**Not-crossover alert** In other news, looks like part-ELBOW for the six polls so far this week (inc. yesterday's YG) puts Labour 0.3% ahead (same as simple average).
**Not-crossover alert** In other news, looks like part-ELBOW for the six polls so far this week (inc. yesterday's YG) puts Labour 0.3% ahead (same as simple average).
EDIT - doesn't include TNS!
Still Lab lead of 0.3% in both ELBOW and simple average after including TNS!
When UK bodies are applying EU law, or laws that fall within the scope of EU regulations, then they must ensure their actions are compatible with EU fundamental rights law. So potentially if the Bill of Rights had a lower standard then in some cases the EU would replace it with a higher one. Equally if we're still a signatory to the ECHR then the individual could petition Strassbourg.
Where the Bill of Rights gave a higher standard, then the EU might be in a position to substitute a lower standard, if the application of the British standard conflicted with the Treaty freedoms (goods, services, workers/people, capital). That is relatively unlikely by comparison.
In each case it would require a careful application of the relevant test to understand how the two (or three) regimes would overlap. Thus the Bill of Rights would have its wings clipped more than being entirely superfluous.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess we will have to wait and see what rights are claimed when this new bill of right is proposed, to get some idea of how well they are going to fly at the ECJ. It certainly seems if it is planned to "free" Britain from some of the more onerous or objectionable rulings of the ECJ (votes for prisoners would be an example) then it might be quite a disappointment.
That wasn't the ECJ, that was the ECHR, which we foolishly signed up to only in 1997 or 1998
Cheers, neither is that satisfactory as in case (a) it's now not a link and in case (b) some people are understandably wary of clicking on tinyurl's on message boards. I guess (a) is the better option.
You can use old-fashioned html tags - quote to see how - to preserve the original url and keep it as a link.
When UK bodies are applying EU law, or laws that fall within the scope of EU regulations, then they must ensure their actions are compatible with EU fundamental rights law. So potentially if the Bill of Rights had a lower standard then in some cases the EU would replace it with a higher one. Equally if we're still a signatory to the ECHR then the individual could petition Strassbourg.
Where the Bill of Rights gave a higher standard, then the EU might be in a position to substitute a lower standard, if the application of the British standard conflicted with the Treaty freedoms (goods, services, workers/people, capital). That is relatively unlikely by comparison.
In each case it would require a careful application of the relevant test to understand how the two (or three) regimes would overlap. Thus the Bill of Rights would have its wings clipped more than being entirely superfluous.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess we will have to wait and see what rights are claimed when this new bill of right is proposed, to get some idea of how well they are going to fly at the ECJ. It certainly seems if it is planned to "free" Britain from some of the more onerous or objectionable rulings of the ECJ (votes for prisoners would be an example) then it might be quite a disappointment.
That wasn't the ECJ, that was the ECHR, which we foolishly signed up to only in 1997 or 1998
"Mrs Danczuk joining the kippers! Anyone thinking of changing their vote?"
I may be shallow but if a page three girl stands in this part of Merseyside, I'd vote for her. I gather they do opine on politics too, so they'll be as useful as our donkey with a red rosette.
When UK bodies are applying EU law, or laws that fall within the scope of EU regulations, then they must ensure their actions are compatible with EU fundamental rights law. So potentially if the Bill of Rights had a lower standard then in some cases the EU would replace it with a higher one. Equally if we're still a signatory to the ECHR then the individual could petition Strassbourg.
Where the Bill of Rights gave a higher standard, then the EU might be in a position to substitute a lower standard, if the application of the British standard conflicted with the Treaty freedoms (goods, services, workers/people, capital). That is relatively unlikely by comparison.
In each case it would require a careful application of the relevant test to understand how the two (or three) regimes would overlap. Thus the Bill of Rights would have its wings clipped more than being entirely superfluous.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess we will have to wait and see what rights are claimed when this new bill of right is proposed, to get some idea of how well they are going to fly at the ECJ. It certainly seems if it is planned to "free" Britain from some of the more onerous or objectionable rulings of the ECJ (votes for prisoners would be an example) then it might be quite a disappointment.
That wasn't the ECJ, that was the ECHR, which we foolishly signed up to only in 1997 or 1998
1959?
Is that so? I thought the last Labour government took us in.
Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing, that the ECHR is a totally separate institution to the EU, and has a somewhat larger list of members - including Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
Nick Sutton retweeted The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
Nick Sutton retweeted The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
So the SNP have made a huge mistake by putting themselves on the popular side on an important issue to Scottish voters while firmly planting Labour on the unpopular side. Labour must be hoping the SNP avoid making too many more strategic mistakes.
This joker also seems to forget which party is going need which other party's votes.
Nick Sutton retweeted The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
I don't see why he thinks that's a big stategic mistake. The SNP are not interested in the Westminster government being able to function effectively - rather the reverse, in fact. The more trouble they can cause, the better from their point of view.
As Neil points out, the SNP don't need to do a deal with Labour. Labour might need to do a deal with the SNP, though. The terms of any such deal are unlikely to be palatable to Labour (or indeed the country).
When UK bodies are applying EU law, or laws that fall within the scope of EU regulations, then they must ensure their actions are compatible with EU fundamental rights law. So potentially if the Bill of Rights had a lower standard then in some cases the EU would replace it with a higher one. Equally if we're still a signatory to the ECHR then the individual could petition Strassbourg.
Where the Bill of Rights gave a higher standard, then the EU might be in a position to substitute a lower standard, if the application of the British standard conflicted with the Treaty freedoms (goods, services, workers/people, capital). That is relatively unlikely by comparison.
In each case it would require a careful application of the relevant test to understand how the two (or three) regimes would overlap. Thus the Bill of Rights would have its wings clipped more than being entirely superfluous.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess we will have to wait and see what rights are claimed when this new bill of right is proposed, to get some idea of how well they are going to fly at the ECJ. It certainly seems if it is planned to "free" Britain from some of the more onerous or objectionable rulings of the ECJ (votes for prisoners would be an example) then it might be quite a disappointment.
That wasn't the ECJ, that was the ECHR, which we foolishly signed up to only in 1997 or 1998
1959?
Is that so? I thought the last Labour government took us in.
Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing, that the ECHR is a totally separate institution to the EU, and has a somewhat larger list of members - including Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
All the Blair government did was to incorporate the ECHR into domestic law with the Human Rights Act - this makes it easier and cheaper to use the Courts to enforce your rights, because you don't have to take a case all the way to Strasbourg to do so.
It has always puzzled me why this has caused such a big fuss - either way to be fair. It just seems like a simple tidying-up exercise.
Nick Sutton retweeted The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
I don't see why he thinks that's a big stategic mistake. The SNP are not interested in the Westminster government being able to function effectively - rather the reverse, in fact. The more trouble they can cause, the better from their point of view.
As Neil points out, the SNP don't need to do a deal with Labour. Labour might need to do a deal with the SNP, though. The terms of any such deal are unlikely to be palatable to Labour (or indeed the country).
The obvious solution is an English Parliament - which either of Labour or Conservatives would be much more likely to win a majority in without Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish MPs to complicate matters - and a Grand Unionist Coalition at Westminster to stop the SNP playing silly games.
Could the SNP and Labour not reach an agreement on Trident - move Trident from Clyde to Portsmouth, eliminate Scotland's contribution towards it and simply say in the event of World War III that the red button won't be pushed if ISIS/North Korea/Iran sends a missile heading towards Glasgow or Edinburgh ?
When UK bodies are applying EU law, or laws that fall within the scope of EU regulations, then they must ensure their actions are compatible with EU fundamental rights law. So potentially if the Bill of Rights had a lower standard then in some cases the EU would replace it with a higher one. Equally if we're still a signatory to the ECHR then the individual could petition Strassbourg.
Where the Bill of Rights gave a higher standard, then the EU might be in a position to substitute a lower standard, if the application of the British standard conflicted with the Treaty freedoms (goods, services, workers/people, capital). That is relatively unlikely by comparison.
In each case it would require a careful application of the relevant test to understand how the two (or three) regimes would overlap. Thus the Bill of Rights would have its wings clipped more than being entirely superfluous.
That wasn't the ECJ, that was the ECHR, which we foolishly signed up to only in 1997 or 1998
1959?
Is that so? I thought the last Labour government took us in.
Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing, that the ECHR is a totally separate institution to the EU, and has a somewhat larger list of members - including Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
We signed up to the ECHR in 1959, indeed we largely drafted it, but it was a treaty and not directly enforceable in UK law although we promised to have regard to the decisions of the ECtHR when UK citizens petitioned it. This changed in 1997 when Human Right Act made the Convention a part of our domestic law and required all other laws to be interpreted in a way consistent with it if at all possible.
The issue was further confused when the EU itself also became a signatory to the Convention and made compliance with it a part of EU law in a very similar way to the HRA had done here. The result now is that the ECJ has to consider and apply the decisions of the ECtHR in determining whether EU law is ECHR compliant. While they remain separate institutions and separate courts there is therefore an increasing level of overlap between them.
This causes a problem for the UK. We could resile from the 1959 treaty and repeal the 1997 Act but we would still have to apply the Convention in all EU matters including their fundamental principles. For this reason the Tory policy of a British Convention always struck me as an ill advised idea that was going to make our law inordinately complicated.
Nick Sutton retweeted The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
who is the Labour MP for, hmm, I can't recall...oh yes, the place where they build the submarines.
Nick Sutton retweeted The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
who is the Labour MP for, hmm, I can't recall...oh yes, the place where they build the submarines.
They're built in Barrow and then sail up to the Clyde ?
Nick Sutton retweeted The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
who is the Labour MP for, hmm, I can't recall...oh yes, the place where they build the submarines.
They're built in Barrow and then sail up to the Clyde ?
Not all 2010 Lib Dems are the same. The ones in Great Grimsby might have been more likely to switch to UKIP than Labour in the first place.
What is interesting is that in 2005 the Lib Dem candidate only put on 0.3% of the vote, which compares pretty poorly with the +3.7% the party added across the country in that election - presumably mostly due to the Iraq War.
That already suggests that the people voting Lib Dem in Great Grimsby were not as good a fit to the stereotype as in other constituencies.
Nick Sutton retweeted The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
who is the Labour MP for, hmm, I can't recall...oh yes, the place where they build the submarines.
Another greasy pole ascender: Woodcock was born in Sheffield, attended the University of Edinburgh and worked as an aide to John Hutton from 2005 to 2008 and later a special advisor to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He is married to Mandy Telford, president of the National Union of Students between 2002 and 2004. (Wiki)
I'm only wading into the occasional thread - but seeing a load of fall-out about Ms Sturgeon and now Mr Cameron's reposte.
It really does seem she's pushed her luck - but will it make the required rift she's obviously angling for? It's so blinking obvious as a tactic to annoy the rest of us.
€60bn a month - more than the markets were expecting. The big bazooka is being deployed.
Only until September 2016 though so not hugely more than thought this morning (more like 50bn for two years?).
I think the monthly rate is more important than the notional end date because, once they start, they can easily keep going. In fact Draghi said:
[The purchases] are intended to be carried out until end-September 2016 and will in any case be conducted until we see a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation which is consistent with our aim of achieving inflation rates below, but close to, 2% over the medium term
The ECB risk seems to be 12bn euros a month. What is the betting Germany opts out of its' share of the policy?
One interesting aspect. The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
I imagine it's the difference between the cost of building the new submarines and the cost of doing that and operating the system.
That sounds plausible, though given the MoDs record with cost control one figure could be the likely quote when the contract is initially signed with the latter being the final cost to the Exchequer.
The ECB risk seems to be 12bn euros a month. What is the betting Germany opts out of its' share of the policy?
One interesting aspect. The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
This policy of QE, which started in America...
I thought the Bank of England QE program came to a total of £375bn? The EZ program is less than three times that size, isn't it?
The ECB risk seems to be 12bn euros a month. What is the betting Germany opts out of its' share of the policy?
One interesting aspect. The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
The ECB risk is 100% of the total, because national banks will fund their purchases of bonds through the TARGET-2 system.
If any country were to crash out of the Eurozone, then its bank would still be on the hook for TARGET-2 liabilities associated with QE. Making national central banks responsible is merely lipstick, the risk is inherently mutualised.
The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
The ECB risk seems to be 12bn euros a month. What is the betting Germany opts out of its' share of the policy?
One interesting aspect. The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
... the risk is inherently mutualised.
How is this compatible with the Grundgesetz? I'm wondering if the ECB / ECJ have unilaterally declared the German constitution and its court irrelevant.
The ECB risk seems to be 12bn euros a month. What is the betting Germany opts out of its' share of the policy?
One interesting aspect. The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
The ECB risk is 100% of the total, because national banks will fund their purchases of bonds through the TARGET-2 system.
If any country were to crash out of the Eurozone, then its bank would still be on the hook for TARGET-2 liabilities associated with QE. Making national central banks responsible is merely lipstick, the risk is inherently mutualised.
Hadn't got that bit, thanks. Bigger concession by the Germans than I imagined then.
"A large majority agreed on the need to trigger it now. The majority was so large we didn’t need to take a vote. There were different views on the need to act now. "
The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
Osborne initiated QE in the UK?
No, but he decided when to stop.
It remains an interesting moot point what QE achieved here and what it might therefore achieve in the EZ. It certainly made funding the deficit easier and cheaper. The refund of the interest by the BoE meant that much of our borrowing was practically free.
As a result of the collapse of yields on gilts it destroyed what was left of our private sector final salary pension schemes and damaged investment as additional contributions were made to fill the holes. AIUI such schemes are rare on the continent.
It made easy money for our Banks which helped to keep the sods solvent while we fined them for their various crimes and they shrank their balance sheets.
Has it really had an effect on inflation? Don't see it.
If it generates that level of excitement for the EZ this is going to be a damp squib.
The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
Osborne initiated QE in the UK?
No, but he decided when to stop.
It remains an interesting moot point what QE achieved here and what it might therefore achieve in the EZ. It certainly made funding the deficit easier and cheaper. The refund of the interest by the BoE meant that much of our borrowing was practically free.
As a result of the collapse of yields on gilts it destroyed what was left of our private sector final salary pension schemes and damaged investment as additional contributions were made to fill the holes. AIUI such schemes are rare on the continent.
It made easy money for our Banks which helped to keep the sods solvent while we fined them for their various crimes and they shrank their balance sheets.
Has it really had an effect on inflation? Don't see it.
If it generates that level of excitement for the EZ this is going to be a damp squib.
It's had a massive impact on asset price inflation
If it generates that level of excitement for the EZ this is going to be a damp squib.
The big question is whether they are also going to get on with structural reforms, or use QE as an excuse for not bothering to get on with structural reforms. My guess is the latter.
The ECB risk seems to be 12bn euros a month. What is the betting Germany opts out of its' share of the policy?
One interesting aspect. The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
... the risk is inherently mutualised.
How is this compatible with the Grundgesetz? I'm wondering if the ECB / ECJ have unilaterally declared the German constitution and its court irrelevant.
Well, the purchases of commercial debt are not in any way constrained by the German constitutional court.
This issue is this: by German constitutional law, and by the the treaties surrounding the Eurozone, the monetary funding of government spending is prohibited, as in anything 'unlimited' in scope. However, the ECB is equally required by the treaties governing its founding to use monetary policy to maintain an inflation rate close to, but below, 2% per annum.
Clearly inflation is running well below 2% in the Eurozone (and - including the largely beneficial oil price drop - is probably around 0%), and therefore the ECB feels able to use the weapons at its disposal to try and increase price levels.
The original OMT programme was what was challenged in the constitutional court in Germany. That said that it felt the programme probably exceed the powers given to the ECB by treaties, however, it said that the final decision should be left to the ECJ, which approved the OMT programme earlier this week.
Neither the ECJ nor the German constitutional court has ruled on the legality of QE (whatever the press or AEP might claim), merely on the OMT. However, there is a very good case to make that QE goes less far than the OMT, as the main purpose of the OMT is to bail out countries in the Eurozone that are unable to access the financial markets. The main purpose of QE, in theory at least, is to prevent price levels by falling by directly increasing the amount of money in circulation in Europe.
The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
Osborne initiated QE in the UK?
No, but he decided when to stop.
It remains an interesting moot point what QE achieved here and what it might therefore achieve in the EZ. It certainly made funding the deficit easier and cheaper. The refund of the interest by the BoE meant that much of our borrowing was practically free.
As a result of the collapse of yields on gilts it destroyed what was left of our private sector final salary pension schemes and damaged investment as additional contributions were made to fill the holes. AIUI such schemes are rare on the continent.
It made easy money for our Banks which helped to keep the sods solvent while we fined them for their various crimes and they shrank their balance sheets.
Has it really had an effect on inflation? Don't see it.
If it generates that level of excitement for the EZ this is going to be a damp squib.
It's had a massive impact on asset price inflation
I think someone on here suggested that the Greens owed Cameron a thank you letter. The Guardian yesterday quoted Jenny Jones:
“Dear old Cameron, God bless his cotton socks, said we should be in the debates, and put all the Tory bloggers – and the Sun – on our side! It’s made all the difference for us.”
Hmm, is this lighting the blue touch paper and disappearing?
There were, however, some differences between the supporters of the four parties under consideration. Some 13% of UKIP voters said they would be less likely to vote for a party with a Jewish leader. Only 7% of Conservative voters said the same. For the Liberal Democrat voters, the figure stood at 6% and for Labour 4%.
And UKIP voters were less likely to see a Jewish prime minister as “equally acceptable” as a prime minister from another faith. Only 48% of those intending to vote UKIP agreed when asked, which compared with 62% of voters in general. The highest level of agreement came from Lib Dem and Labour supporters, at 73% and 72%. Conservative supporters were not far behind at 65%.
I think someone on here suggested that the Greens owed Cameron a thank you letter. The Guardian yesterday quoted Jenny Jones:
“Dear old Cameron, God bless his cotton socks, said we should be in the debates, and put all the Tory bloggers – and the Sun – on our side! It’s made all the difference for us.”
Greens now within 0.4% of the LibDems in this week's (partial) ELBOW, within 1% of the LibDems across January's polls so far.
Hmm, is this lighting the blue touch paper and disappearing?
There were, however, some differences between the supporters of the four parties under consideration. Some 13% of UKIP voters said they would be less likely to vote for a party with a Jewish leader. Only 7% of Conservative voters said the same. For the Liberal Democrat voters, the figure stood at 6% and for Labour 4%.
And UKIP voters were less likely to see a Jewish prime minister as “equally acceptable” as a prime minister from another faith. Only 48% of those intending to vote UKIP agreed when asked, which compared with 62% of voters in general. The highest level of agreement came from Lib Dem and Labour supporters, at 73% and 72%. Conservative supporters were not far behind at 65%.
Hmm, is this lighting the blue touch paper and disappearing?
There were, however, some differences between the supporters of the four parties under consideration. Some 13% of UKIP voters said they would be less likely to vote for a party with a Jewish leader. Only 7% of Conservative voters said the same. For the Liberal Democrat voters, the figure stood at 6% and for Labour 4%.
And UKIP voters were less likely to see a Jewish prime minister as “equally acceptable” as a prime minister from another faith. Only 48% of those intending to vote UKIP agreed when asked, which compared with 62% of voters in general. The highest level of agreement came from Lib Dem and Labour supporters, at 73% and 72%. Conservative supporters were not far behind at 65%.
For a party to be even 4% anti-semitic is disgusting (and, yes, more so for the other parties, obviously). And when you compensate for the fact that Lab has the stark choice of voting for a party with a Jewish leader or not voting in May, I'd guess the adjusted figure would put them somewhere between the tories and Ukip. Otherwise good point.
QE is daft, ECB using a temporary fall in headline consumer prices to push through further easing despite monetary trends and leading indicators suggesting improving economic prospects. Oil prices will begin heading back up and consumer prices will retrace most of their decline within a few quarters. ECB has terrible timing.
QE is daft, ECB using a temporary fall in headline consumer prices to push through further easing despite monetary trends and leading indicators suggesting improving economic prospects. Oil prices will begin heading back up and consumer prices will retrace most of their decline within a few quarters. ECB has terrible timing.
I agree with that. This year has shown pretty solid evidence of improving Eurozone economies and Goldman Sachs upgraded most European economies growth forecasts earlier this week.
Hmm, is this lighting the blue touch paper and disappearing?
There were, however, some differences between the supporters of the four parties under consideration. Some 13% of UKIP voters said they would be less likely to vote for a party with a Jewish leader. Only 7% of Conservative voters said the same. For the Liberal Democrat voters, the figure stood at 6% and for Labour 4%.
And UKIP voters were less likely to see a Jewish prime minister as “equally acceptable” as a prime minister from another faith. Only 48% of those intending to vote UKIP agreed when asked, which compared with 62% of voters in general. The highest level of agreement came from Lib Dem and Labour supporters, at 73% and 72%. Conservative supporters were not far behind at 65%.
- A leader being Jewish wouldn't make any difference for the vast majority of UKIP voters - A big chunk of UKIP voters would prefer someone who doesn't believe in fables about Moses and God's chosen people
The issue is surely that there are people out there who are less likely to vote for a party with a Jewish leader. That kind of prejudice needs to be tackled.
The issue is surely that there are people out there who are less likely to vote for a party with a Jewish leader. That kind of prejudice needs to be tackled.
Unless the survey asked about other religions in similar terms it tells you no such thing, it could just as well be telling you those people don't want people of faith running their parties.
Even taken at face value its a very odd questionnaire anyway, in as much as the questions are completely straightforward and open, and anyone but a total fool can see the underlying question is "are you a raging anti-Semite", and give an innocuous answer if they so cared. So it doesn't give a meaningful measure of antisemitism, it gives a measure of antisemites that are either too stupid to understand the implications of the question, or doesn't care.
Comments
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/01/has-karen-danczuk-traded-labour-for-ukip/
One of the fellows there is a full time UKIP activist in Thurrock, the other is the candidate for Uxbridge
Today's TNS poll EXCLUDING SCOTLAND (my calculations)
CON 31.8
LAB 32.2
LD 8.2
UKIP 18
GRN 6.4
A 5.2% CON to LAB swing
Couldn't Make it Up Department. Ed Miliband has been in Belfast...visiting the Titanic exhibition centre.
**Not-crossover alert**
In other news, looks like part-ELBOW for the six polls so far this week (inc. yesterday's YG) puts Labour 0.3% ahead (same as simple average).
EDIT - doesn't include TNS!
http://www.studentmoneysaver.co.uk/article/student-voting-survey-results-greens-2nd-largest-party/
*Voodoo poll of students.
He ended up becoming a Voodoo Pole!
That's egos for you, I guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30935162
"Mrs Danczuk joining the kippers! Anyone thinking of changing their vote?"
I may be shallow but if a page three girl stands in this part of Merseyside, I'd vote for her. I gather they do opine on politics too, so they'll be as useful as our donkey with a red rosette.
http://politicalbookie.com/2015/01/22/tories-take-over-as-general-election-favourites/
Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing, that the ECHR is a totally separate institution to the EU, and has a somewhat larger list of members - including Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
The World at One @BBCWorldatOne 1m1 minute ago
Labour MP John Woodcock: SNP have made "a big strategic mistake" by making Trident a red line - "no Labour govt will deal on this" #wato
This joker also seems to forget which party is going need which other party's votes.
As Neil points out, the SNP don't need to do a deal with Labour. Labour might need to do a deal with the SNP, though. The terms of any such deal are unlikely to be palatable to Labour (or indeed the country).
It has always puzzled me why this has caused such a big fuss - either way to be fair. It just seems like a simple tidying-up exercise.
The issue was further confused when the EU itself also became a signatory to the Convention and made compliance with it a part of EU law in a very similar way to the HRA had done here. The result now is that the ECJ has to consider and apply the decisions of the ECtHR in determining whether EU law is ECHR compliant. While they remain separate institutions and separate courts there is therefore an increasing level of overlap between them.
This causes a problem for the UK. We could resile from the 1959 treaty and repeal the 1997 Act but we would still have to apply the Convention in all EU matters including their fundamental principles. For this reason the Tory policy of a British Convention always struck me as an ill advised idea that was going to make our law inordinately complicated.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/search?query=trident
If 2010 Lib Dems are going to the Greens rather than Labour, doesn't this mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grimsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency) is now slightly more likely to go UKIP ?
Self-Funded or Unknown poll by TNS-BMRB, Feb 2013
Face-to-face, in home interview with 1001 respondents 16 and older
Replacing Trident will cost £20-25 billion. What should Britain do when Trident reaches the end of its useful life?
Self-Funded or Unknown poll by Lord Ashcroft Polls, May 2013
Online Panel interview with 1236 respondents 18 and older
£40 Billion difference.
What is interesting is that in 2005 the Lib Dem candidate only put on 0.3% of the vote, which compares pretty poorly with the +3.7% the party added across the country in that election - presumably mostly due to the Iraq War.
That already suggests that the people voting Lib Dem in Great Grimsby were not as good a fit to the stereotype as in other constituencies.
Woodcock was born in Sheffield, attended the University of Edinburgh and worked as an aide to John Hutton from 2005 to 2008 and later a special advisor to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He is married to Mandy Telford, president of the National Union of Students between 2002 and 2004. (Wiki)
It really does seem she's pushed her luck - but will it make the required rift she's obviously angling for? It's so blinking obvious as a tactic to annoy the rest of us.
As usual, the Guardian live blog is good:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jan/22/davos-2015-day-2-qe-ecb-lagarde-draghi-merkel-live
also, not just government bonds, but also private sector bonds
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/tvservices/webcast/html/webcast_150122.en.html
To keep the weapon in service it is necessary to build some new submarines.
[The purchases] are intended to be carried out until end-September 2016 and will in any case be conducted until we see a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation which is consistent with our aim of achieving inflation rates below, but close to, 2% over the medium term
One interesting aspect. The EZ is roughly 4x the UK economy and this policy seems to be almost exactly 4x the volume of QE put in place by the UK. Their following of Osborne is becoming slavish, if a little slow.
I thought the Bank of England QE program came to a total of £375bn? The EZ program is less than three times that size, isn't it?
If any country were to crash out of the Eurozone, then its bank would still be on the hook for TARGET-2 liabilities associated with QE. Making national central banks responsible is merely lipstick, the risk is inherently mutualised.
No prizes for guessing who the dissidents were!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lQ2bvR3BT_g
UNCONFIRMED John Selwyn Gummer (Lord Deben) says that Leon Brittan has passed away.
It remains an interesting moot point what QE achieved here and what it might therefore achieve in the EZ. It certainly made funding the deficit easier and cheaper. The refund of the interest by the BoE meant that much of our borrowing was practically free.
As a result of the collapse of yields on gilts it destroyed what was left of our private sector final salary pension schemes and damaged investment as additional contributions were made to fill the holes. AIUI such schemes are rare on the continent.
It made easy money for our Banks which helped to keep the sods solvent while we fined them for their various crimes and they shrank their balance sheets.
Has it really had an effect on inflation? Don't see it.
If it generates that level of excitement for the EZ this is going to be a damp squib.
Guido understands Leon Brittain has died at 75 - sources: http://order-order.com/2015/01/22/breaking-leon-brittan-dead/ …
This issue is this: by German constitutional law, and by the the treaties surrounding the Eurozone, the monetary funding of government spending is prohibited, as in anything 'unlimited' in scope. However, the ECB is equally required by the treaties governing its founding to use monetary policy to maintain an inflation rate close to, but below, 2% per annum.
Clearly inflation is running well below 2% in the Eurozone (and - including the largely beneficial oil price drop - is probably around 0%), and therefore the ECB feels able to use the weapons at its disposal to try and increase price levels.
The original OMT programme was what was challenged in the constitutional court in Germany. That said that it felt the programme probably exceed the powers given to the ECB by treaties, however, it said that the final decision should be left to the ECJ, which approved the OMT programme earlier this week.
Neither the ECJ nor the German constitutional court has ruled on the legality of QE (whatever the press or AEP might claim), merely on the OMT. However, there is a very good case to make that QE goes less far than the OMT, as the main purpose of the OMT is to bail out countries in the Eurozone that are unable to access the financial markets. The main purpose of QE, in theory at least, is to prevent price levels by falling by directly increasing the amount of money in circulation in Europe.
Clear?
There were, however, some differences between the supporters of the four parties under consideration. Some 13% of UKIP voters said they would be less likely to vote for a party with a Jewish leader. Only 7% of Conservative voters said the same. For the Liberal Democrat voters, the figure stood at 6% and for Labour 4%.
And UKIP voters were less likely to see a Jewish prime minister as “equally acceptable” as a prime minister from another faith. Only 48% of those intending to vote UKIP agreed when asked, which compared with 62% of voters in general. The highest level of agreement came from Lib Dem and Labour supporters, at 73% and 72%. Conservative supporters were not far behind at 65%.
https://theconversation.com/british-voters-open-to-a-jewish-prime-minister-but-some-are-more-welcoming-than-others-36611
But it's only a tie 31% v 31%!
CONFIRMED: LEON BRITTAN DIED LAST NIGHT http://order-order.com/2015/01/22/breaking-leon-brittan-dead/ …
http://news.sky.com/story/1412943/former-home-secretary-leon-brittan-dies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30938755
http://mises.org/library/deflating-deflation-myth
- A leader being Jewish wouldn't make any difference for the vast majority of UKIP voters
- A big chunk of UKIP voters would prefer someone who doesn't believe in fables about Moses and God's chosen people
I don't see what's the issue here.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/22/german-court-upholds-mens-right-to-stand-up-while-urinating
Even taken at face value its a very odd questionnaire anyway, in as much as the questions are completely straightforward and open, and anyone but a total fool can see the underlying question is "are you a raging anti-Semite", and give an innocuous answer if they so cared. So it doesn't give a meaningful measure of antisemitism, it gives a measure of antisemites that are either too stupid to understand the implications of the question, or doesn't care.