It all goes sub judice again. It will be bad for him if a guilty verdict is arrived at a couple of months out from the election. Although the bad news is already somewhat factored in.
" The OUT campaign has one essential task – to neutralise the fear that leaving may be bad for jobs and living standards.
This requires a grassroots movement based on small businesses.
If when voting comes on a referendum, people think ‘all the local businesses are voting IN and they say they’ll be firing people and going bust if there’s an OUT vote’, then the IN campaign will win.
If people think ‘small businesses are clearly in favour of OUT’, then OUT will win easily. If people think ‘business seems divided’, then OUT should win."
...[P]eople think that swing voters occupy an average point equidistant between a Right pole and a Left pole. Swing voters, however, are more anti-immigration and anti-free market than the centre of gravity in Westminster.
The weird thing about UK politics right now is that there's nobody really running openly against free markets. Labour have done a couple of little dodges in that direction, like energy price fixing, but the basic policy is the same right across the political spectrum, including UKIP.
I have to say I really do not understand your position on trade. When it comes to trade with China, India etc, you seem to feel that the complete lack of any free trade deal is really not much to worry about. Yet your entire argument for staying in the EU is based on the idea that the minor trade barriers between an FTA (of the Korea-EU kind) and full single market access is massively important. .
No, I do think that free trade deals are important, but I think this is genuinely one example where doing things at the pan-European level is more effective. The bigger the economic areas you are combining in a free-trade deal, the better.
I'm really not following you, and it doesn't seem you addressed the issue.
Difference between FTA and single market (UK and EU): hugely important Difference between no FTA and FTA (Germany/UK and China): not very important
@rcs100 - Fair points, but I don't see any sign that the French (let alone the French socialists) are yet ready to face reality. If anything, they seem to be burying their heads further into the sand.
A couple of threads ago DavidL mentioned that the ONS was due to release the first set of historic GDP revisions resulting from changes in National Accounting methodology due to be introduced in September 2014. The period covered by this release is 1997-2009. Revisions for 2010-current will follow in a couple of months.
The overall net effect of the revisions are not that substantial, as upward revisions cancel out downward, though six individual years have been revised by more then +/- 0.5%.
DavidL's prediction that the depth of the recessionary fall from peak to trough will have shallowed has turned out to be correct (though not probably for the reasons he suggested, but apologies all the same!), but again the change is only small. 2007 growth was revised down by 1% and 2009 up by 1.1%.
Anyway I have done a yellow box (for all its worth!) which will appear in a continuation post.
================================================== GDP 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 -------------------------------------------------- Blue Book 2013 3.6% 2.9% 4.4% 2.2% 2.3% 3.9% Blue Book 2014 3.7% 3.4% 3.8% 2.7% 2.5% 4.3%
Total revision 0.1% 0.5% -0.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% -------------------------------------------------- due to: A = -0.1% -0.2% -0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% B = -0.2% 0.0% -0.1% 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% C = 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% -0.1% D = -0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% E = 0.5% 0.2% -0.5% 0.4% 0.1% -0.1% F = 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% G = 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% H = 0.4% 0.0% -0.2% -0.1% -0.4% 0.0% ================================================== GDP 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Blue Book 2013 3.2% 3.2% 2.8% 3.4% -0.8% -5.2% Blue Book 2014 2.5% 3.3% 3.0% 2.4% -1.1% -4.1%
Total revision 0.7% 0.1% 0.2% -1.0% -0.3% 1.1% -------------------------------------------------- due to: A = 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% B = 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% -0.2% 0.1% 0.0% C = -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 0.1% 0.0% D = -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% -0.3% 0.2% 0.1% E = -0.3% -0.1% 0.4% -0.4% -0.3% 0.8% F = 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% -0.3% -0.1% G = 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% H = -0.3% 0.2% -0.1% -0.3% -0.3% -0.1% ================================================== GDP = Real GDP (chained volume measure), annual growth on previous year (per cent) A = Review of Non-Profit Institution serving Households units B = Illegal drugs and prostitution C = Own-account construction + Exhaustiveness D = Gross Fixed Capital Formation E = Inventories F = Pensions G = Impact of PPI/SPPI rebasing H = Other changes
Comments
The Conservatives face a resource-splitting battle on three fronts – against the Liberal Democrats in their strongholds, against Labour in the North and the big cities, and now against Ukip in the East of England. It makes a Conservative majority – as I've written before – look a tall order.
The news is no better for Labour, though. The party looks to be repeating the pattern of the 1980s, where it racked up votes in its inner city and Northern heartlands while failing to gain any support anywhere else.
Strange as it may seem, the party with the best hope of being in office after 2015 is still the Liberal Democrats. "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephenkb/100278102/silence-now-trouble-to-follow-will-the-ultras-strike-back-in-2017/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4133885.ece
A fifth and last priority for me as Commission President will be to give an answer to the British question. No reasonable politician can ignore the fact that, during the next five years, we will have to find solutions for the political concerns of the United Kingdom. We have to do this if we want to keep the UK within the European Union – which I would like to do as Commission President. As Commission President, I will work for a fair deal with Britain. A deal that accepts the specificities of the UK in the EU, while allowing the Eurozone to integrate further. The UK will need to understand that in the Eurozone, we need more Europe, not less. On the other hand, the other EU countries will have to accept that the UK will never participate in the euro, even if we may regret this. We have to accept that the UK will not become a member of the Schengen area. And I am also ready to accept that the UK will stay outside new EU institutions such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, meant to improve the fight against fraud in the EU, but clearly rejected by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We have to respect such clear positions of the British Parliament, based on the British “opt out” Protocol. David Cameron has recently written down a number of further key demands in an article published in the Daily Telegraph. As Commission President, I will be ready to talk to him about these demands in a fair and reasonable manner. My red line in such talks would be the integrity of the single market and its four freedoms; and the possibility to have more Europe within the Eurozone to strengthen the single currency shared so far by 18 and soon by 19 Member States. But I have the impression that this is as important for Britain as it will be for the next President of the Commission. A deal that accepts the specificities of the UK in the EU.
That's a pretty clear outline of an EU where the Eurozone continues with 'ever closer union' and we sit on the sidelines, albeit nominally 'In' the EU.
We might not like him, but perhaps we can do business with him.
http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities
Which party will have cabinet ministers after the next election?
So therefore, either the referendum will be postponed (Cameron: traitor!) or it will be on the basis of a letter of understanding between Cameron, Hollande, Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi (Cameron: naieve! It's not worth the paper it's written on!)
That said, the logical end point - assuming France does not implode, which is far from assured - is that there will be a 'settlement' that will see a clearer distinction between Eurozone and non-Eurozone, with the latter group taking on more 'associate' membership of the EU.
Do you have a link demonstrating that healthcare is denied to people in Italy and France? I don't disbelieve you, I would just like to understand more.
As for your system, the problem with the "market" approach is that there are externalities here that are not included within private decision making. If you imagine the skilled graduate example I mentioned, then the private employer would probably assume that they're not going to be with them in five years due to the rate at which people move jobs. Thus they're not going to pay the up to £5k pay bump for graduates to make it worth the graduate's while to come here over Geneva or Singapore. However, that graduate, unlike a construction worker, would likely be on an accelerating salary and productivity spiral over the course of their life which probably would make it worth it for the country as a whole. That's why the government needs to judge things on long term earnings potential, in a way a business would not consider.
Also, how is someone earning £30k+ for their first few years here not already contributing? Particularly if they're young and don't use much healthcare.
What would you do about asylum seekers?
Yes I would go along with that. I see no reason why a referendum was not possible by 2017 and a treaty if needs be after that or based on a draft treaty and the outcome would be I think some sort of associate status.
It ought to be in the intersts of everybody to sort it out quickly. But we have to hope UKIP do not gift us a labour govt because otherwise we will be drawn closer into Europe.
It would be a major triumph if as an alternative the EU agreed to hand back more powers to individual parliaments over issues like free movement of labour (even if it was related to population size or relative wealth the the net immigrant nations). The UK needs to protect its membership of the single market encourage inward investment and stay out of Schengen.
Labour/Con is a proxy for most seats
Lib Dem must neccesarily be larger than NOM price, but there will be some "leeway" as a minority Gov't could form or a coalition could be with another party, DUP will get 8 seats which could form the coalition if the Conservatives are just short (SoS Northern Ireland ?) - they may also do a deal with Labour, UKIP are highly unlikely to coalition with Labour I'd have thought and are a slim chance with the Conservatives, if UKIP do tremendously well it is unlikely that Con-UKIP will have the numbers to form a coalition however.
I am NOT taking bets on this, just an idea of the probabilities.
Maybe the DUP should be longer than 50 - I wouldn't lay a bet at this price though.
Con/LD Coalition 4/1
Lab/LD Coalition 4/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government
You can bribe placate The DUP not with Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but with more money and devolved powers for the Northern Ireland government.
Even if an immigrant is high skilled I question the need, it harms another sector of society, consider the disastrous employment prospects of IT graduates, and I don't think having an elite with little sympathy towards the indigenous population has proven successful anywhere. Would need to be clear short term work permits with removal if needed with employer or immigrant paying the full cost to society.
Those odds are fair, but not particularly enthralling.
Note, I know the works of Keir Starmer, and know he is impartial and fair, for he was the chap under his watch the CPS prosecuted several Labour MPs over their expenses.
Bold is my emphasis
Prosecutors were right to charge Rebekah Brooks and other News of the World executives over conspiracy to hack phones as the trials have helped determine who knew about widespread malpractice at the newspaper, Sir Keir Starmer, the former director of public prosecutions, has said.
The senior QC, who is understood to be considering running as a Labour MP, said the court cases exposed vital details about phone-hacking at the newspaper, even though Brooks, her assistant Cheryl Carter, husband Charlie Brooks and managing editor Stuart Kuttner were cleared.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/29/phone-hacking-rebekah-brooks-keir-starmer
What I think we should aim for is a multi-speed EU with countries having the right to move in and out of major elements of it. This does exist to some extent, viz. the common justice sphere which we withdrew from and now seem about to opt back into. A fundamental difficulty is that there isn't any chance of including migration barriers in the optional mix - that's been in the EC so long that it's seen as indissoluble as free trade. But if the benefits issue - which is peripheral to most European migrants - can be addressed, I'm not convinced that people are really that worried about free movement within Europe per se.
What I would add is that the free market is not uncontroversial in a couple more respects: one being the "wonky banana" objection to the free movement of goods (or more precisely, measures taken by the EU to further it) - which, in a far more refined form, I recall one pber objecting to on the basis that single technical standards inter alia created large one-off retooling costs for small businesses; and secondly alongside the immigration/social cohesion argument there is the immigration/driving down wages argument (which Farage did touch on during the debates - echoing the objection of Tony Benn and trade unionists). A "four freedoms" approach would, therefore, not answer those concerns either.
"Reportedly, though, in the interest of safety, the race director can pick and choose when he wishes to do a rolling restart or a standing restart. It’s getting sillier by the sentence, isn’t it?"
http://bensweeneysf1blog.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/thoughts-on-the-safety-car-restart-rule/
You think immigration/integration is the biggest issue of concern to voters purely on the basis of benefits?
"Although this should not be overstated, as the contest next year will be mainly about the economy and questions of leadership, Europe will come up at various crucial points. And when it does, what will Ed Miliband say beyond offering a promise not to be isolated in the EU?
Hearing this, voters and interviewers will press him repeatedly by asking: What do you mean? Why won't you let voters decide in a referendum?
Miliband's inability to answer very basic questions on the EU will look awful when magnified by the media during the election campaign. "
However, what matters in political terms is whether it will be enough to satisfy those who are broadly in favour of the EU but think it has become too bossy and who don't want political union. To take one example, I don't share your view that we need to be able to sign our own free trade deals, in fact I think the EU has been quite successful at opening up free trade and anyway the Germans don't seem to have any problem trading with China and other world markets from within the EU, so that wouldn't be a factor in persuading me to vote for Out.
Other people here can tell us more about Swedish and Danish politics but IIUC the political parties have generally been in favour, and the issue is getting the thing through referendums. Even if they stay out for a long time, they're still going to be surrounded by Eurozone countries and quite tightly integrated with them, and de-facto the Euro is going to circulate a lot in their territory. It's not obvious that they be happy with the kind of "none of our business, we just don't want anything to do with it" approach that the British seem to want.
Obviously if the Euro turns out to be the enduring kiss of death for any economy involved in it this will change, but in that situation we also get the current "in" countries starting to try to get out, which is a different dynamic altogether.
You say it every time ukip don't move up in a poll!
If you want to say that we don't need these industries, then that's a fair view. But you do need to recognise that specialist industries tend to congregate in places, and then suck talent from across Europe and the world.
(The "official journal" has many columns taken up reporting various moves - on a daily basis - of prices of milk, etc. It consumes many more inches than information of a far mroe general nature.)
Labour Minority @ 11-2, Con Minority @ 5-1 aren't awful but not particularly great I think either.
I have to say I really do not understand your position on trade. When it comes to trade with China, India etc, you seem to feel that the complete lack of any free trade deal is really not much to worry about. Yet your entire argument for staying in the EU is based on the idea that the minor trade barriers between an FTA (of the Korea-EU kind) and full single market access is massively important. Important enough to make up for the huge regulatory burden , the lack of self-rule, the court judgments, unfiltered immigration, the expensive food costs, etc.
Depression of wages and change in the nature of hometown would be far far more of a concern I reckon
Con 29%
Lab 34%
UKIP 16%
Lib Dem 8%
Edit: Of far more betting interest will be his Lib-Lab Marginal poll.
I don;t think UKIP wants to stop potential McKinsey workers, either from inside or outside the EU.
It wants to stop people traffickers, benefit claimants, health tourists etc. And probably some of the people who clean the flats of the McKinsey workers and launder their shirts.
UKIP draws a distinction between these classes of immigrants, whereas the big three parties have a 'rough with the smooth' policy.
What's harder to understand it that he wouldn't even talk to the guy on the phone until yesterday, or try to get concessions on his "reform agenda" when they were actually drawing up the plan for the next four years. The obvious conclusion is that there's no actual concrete reform agenda, and the whole thing is PR.
1) Permanently out.
2) As happy is the UK seems to be to be kicked out of the discussions in return for a bit more independence.
Labour 1.93; Conservative 2.08; Lib Dems 3.0 ; DUP 50; UKIP 100 ?
We await new from The Good Lord.
Meanwhile didn't I say Coulson would face a retrial? CPS need to get more out of the multi-million pound hacking inquiry than they've hitherto achieved.
On EU immigration, I'm not personally persuaded that this is as big an issue as many make out. (If I didn't live in the depths of the countryside you might conclude this is because I'm part of the metropolitan elite!). A lot of the disquiet about immigration actually relates to non-EU immigration and the disastrous encouragement of lack of integration in the name of 'multi-culturalism'. I'm also not convinced that, even if we left the EU, we'd end up with much reduction in immigration from EU countries - it is ultimately economic forces which drive much of it, and those forces won't disappear. As Maggie said, you can't buck the market.
I accept, however, that for many EU immigration is seen as a big issue; realistically, it's one of the 'four freedoms', so I can't see it being up for negotiation (except at the margins in terms of changing benefit entitlements). Those for whom this is a red line will no doubt vote for Out, but it's not a red line for me. No, I do think that free trade deals are important, but I think this is genuinely one example where doing things at the pan-European level is more effective. The bigger the economic areas you are combining in a free-trade deal, the better.
Threading the needle of JACKW's ARSE, the local election results and this (And the last) Comres Battlebus poll (And the Ashcroft polls...) leads me to think there may be some value in Conservatives holding Pudsey @ 9-4 (Though I'm only in for a fiver on this one - alot of the huge constituency prices where Con was far too long have gone)
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/jasper-carrott-must-stop-birmingham-7340173
I always think when people go trawling through the weightings to try and rubbish a poll they don't like it's a bit desperate...
The serious BOO'ers (of which I am definitely one, given the impossibility of meaningful reform) can buy some popcorn. France is more likely going to be the spark that ignites the bonfire rather than the permaslump garlic zone. But a bonfire there will be. The Eurozone banking system cannot survive another bout of 2008ishness - so it's massive money printing and QE and a German teddy in the corner. And the end of nation states in the Eurozone. Which may be the exact objective of Eurozone politicians - but I'm not sure their electorates or constitutional courts have given their consent.
The comments below that article are interesting, too.
OGH also interprets losing almost 3/4 of the student vote as good for the Lib Dems
As a ukip Supporter I like the recent unweighted election results , and I include Newark, Wythenshawe & South Shields in that
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 7m
Ladbrokes just taken £1k @ 25/1 on Elizabeth Warren to be next US President. Odds cut to 20/1. http://bit.ly/1r531Ox
Tier one capital in Eurozone Banks 2008: 3.1%
Now: 10.4%
More than €700bn of bad loans have been written off across the Eurozone.
More than €500bn of new equity has been raised.
More than 100 institutions have been shuttered.
In Spain, property prices in unfashionable developments 30 miles or so inland from Marbella are being bought by financial investors, who are stripping the houses for their tiles, copper and lead. I think we can reasonably assume that property prices there do not have another 50% down.
The next crisis will not resemble the last one.
People mistake predicting trouble for causing/desiring trouble, if only they wouldn't say it, it might go away
EDIT: I see Fitlass has already brought the good news.
Herald Editor @Herald_Editor · 3h
And here's Herald cartoonist Steven Camley's take on the Haggis Gate trade row. http://bit.ly/1mMhtIs
Herald Editor @Herald_Editor · 3h
Today's splash: Haggis Gate as Holyrood & Westminster clash over our national dish. http://bit.ly/1qqbufm
Tarves @TarvesSaysNO · 11h
#haggisgate reminds of the Sausage episode from Yes, Minister, @AlexSalmond be scrambling to take credit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/scotland/10933974/Britain-asks-America-to-end-ban-on-haggis.html …
Northern Ireland could be crucial, if we have 5 or 6 non voting Sinn Fein MPs, and 8/9 DUPers, the target for a majority falls below the 326 line.
Electoral calculus currently shows 19 Lib Dem MPs in it's numbers. I think this is a safe working assumption as an upper bound. So adding in the 58 "Non Lab-con" gives 650 - 58 = 592/2 =
296th seat
An Upper Lib Dem bound of say 40 gives 79 "Non Lab-Con seats" assuming Nat numbers stay the same, given that if the Lib Dems keep 40 seats then I think the Nats must lose ground relative to Lib Dem 19 seats that is a fairly safish assumption of a lower bound on the nth seat for most seats: 650-79 =
286th seat.
My projection gives 63 Non Lab-Con seats (64 for Speaker actually), JackW's ARSE 650 - 586 = 64 seats
293rd seat:
Bury North is Labour's 293rd,
Worcester is Conservative's 293rd.
On Electoral Calculus lists.
If memory serves net immigration was officially 180,000 last year. A city the size of Brighton's worth of demand in just one year. Yet investment in public infrastructure (health, education transport etc.) is static or falling. Why? Well, because there is not the money to spend on it, HMG is running up an extra £100bn of debt each year just to pay the bills. Somehow all these extra people don't seem to be generating enough taxes to pay their own costs let alone increase the wealth of the UK.
Put it this way if the Conservatives gain 325 seats I fully expect my NOM bets with Ladbrokes to be winners.
Overall majority for betting purposes MUST be 326 seats.
It should be noted, IIRC last time, the BBC classed John Bercow as a Tory MP in their final seat totals.
Which is what most bookies used for their totals.
Speaker Bercow is the Speaker - and not a Conservative MP. It is a long shot that Conservatives get 325 MPs anyway, but clarification is important.
Edit !:
Seems I am wrong:
The current Speaker, John Bercow, is standing for election in Buckingham. The Speaker is a neutral figure in Parliament, so Mr Bercow is no longer a member of the Conservative Party as he was before his election to the role (by all the other MPs). However, for the purposes of calculating the number of seats belonging to each party - and calculating those held, gained or lost by each party - Mr Bercow is regarded as a Conservative MP and the seat is regarded as being held by the Conservatives in 2005.
So Labour need 326 seats, Conservatives 325 seats.
I can imagine all hell breaking loose should Conservatives get 325 seats (Excl Bercow) though tbh...
Maybe some double bookie payouts too.
@Shadsy Thanks for the quick reply ^_~
I don't believe another crisis is coming for the Eurozone. Just a long, miserable period of stagnation and unemployment.
http://digg.com/video/bbc-anchor-omits-a-somewhat-crucial-pause-in-his-opener
As we approach the election they become better and better proxy bets for Most Seats...
I'm pleased all 4 are still in post.
a) France refuses to reform, and it's slow motion car crash as it attempts to legislate against modernity.
or
a) Grinding austerity and low growth leads to a genuinely anti-EU party (I wouldn't count Five Star or the AfD as this, I would could the FN) taking power in major European country and that triggers the collapse of the whole edifice
1 and 2 are inter-related, but either could happen on their own.
I continue to be very bullish on Spanish prospects over the next five years, and I would expect them to be by far the fastest growing major country in the Eurozone over that period, whipping Germany handily. Italy seems like it may reform, we shall see.
But the banks across Europe are now well capitalised. Consumer debt levels are low in most of the Eurozone (low 50s as a percent of GDP in most countries, against 150% or so in the UK). Corporates have also been hoarding cash and paying back debts, which is why I'd doubt that you'll see serious problems in the banking sector going forward.
I think Socrates is right, it won't necessarily be a crisis (although there's always the risk of something nasty popping up, from the Ukraine, for example), but a long period of stagnation.
It won't be uniform, though; some countries, and some sectors, will do quite well.
" The OUT campaign has one essential task – to neutralise the fear that leaving may be bad for jobs and living standards.
This requires a grassroots movement based on small businesses.
If when voting comes on a referendum, people think ‘all the local businesses are voting IN and they say they’ll be firing people and going bust if there’s an OUT vote’, then the IN campaign will win.
If people think ‘small businesses are clearly in favour of OUT’, then OUT will win easily. If people think ‘business seems divided’, then OUT should win."
https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/my-report-for-business-for-britain-on-the-dynamics-of-the-debate-over-the-eu-and-a-small-but-telling-process-point-on-the-eu/
Needless to say, this strategy did not work, and provoked a crisis.
Mitterand then tacked right, a long way right. He cut government spending, dismantled regulations that protected vested interests, and even relaxed the French labour market somewhat.
Economic success followed.
Hollande is not, I suspect, a Mitterand. But the French have reformed before, and under socialist leaders. Let us not forget that the Haartz reforms in Germany (the ones which stripped away worker protections and paved the way for the economic boom that country has had over the last 10 years) came from the socialist Schroder.
This obsession with "weirdness" by whichever comedian is commissioning this polling questions is, frankly, weird. We are now told that Nigel is the "most weird" of all the leaders. Who cares? Farage is doing well for his party, as is Ed for his. Nobody gives a hoot whether they are considered "weird" by some people. Hitchens was right about this - shameful and childish name calling. End.
I reckon there's a gap in the market.
And partners in firms, but not directors of firms or LLPs.
Mr. Fett, I'd suggest there's a spectrum from good to bad on weirdness. Eccentrics can be quite popular.
Difference between FTA and single market (UK and EU): hugely important
Difference between no FTA and FTA (Germany/UK and China): not very important
How do you resolve these contradictory comments?
A couple of threads ago DavidL mentioned that the ONS was due to release the first set of historic GDP revisions resulting from changes in National Accounting methodology due to be introduced in September 2014. The period covered by this release is 1997-2009. Revisions for 2010-current will follow in a couple of months.
The overall net effect of the revisions are not that substantial, as upward revisions cancel out downward, though six individual years have been revised by more then +/- 0.5%.
DavidL's prediction that the depth of the recessionary fall from peak to trough will have shallowed has turned out to be correct (though not probably for the reasons he suggested, but apologies all the same!), but again the change is only small. 2007 growth was revised down by 1% and 2009 up by 1.1%.
Anyway I have done a yellow box (for all its worth!) which will appear in a continuation post.
ONS Revisions to Real GDP Growth 1997-2009