Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
Being a right twat seems to be the pre-requisite for the position of Universities Minister.
By my reckoning that nitwit spends £24.65 each and every day on coffee.......
That's not posh coffee. That's coffee for those with more money than sense.
It's probably expensive coffee made out of civet cat excrement, or weasel vomit.
Righto. Minister says tuition fees not a problem because same as spending NEARLY £25 every day on a drink made out of cat droppings.
You don't pay back £9,000 a year, so your maths is wrong. The article explains exactly how he comes up with his figures:
"The Conservative minister, speaking at a science and engineering debate at the Royal Society last month, said: 'First of all it is important that we don't distract from the fact that for students under the system that we have, if you have a great education you only pay back if you're earning over £21,000 and only 9 per cent of your earnings above that.
'What that means is if you earn £30,000 as a graduate you bay back £2.22 a day, now there are people who buy cups of posh coffee for less than that, and I think people recognise that that is a phenomenal investment, it's not just a good investment for the student, but actually it's a good investment for the taxpayer.' "
By the way, that civet cat coffee is very nice.
all the coffee in this cafe has been passed by the cat.
Anyone else see the problem in getting a decent renegotiation settlement when both Osborne and Cameron are such virulent EUphiles?
"The prospect of Osborne playing the decisive role after Cameron in EU negotiations will be seen as a clear sign that the prime minister is determined to keep Britain in the EU – assuming that the negotiations are successful. Osborne regards the negotiations as “doable”.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
Since neither Cameron nor Osborne will demand anything substantive, I'm sure the negotiations will go very smoothly.
Being a right twat seems to be the pre-requisite for the position of Universities Minister.
By my reckoning that nitwit spends £24.65 each and every day on coffee.......
That's not posh coffee. That's coffee for those with more money than sense.
It's probably expensive coffee made out of civet cat excrement, or weasel vomit.
Righto. Minister says tuition fees not a problem because same as spending NEARLY £25 every day on a drink made out of cat droppings.
You don't pay back £9,000 a year, so your maths is wrong. The article explains exactly how he comes up with his figures:
"The Conservative minister, speaking at a science and engineering debate at the Royal Society last month, said: 'First of all it is important that we don't distract from the fact that for students under the system that we have, if you have a great education you only pay back if you're earning over £21,000 and only 9 per cent of your earnings above that.
'What that means is if you earn £30,000 as a graduate you bay back £2.22 a day, now there are people who buy cups of posh coffee for less than that, and I think people recognise that that is a phenomenal investment, it's not just a good investment for the student, but actually it's a good investment for the taxpayer.' "
By the way, that civet cat coffee is very nice.
But don't you ultimately have to pay the whole amount back plus interest. So you're paying a great deal more than £2.22 per day in the end.
Is it such a good investment for the student, financially? And I thought that a lot of the loans are not being paid back so that it's not much of a good deal for the taxpayer either?
Anyone else see the problem in getting a decent renegotiation settlement when both Osborne and Cameron are such virulent EUphiles?
"The prospect of Osborne playing the decisive role after Cameron in EU negotiations will be seen as a clear sign that the prime minister is determined to keep Britain in the EU – assuming that the negotiations are successful. Osborne regards the negotiations as “doable”.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
Since neither Cameron nor Osborne will demand anything substantive, I'm sure the negotiations will go very smoothly.
Precisely my point.
Perhaps they'll demand your weasel vomit coffee at future Council of Ministers summits.
NumbrCrunchrPolitics @NCPoliticsUK 2m2 minutes ago TNS have informed me that their phone poll was NOT intended to be a snapshot of voting intention and pv weighting was not used. Have deleted
Is this the poll that put Labour 11 points ahead?
I take it that this is not the new Gold Standard?
Yes. It was only a bit of fun.
I wasn't expecting someone to add it to the wikipedia page.
@paulwaugh: RiposteOfTheDay. Evangelical Tory MP in No lobby: "I'm voting for Jesus." 2nd Tory MP in Aye lobby: "But didn't He have three parents?" #DNA
You are starting to bewilder me, and I'm sure others, with your constant fiddling and changes, now almost hourly, on your ELBOW.
Before you turn the ELBOW, - which I like - and yourself to a harlequin of fun, and not to be taken seriously, why don't you consider publishing the ELBOW twice a week on say, Tuesday and Friday: come what may and never mind the news headlines.
Do this, up to say the last 3 weeks to the election; then and only then, would it be worth while to publish daily.
I hope you're not to cross with my criticism.
Not at all!
Normally I Tweet on Sundays, but blame TNS for releasing their phone poll a week after the field-work ended (26th January!)
While I appreciate the degree to which Conservative commentators and activists are enjoying the travails of Labour in Scotland, I fail to see how the Tories benefit.
The SNP have made it abundantly clear they won't deal with the Conservatives even if David Cameron crawled up the Royal Mile on his hands and knees begging for Nicola's help and support.
Labour therefore will either be able to deal with Nicola or, if the SNP won't deal with anyone, look to other parties to form a minority Government. I've maintained for some times that the SNP's terms will be "everything short of independence". They will be able to call the shots and that will be incredibly unpalatable for the Unionist parties.
The art of forming a minority Government isn't trying to get a majority for yourself but trying to prevent a majority forming against you. Given the plurality of divergent opinions likely to be in the next Parliament, I suspect the grouping which can get over 290 will be in a very strong position.
Anyone else see the problem in getting a decent renegotiation settlement when both Osborne and Cameron are such virulent EUphiles?
"The prospect of Osborne playing the decisive role after Cameron in EU negotiations will be seen as a clear sign that the prime minister is determined to keep Britain in the EU – assuming that the negotiations are successful. Osborne regards the negotiations as “doable”.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
Since neither Cameron nor Osborne will demand anything substantive, I'm sure the negotiations will go very smoothly.
Ah - the know it all confidence of those with perfect foresight.
But don't you ultimately have to pay the whole amount back plus interest. So you're paying a great deal more than £2.22 per day in the end.
Is it such a good investment for the student, financially? And I thought that a lot of the loans are not being paid back so that it's not much of a good deal for the taxpayer either?
No, if you stay on £30k you keep paying back £2.22 a day, for 30 years. At which point the debt is cancelled. Which is fine.
We've actually landed upon a fairly reasonable system, which for various reasons different parties and interest groups are continually choosing to misrepresent.
But don't you ultimately have to pay the whole amount back plus interest. So you're paying a great deal more than £2.22 per day in the end.
Is it such a good investment for the student, financially? And I thought that a lot of the loans are not being paid back so that it's not much of a good deal for the taxpayer either?
For the student
No because there is a time limit on the loans repayments. Once that limit is reached that's the end of the repayments. The limits are (from Wikipedia).
The borrower reaches age 50 and the borrower was aged below 40 when they took out their last loan The borrower reaches age 60 and the borrower was aged 40 or over when they took out their last loan The 25th anniversary is reached from when the borrower took out their last loan
For the government there was a cut off point where the new scheme started to cost more than the old scheme. Guess what recently happened...
I have no problem with tuition fees. But what's disgusting is the way the government continues to take money out of your pay cheque for the rest of the financial year after you've paid them off, unless you phone them up to demand they stop. They will then give the balance back to you, with no interest whatsoever.
While I appreciate the degree to which Conservative commentators and activists are enjoying the travails of Labour in Scotland, I fail to see how the Tories benefit.
The SNP have made it abundantly clear they won't deal with the Conservatives even if David Cameron crawled up the Royal Mile on his hands and knees begging for Nicola's help and support.
Labour therefore will either be able to deal with Nicola or, if the SNP won't deal with anyone, look to other parties to form a minority Government. I've maintained for some times that the SNP's terms will be "everything short of independence". They will be able to call the shots and that will be incredibly unpalatable for the Unionist parties.
The art of forming a minority Government isn't trying to get a majority for yourself but trying to prevent a majority forming against you. Given the plurality of divergent opinions likely to be in the next Parliament, I suspect the grouping which can get over 290 will be in a very strong position.
You have answered the question of your first paragraph in your last paragraph.
But don't you ultimately have to pay the whole amount back plus interest. So you're paying a great deal more than £2.22 per day in the end.
Is it such a good investment for the student, financially? And I thought that a lot of the loans are not being paid back so that it's not much of a good deal for the taxpayer either?
No, if you stay on £30k you keep paying back £2.22 a day, for 30 years. At which point the debt is cancelled. Which is fine.
We've actually landed upon a fairly reasonable system, which for various reasons different parties and interest groups are continually choosing to misrepresent.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
If the Conservatives were serious, they'd let us know what their renegotiated EU looks like. They've never spelt it out. Occasionally we get glimpses leaked out, but those glimpses are quickly retracted after the Chancellor of Germany overrules the British Prime Minister.
A bettng trader that is caught out by the vultures that circle any poll after the Ashcroft effort tmrw should be sacked on the spot... I cant believe there will be prices available at 11am
While I appreciate the degree to which Conservative commentators and activists are enjoying the travails of Labour in Scotland, I fail to see how the Tories benefit.
The SNP have made it abundantly clear they won't deal with the Conservatives even if David Cameron crawled up the Royal Mile on his hands and knees begging for Nicola's help and support.
Labour therefore will either be able to deal with Nicola or, if the SNP won't deal with anyone, look to other parties to form a minority Government. I've maintained for some times that the SNP's terms will be "everything short of independence". They will be able to call the shots and that will be incredibly unpalatable for the Unionist parties.
The art of forming a minority Government isn't trying to get a majority for yourself but trying to prevent a majority forming against you. Given the plurality of divergent opinions likely to be in the next Parliament, I suspect the grouping which can get over 290 will be in a very strong position.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 5m5 minutes ago Three soldiers on anti-terror patrol in Nice, southern France, wounded in knife attack, French police say http://bbc.in/1LI7Nu8
Blimey! looks like incipient civil war about to start in France.
Civil war would be over egging it.
But there has been trouble between the Authorities and various minorities for years.
France has some very real tensions simmering away below the surface.
While I appreciate the degree to which Conservative commentators and activists are enjoying the travails of Labour in Scotland, I fail to see how the Tories benefit.
The SNP have made it abundantly clear they won't deal with the Conservatives even if David Cameron crawled up the Royal Mile on his hands and knees begging for Nicola's help and support.
Labour therefore will either be able to deal with Nicola or, if the SNP won't deal with anyone, look to other parties to form a minority Government. I've maintained for some times that the SNP's terms will be "everything short of independence". They will be able to call the shots and that will be incredibly unpalatable for the Unionist parties.
The art of forming a minority Government isn't trying to get a majority for yourself but trying to prevent a majority forming against you. Given the plurality of divergent opinions likely to be in the next Parliament, I suspect the grouping which can get over 290 will be in a very strong position.
Well I'm a separatist Tory so I'm perfectly happy with the direction of travel generally.
And I wouldn't be so sure about the SNP, post-GE. Cameron being PM suits them. Drawing unrealistic red lines on Trident seems to be setting their stall out to ultimately do Labour over [possibly after 6-18 months of a very weak administration].
While I appreciate the degree to which Conservative commentators and activists are enjoying the travails of Labour in Scotland, I fail to see how the Tories benefit.
The SNP have made it abundantly clear they won't deal with the Conservatives even if David Cameron crawled up the Royal Mile on his hands and knees begging for Nicola's help and support.
Labour therefore will either be able to deal with Nicola or, if the SNP won't deal with anyone, look to other parties to form a minority Government. I've maintained for some times that the SNP's terms will be "everything short of independence". They will be able to call the shots and that will be incredibly unpalatable for the Unionist parties.
The art of forming a minority Government isn't trying to get a majority for yourself but trying to prevent a majority forming against you. Given the plurality of divergent opinions likely to be in the next Parliament, I suspect the grouping which can get over 290 will be in a very strong position.
Which is why we should just kick Scotland out.
But after being subjected to a shed-load of Unionist scare-mongering, the Scots voted to stay in!
If the Conservatives were serious, they'd let us know what their renegotiated EU looks like. They've never spelt it out. Occasionally we get glimpses leaked out, but those glimpses are quickly retracted after the Chancellor of Germany overrules the British Prime Minister.
I have no problem with tuition fees. But what's disgusting is the way the government continues to take money out of your pay cheque for the rest of the financial year after you've paid them off, unless you phone them up to demand they stop. They will then give the balance back to you, with no interest whatsoever.
You do get very angry over relatively minor things.
If the Conservatives were serious, they'd let us know what their renegotiated EU looks like. They've never spelt it out. Occasionally we get glimpses leaked out, but those glimpses are quickly retracted after the Chancellor of Germany overrules the British Prime Minister.
How is your plan working out for the Greeks?
Greece: "We will cancel half the debt"
Germany: "Eh?"
Greece: " We will repay all our debts..."
The Germans themselves had debts cancelled after ze War.
Yes - but more seriously it emphasizes that despite just winning the referendum the Unionist cause is pretty well doomed in Scotland. If, as seems certain, we get a hung Parliament with possible a Labour PM reliant on SNP votes, the prospects for the UK over the next year seem pretty bleak. The £ is already retreating from it's highs of a week ago just on the uncertainty. anyone heading for Euroland this summer would be well advised to get their €s bought now.
In short I suspect that rUK politicians need to consider an orderly break-up with our friends north of the Tweed sooner rather than later. Whatever the GE result, Scotland is so very clearly another country.
While I appreciate the degree to which Conservative commentators and activists are enjoying the travails of Labour in Scotland, I fail to see how the Tories benefit.
The SNP have made it abundantly clear they won't deal with the Conservatives even if David Cameron crawled up the Royal Mile on his hands and knees begging for Nicola's help and support.
Labour therefore will either be able to deal with Nicola or, if the SNP won't deal with anyone, look to other parties to form a minority Government. I've maintained for some times that the SNP's terms will be "everything short of independence". They will be able to call the shots and that will be incredibly unpalatable for the Unionist parties.
The art of forming a minority Government isn't trying to get a majority for yourself but trying to prevent a majority forming against you. Given the plurality of divergent opinions likely to be in the next Parliament, I suspect the grouping which can get over 290 will be in a very strong position.
In the cold light of day it will be apparent that a government dependent on the SNP is a non-starter. For this reason a Con-Lab coalition is an underrated prospect.
But don't you ultimately have to pay the whole amount back plus interest. So you're paying a great deal more than £2.22 per day in the end.
Is it such a good investment for the student, financially? And I thought that a lot of the loans are not being paid back so that it's not much of a good deal for the taxpayer either?
No, if you stay on £30k you keep paying back £2.22 a day, for 30 years. At which point the debt is cancelled. Which is fine.
We've actually landed upon a fairly reasonable system, which for various reasons different parties and interest groups are continually choosing to misrepresent.
Must be a great time to be a vice chancellor
They do seem strangely immune to public sector pay restraint.
You have answered the question of your first paragraph in your last paragraph.
I'm not sure - whatever the public blustering, I'm sure if he had to do so to remain in office, David Cameron would sup with the Devil (Nick Clegg or Nicola Sturgeon) irrespective of the length of spoon required.
Whether other parties would deal with him rather than Labour, especially given the verbal onslaughts of the election campaign, is debatable.
All this assumes the Conservatives having a cushion of sorts - last time, there were only two options, a Con-LD deal or a minority CON Government. This time, there may be other permutations (Lab-LD-SNP) or CON-DUP on the table.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
If the Conservatives were serious, they'd let us know what their renegotiated EU looks like. They've never spelt it out. Occasionally we get glimpses leaked out, but those glimpses are quickly retracted after the Chancellor of Germany overrules the British Prime Minister.
All Cameron has said is that after renegotiation things will be “different”! But how? And what’s his starting point? Do we have any idea of his red lines? If any!
I have no problem with tuition fees. But what's disgusting is the way the government continues to take money out of your pay cheque for the rest of the financial year after you've paid them off, unless you phone them up to demand they stop. They will then give the balance back to you, with no interest whatsoever.
You do get very angry over relatively minor things.
I'm not remotely angry over this. I merely describe the situation objectively.
The Minister is, I think, being silly in his comparisons. You have to pay the whole loan off + interest which varies depending on your income. Your £27K borrowing becomes a whole lot larger and goes on for longer than your course. That debt will affect how much money you have lefto to spend on other matters and how much you can borrow for a mortgage, for instance. Whether the "investment" is worth it is another matter.
But pretending that it's only the equivalent of a coffee and insignificant makes him appear out of touch. It's a big debt to take on and it's by no means a given that graduates will earn such a big amount by comparison with non-graduates (as used to be the case) to make it worthwhile.
It should be made clear to the Greeks that either they pay their debts as scheduled or they default and leave the euro.
Period. The Greeks aren't children, they should be forced to face up to the implications of their actions - just as the Venezuelans are having to face up to the implications of theirs.
If the Conservatives were serious, they'd let us know what their renegotiated EU looks like. They've never spelt it out. Occasionally we get glimpses leaked out, but those glimpses are quickly retracted after the Chancellor of Germany overrules the British Prime Minister.
Hollande's in catch-22. Withdraw the army and people may feel afraid (and it could make them more open to attack). Have patrols and guards on duty and they're targets.
I think it very serious, when terrorists feel free to attack an armed patrol on the streets of Nice and seemingly - till we get more news - get away with it.
BTW, Nice is where I once met an Italian girl from Genoa and had a brief affair; many years ago now.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
It should be made clear to the Greeks that either they pay their debts as scheduled or they default and leave the euro.
Period. The Greeks aren't children, they should be forced to face up to the implications of their actions - just as the Venezuelans are having to face up to the implications of theirs.
Except part of Greece's troubles are entirely because the ECB isn't doing its job because Germany has a mad inflation phobia.
If the Conservatives were serious, they'd let us know what their renegotiated EU looks like. They've never spelt it out. Occasionally we get glimpses leaked out, but those glimpses are quickly retracted after the Chancellor of Germany overrules the British Prime Minister.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters. (Indeed, I am 100% certain that you will argue it changes nothing significant, so in your eyes the Cameroon position is entirely clear: the In vote will be a vote for the status quo). So the In side will have something concrete to offer.
By contrast, the negotiation the Out side would have to undertake won't have started at all. It would be a complete leap into the dark, and the EU will no doubt be muttering darkly about how dreadful the terms would be. Worse still, different Kippers seem to want to jump in different directions, and none of them seem to have the faintest clue as to what they are even aiming at in the trade treaty.
You'd have thought that the less dim-witted Kippers might have begun to think about this problem, but there's precious little sign of that.
Why, for Heaven's sake, is such incredible prominence and importance given over on PB.com to just about any poll from Lord Ashcroft, who is after all a new and largely untested addition in this particular field.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
Carswell saw first hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation, realised it was all presentation and spin, and left the Conservative party as a result
There will not be a Con-Lab government after the May 2015 election. Tories are well aware that it simply reinforces the LibLabCon stereotype (boosting the Kippers), and Labourites know it would mean hemorrhaging support to the Liberal Democrats (who would end up the de facto party of opposition).
Furthermore, inside the Labour Party, there is the feeling that, with a second election and a new leader they'd be in a much better position. And there are lots of people inside the Conservatives who feel the same about Cameron. This pressure from the backbenches not to do a sell out deal - especially after the Con-LD coalition - would be enormous.
Both parties would rather roll the dice on a second election than do something that puts their longer term future in jeopardy.
If there is a second election, and things are still "up in the air", that could change. But I cannot see a circumstance - short of war - where Cameron would sit in Milliband's cabinet, or vice-versa.
Why, for Heaven's sake, is such incredible prominence and importance given over on PB.com to just about any poll from Lord Ashcroft, who is after all a new and largely untested addition in this particular field.
If you don't believe the Ashcroft polls, massive value 13-8 Conservatives Sutton and Cheam.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You have answered the question of your first paragraph in your last paragraph.
I'm not sure - whatever the public blustering, I'm sure if he had to do so to remain in office, David Cameron would sup with the Devil (Nick Clegg or Nicola Sturgeon) irrespective of the length of spoon required.
Whether other parties would deal with him rather than Labour, especially given the verbal onslaughts of the election campaign, is debatable.
All this assumes the Conservatives having a cushion of sorts - last time, there were only two options, a Con-LD deal or a minority CON Government. This time, there may be other permutations (Lab-LD-SNP) or CON-DUP on the table.
The SNP wouldn't necessarily need to do 'a deal' with a minority Conservative government; they could simply omit to bring it down, at least for a while.
I'm not BTW saying this is a good outcome - on the contrary, as I've been warning for two years, I think there's a substantial risk of no effective government.
But don't you ultimately have to pay the whole amount back plus interest. So you're paying a great deal more than £2.22 per day in the end.
Is it such a good investment for the student, financially? And I thought that a lot of the loans are not being paid back so that it's not much of a good deal for the taxpayer either?
No, if you stay on £30k you keep paying back £2.22 a day, for 30 years. At which point the debt is cancelled. Which is fine.
We've actually landed upon a fairly reasonable system, which for various reasons different parties and interest groups are continually choosing to misrepresent.
Must be a great time to be a vice chancellor
They do seem strangely immune to public sector pay restraint.
It's like New Labour and the NHS with their Doctor deal..., no wonder @TSE thinks Hallam is such a cert for the Lib Dems.
Why, for Heaven's sake, is such incredible prominence and importance given over on PB.com to just about any poll from Lord Ashcroft, who is after all a new and largely untested addition in this particular field.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
Carswell saw first hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation, realised it was all presentation and spin, and left the Conservative party as a result
But the people on here apparently know better
Lots of other Eurosceptic Tory MPs saw even closer hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation and stayed with the Conservatives as a result.
"Indeed, I am 100% certain that you will argue it changes nothing significant."
And I am 100% certain that you will argue it is a wonderful new deal that completely changes the calculus of being in the EU and shows how David Cameron is a fantastic Prime Minister.
The difference between us, of course, is that I am willing to spell out requirements for me to believe the renegotiation is significant, while you refuse to spell out the requirements for the renegotiation to be insignificant, proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You cannot lose that bet, as any renegotiation would involve treaty changes. Those treaty changes need to also be approved by referendums in countries other than the UK.
Let's say, hypothetically, that amendments are negotiated by mid 2017, why would any other country have a referendum on treaty changes until after we've decided if we'd stay in given the changes?
There will not be a Con-Lab government after the May 2015 election. Tories are well aware that it simply reinforces the LibLabCon stereotype (boosting the Kippers), and Labourites know it would mean hemorrhaging support to the Liberal Democrats (who would end up the de facto party of opposition).
Furthermore, inside the Labour Party, there is the feeling that, with a second election and a new leader they'd be in a much better position. And there are lots of people inside the Conservatives who feel the same about Cameron. This pressure from the backbenches not to do a sell out deal - especially after the Con-LD coalition - would be enormous.
Both parties would rather roll the dice on a second election than do something that puts their longer term future in jeopardy.
If there is a second election, and things are still "up in the air", that could change. But I cannot see a circumstance - short of war - where Cameron would sit in Milliband's cabinet, or vice-versa.
Nonsense, Robert.
Even war would not see Cameron sitting in Miliband's cabinet, or vice versa.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
Carswell saw first hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation, realised it was all presentation and spin, and left the Conservative party as a result
But the people on here apparently know better
Lots of other Eurosceptic Tory MPs saw even closer hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation and stayed with the Conservatives as a result.
But apparently Carswell knows better.
How would you know that?
By the way we need to confirm what our UKIP vs LD vote price was.. I think you said £50 at Even Money but I thought you took 4/6
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
That is wrong. They are entirely serious about what they want, it's just not the same as the BOOers want. What they want is to remain in a reformed EU. That would be my preferred option too, and it's the preferred option of most people and especially of most business people.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
Carswell saw first hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation, realised it was all presentation and spin, and left the Conservative party as a result
But the people on here apparently know better
Hilarious. You believe Carswell, 'that tory' ?? What do you expect him to say? Where first hand compared to any public pronouncements has Carswell, the perpetual rebel, got any insight? Carswell is peddling his own agenda entirely, and it has little to do with the anti immigrant anti muslim slush pushed by Farage.
You have answered the question of your first paragraph in your last paragraph.
I'm not sure - whatever the public blustering, I'm sure if he had to do so to remain in office, David Cameron would sup with the Devil (Nick Clegg or Nicola Sturgeon) irrespective of the length of spoon required.
Whether other parties would deal with him rather than Labour, especially given the verbal onslaughts of the election campaign, is debatable.
All this assumes the Conservatives having a cushion of sorts - last time, there were only two options, a Con-LD deal or a minority CON Government. This time, there may be other permutations (Lab-LD-SNP) or CON-DUP on the table.
The SNP wouldn't necessarily need to do 'a deal' with a minority Conservative government; they could simply omit to bring it down, at least for a while.
I'm not BTW saying this is a good outcome - on the contrary, as I've been warning for two years, I think there's a substantial risk of no effective government.
There'll be riots in Scotland if the SNP are being seen in any way shape or form propping up a Conservative Government.
These are people who are leaving Labour because they want a MORE left wing party !
And Labour will get the mother of all swingbacks in the 2016 Holyrood elections.
Why, for Heaven's sake, is such incredible prominence and importance given over on PB.com to just about any poll from Lord Ashcroft, who is after all a new and largely untested addition in this particular field.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
Sigh... we've been through this before. Of course it won't be 'completed' in that sense. I don't know why on earth you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant point. No-one disagrees with you on this. Not a single person on this earth has ever argued that it will be ratified in a legally-binding sense by the end of 2017.
Why, for Heaven's sake, is such incredible prominence and importance given over on PB.com to just about any poll from Lord Ashcroft, who is after all a new and largely untested addition in this particular field.
He is not going round with a clipboard himself, he is using a regular polling company. The question is - is Ashcroft using any peculiar methodology which might suit him?
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
That is wrong. They are entirely serious about what they want, it's just not the same as the BOOers want. What they want is to remain in a reformed EU. That would be my preferred option too, and it's the preferred option of most people and especially of most business people.
"A reformed EU" is so nebulous a term as to be meaningless. Can you name three specific meaningful changes that Cameron and Osborne would need to achieve and without which the renegotiation would be a failure?
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
Carswell saw first hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation, realised it was all presentation and spin, and left the Conservative party as a result
But the people on here apparently know better
Hilarious. You believe Carswell, 'that tory' ?? What do you expect him to say? Where first hand compared to any public pronouncements has Carswell, the perpetual rebel, got any insight? Carswell is peddling his own agenda entirely, and it has little to do with the anti immigrant anti muslim slush pushed by Farage.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You cannot lose that bet, as any renegotiation would involve treaty changes. Those treaty changes need to also be approved by referendums in countries other than the UK.
Let's say, hypothetically, that amendments are negotiated by mid 2017, why would any other country have a referendum on treaty changes until after we've decided if we'd stay in given the changes?
So we vote to stay in and then the changes get rejected? That sounds like exactly the sort of stitch-up Cameron is aiming for. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate. If it's a UK powers-specific deal then it probably wouldn't trigger a referendum elsewhere.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
Carswell saw first hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation, realised it was all presentation and spin, and left the Conservative party as a result
But the people on here apparently know better
Lots of other Eurosceptic Tory MPs saw even closer hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation and stayed with the Conservatives as a result.
But apparently Carswell knows better.
How would you know that?
By the way we need to confirm what our UKIP vs LD vote price was.. I think you said £50 at Even Money but I thought you took 4/6
I thought 4/6 was the UKIP < 10% bet? I have no memory of whether I took 4/6 or evens on the match bet but it's not looking like that will matter so much in the end. I'm happy to take 4/6 as it only goes to the cocktail fund anyway and JohnO drinks most of that.
I don't know what all the speculation is about. The constituency polls have to be bad for Labour because all the national Scottish polls can't be wrong.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Thus dodging the bet and dodging the opportunity to show that your understanding of a successful renegotiation isn't dependent on what Cameron ends up renegotiating.
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You cannot lose that bet, as any renegotiation would involve treaty changes.
That's not obvious to me. It's quite possible that the other states (ie Germany) will restrict Cameron to reforms that can be enacted without treaty change on the grounds that they dont want to invoke referendums throughout the union. In fact I would have thought it was more likely than not.
I don't know what all the speculation is about. The constituency polls have to be bad for Labour because all the national Scottish polls can't be wrong.
Indeed. It's not as if "Scotland" isn't made up of 59 constituencies, is it?
Regional variations will be interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how well antifrank's Yes% method stacks up. Very well, I suspect, hence betting on Glasgow.
I don't know what all the speculation is about. The constituency polls have to be bad for Labour because all the national Scottish polls can't be wrong.
They might find some anti-SNP stuff in Question 2... unfortunately for Labour I severely doubt it's going to be any good for them.
Question 2 will be better for Danny, but not good enough.
Probably saves Charlie though - Viscount Thurso could show the biggest question 2 shift...
I do hope they've not just polled the almost cert SNP gains too - or wasted their time in any of the 6 currently held SNP seats either.
Why, for Heaven's sake, is such incredible prominence and importance given over on PB.com to just about any poll from Lord Ashcroft, who is after all a new and largely untested addition in this particular field.
He is not going round with a clipboard himself, he is using a regular polling company. The question is - is Ashcroft using any peculiar methodology which might suit him?
I would say that is undoubtedly true.
I think he has a problem in that he could never influence politics as much as he wanted to, or at least as he would liked to have done within the Tory party, and these polls are to feed his ego and make him seem important.
You have answered the question of your first paragraph in your last paragraph.
I'm not sure - whatever the public blustering, I'm sure if he had to do so to remain in office, David Cameron would sup with the Devil (Nick Clegg or Nicola Sturgeon) irrespective of the length of spoon required.
Whether other parties would deal with him rather than Labour, especially given the verbal onslaughts of the election campaign, is debatable.
All this assumes the Conservatives having a cushion of sorts - last time, there were only two options, a Con-LD deal or a minority CON Government. This time, there may be other permutations (Lab-LD-SNP) or CON-DUP on the table.
The SNP wouldn't necessarily need to do 'a deal' with a minority Conservative government; they could simply omit to bring it down, at least for a while.
I'm not BTW saying this is a good outcome - on the contrary, as I've been warning for two years, I think there's a substantial risk of no effective government.
There'll be riots in Scotland if the SNP are being seen in any way shape or form propping up a Conservative Government.
These are people who are leaving Labour because they want a MORE left wing party !
And Labour will get the mother of all swingbacks in the 2016 Holyrood elections.
I think you are being a tad hyperbolic. I agree that a majority of Scots want out and I also agree that is now the optimal solution for the rUK. I feel sad for the 40+% of Scots who'd rather stay in the UK but I suspect Scotland would settle down over time - as our slightly dotty and poorer neighbour living the socialist dream.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
Carswell saw first hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation, realised it was all presentation and spin, and left the Conservative party as a result
But the people on here apparently know better
Lots of other Eurosceptic Tory MPs saw even closer hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation and stayed with the Conservatives as a result.
But apparently Carswell knows better.
How would you know that?
By the way we need to confirm what our UKIP vs LD vote price was.. I think you said £50 at Even Money but I thought you took 4/6
I thought 4/6 was the UKIP < 10% bet? I have no memory of whether I took 4/6 or evens on the match bet but it's not looking like that will matter so much in the end.
Oh yeah of course my mistake. you have had a £50 bet at 4/6.. I keep thinking I have had £50@6/4
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You cannot lose that bet, as any renegotiation would involve treaty changes. Those treaty changes need to also be approved by referendums in countries other than the UK.
Let's say, hypothetically, that amendments are negotiated by mid 2017, why would any other country have a referendum on treaty changes until after we've decided if we'd stay in given the changes?
So we vote to stay in and then the changes get rejected? That sounds like exactly the sort of stitch-up Cameron is aiming for. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate. If it's a UK powers-specific deal then it probably wouldn't trigger a referendum elsewhere.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
(And yes, I know you are going to pick me up on "substantially similar" and froth about how you can't trust Cameron. But if the Irish, for instance, demanded that all future Treaties be written in green ink I don't think that should weigh very heavily on our decision to stay in or not)
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
Sigh... we've been through this before. Of course it won't be 'completed' in that sense. I don't know why on earth you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant point. No-one disagrees with you on this. Not a single person on this earth has ever argued that it will be ratified in a legally-binding sense by the end of 2017.
I never said anything about legally binding. Anyway, I'm glad you've retracted the claim that the renegotiation "will have happened and will be presented to voters". It won't have: at best, we will be asked to agree to something that still has to happen. That way Cameron can get his In vote on the mirage before the mirage turns out not to exist.
Osborne believes that Britain enhances its position on the world stage in the EU. The chancellor believes that opponents of British membership are neither coherent nor credible in believing the UK could renegotiate membership terms along the lines of Switzerland and Norway."
What a lot of meaningless guff.
He's spot-on, as usual. What's meaningless about telling the truth?
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
Carswell saw first hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation, realised it was all presentation and spin, and left the Conservative party as a result
But the people on here apparently know better
Lots of other Eurosceptic Tory MPs saw even closer hand what Cameron proposed to do in terms of EU negotiation and stayed with the Conservatives as a result.
But apparently Carswell knows better.
How would you know that?
By the way we need to confirm what our UKIP vs LD vote price was.. I think you said £50 at Even Money but I thought you took 4/6
I thought 4/6 was the UKIP < 10% bet? I have no memory of whether I took 4/6 or evens on the match bet but it's not looking like that will matter so much in the end.
Oh yeah of course my mistake. you have had a £50 bet at 4/6.. I keep thinking I have had £50@6/4
I edited my response to make it clear I'm happy with 4/6.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
That is wrong. They are entirely serious about what they want, it's just not the same as the BOOers want. What they want is to remain in a reformed EU. That would be my preferred option too, and it's the preferred option of most people and especially of most business people.
If you are right, Cameron and Osborne must believe that as things stand the UK should leave the EU and that only a renegotiation changes this. Given that, surely they should be able to tell us what it is they believe needs to change in order for them to support our continued membership.
Why, for Heaven's sake, is such incredible prominence and importance given over on PB.com to just about any poll from Lord Ashcroft, who is after all a new and largely untested addition in this particular field.
He is not going round with a clipboard himself, he is using a regular polling company. The question is - is Ashcroft using any peculiar methodology which might suit him?
I agree with your general point. The most Ashcroft is likely to do will be to confirm the trends in all the national polls. His constituency polling reliability is a complete unknown until after May 10th. Fortunately for me I'm not a gambler so will be risking nothing before or after tomorrow.
But Cameron/Osborne are not serious. They are going through the motions because they feel they have to for party management reasons. If they were serious they would be very clear about their objectives, their red lines, have a roadmap to achieve them and, yes, to do contingency planning for EU withdrawal if they didn't get what they want. The credibility of that threat to withdraw would be crucial to obtaining the concessions they want.
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
That is wrong. They are entirely serious about what they want, it's just not the same as the BOOers want. What they want is to remain in a reformed EU. That would be my preferred option too, and it's the preferred option of most people and especially of most business people.
If it doesn't need ratification elsewhere then it's not a Treaty change and you will argue that it's not protected.
Ratification can still happen elsewhere if we have agreement from the people that need to ratify it that it will be ratified. Or it can be ratified before the end of 2017.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
I will bet you £50 at evens that, if there is a renegotiation, there is no explicit conditionality written into the referendum legislation.
You have answered the question of your first paragraph in your last paragraph.
I'm not sure - whatever the public blustering, I'm sure if he had to do so to remain in office, David Cameron would sup with the Devil (Nick Clegg or Nicola Sturgeon) irrespective of the length of spoon required.
Whether other parties would deal with him rather than Labour, especially given the verbal onslaughts of the election campaign, is debatable.
All this assumes the Conservatives having a cushion of sorts - last time, there were only two options, a Con-LD deal or a minority CON Government. This time, there may be other permutations (Lab-LD-SNP) or CON-DUP on the table.
I'm not BTW saying this is a good outcome - on the contrary, as I've been warning for two years, I think there's a substantial risk of no effective government.
It's strange that more political analysts/newspapers aren't talking about this as it's exactly what the projected sporting index bands and forecasts are showing is going to happen three months before a general election.
Con + LD + DUP doesn't add up to a majority and if things move further towards the SNP after tomorrow then Labour will be looking at 270 seats rather than 280, not enough to run a minority government.
There should be panic but everyone seems happy for it to play out.
Good advice from Mike but I do worry about this Lord Ashcroft emphasis. I really hope people aren't going to get their fingers badly burnt. Anyone else share my unease?
You have answered the question of your first paragraph in your last paragraph.
I'm not sure - whatever the public blustering, I'm sure if he had to do so to remain in office, David Cameron would sup with the Devil (Nick Clegg or Nicola Sturgeon) irrespective of the length of spoon required.
Whether other parties would deal with him rather than Labour, especially given the verbal onslaughts of the election campaign, is debatable.
All this assumes the Conservatives having a cushion of sorts - last time, there were only two options, a Con-LD deal or a minority CON Government. This time, there may be other permutations (Lab-LD-SNP) or CON-DUP on the table.
I'm not BTW saying this is a good outcome - on the contrary, as I've been warning for two years, I think there's a substantial risk of no effective government.
It's strange that more political analysts/newspapers aren't talking about this as it's exactly what the projected sporting index bands and forecasts are showing is going to happen three months before a general election.
Con + LD + DUP doesn't add up to a majority and if things move further towards the SNP after tomorrow then Labour will be looking at 270 seats rather than 280, not enough to run a minority government.
There should be panic but everyone seems happy for it to play out.
The only way there is no possible effective government is if the Tories and Labour put their narrow political interests ahead of the national interest.
proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
I will engage no further with you.
Don't worry Socrates, Richard N does this all the time. As soon as someone highlights the obvious dishonesty of his position he throws a hissy fit and refuses to talk to them any more. The best way to deal with it is to continue to point out the intellectual dishonesty in his postings and let him sulk as much as he likes.
In fact is there a single Cameron supporter on here who is willing to state what is needed to be renegotiated for the renegotiation to be a failure if it isn't achieved?
The renegotiation hasn't happened yet, but by 2017, if we have a Conservative majority, it will have happened, for better or worse, and the results will be presented to voters.
Ok, in that case I would like to bet you £50 at evens that, in the case of a Conservative majority after the 2015 election, a completed renegotiation* and an In-Out referendum have not happened by the end of 2017.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
You cannot lose that bet, as any renegotiation would involve treaty changes.
That's not obvious to me. It's quite possible that the other states (ie Germany) will restrict Cameron to reforms that can be enacted without treaty change on the grounds that they dont want to invoke referendums throughout the union. In fact I would have thought it was more likely than not.
In which case they will be worthless - pretty much as we have pointed out all along.
Why, for Heaven's sake, is such incredible prominence and importance given over on PB.com to just about any poll from Lord Ashcroft, who is after all a new and largely untested addition in this particular field.
Ah, just saw this. So that's two of us.
Lord Ashcroft was 17% out at Heywood & Middleton: the least accurate pollster in Britain.
In fact is there a single Cameron supporter on here who is willing to state what is needed to be renegotiated for the renegotiation to be a failure if it isn't achieved?
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31118355?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
As I have said many times, if UKIP and the BOOers were serious, they'd be exploring what a plausible trade treaty with the EU might look like. We get absolutely nothing coherent from UKIP on that aspect.
Other perhaps than Dan Hannan, the only politician who seems to be thinking seriously about this is Owen Paterson:
http://www.uk2020.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Owen-Paterson-Europe-Speech-24-November-2014-Online.pdf
At least he recognises some of the basic truths, such as the fact that we won't get everything we want, and that much of what people bitch about won't change - partly because it is already agreed to in other forums such as WTO.
via @flashboy
Is it such a good investment for the student, financially? And I thought that a lot of the loans are not being paid back so that it's not much of a good deal for the taxpayer either?
Perhaps they'll demand your weasel vomit coffee at future Council of Ministers summits.
Normally I Tweet on Sundays, but blame TNS for releasing their phone poll a week after the field-work ended (26th January!)
The SNP have made it abundantly clear they won't deal with the Conservatives even if David Cameron crawled up the Royal Mile on his hands and knees begging for Nicola's help and support.
Labour therefore will either be able to deal with Nicola or, if the SNP won't deal with anyone, look to other parties to form a minority Government. I've maintained for some times that the SNP's terms will be "everything short of independence". They will be able to call the shots and that will be incredibly unpalatable for the Unionist parties.
The art of forming a minority Government isn't trying to get a majority for yourself but trying to prevent a majority forming against you. Given the plurality of divergent opinions likely to be in the next Parliament, I suspect the grouping which can get over 290 will be in a very strong position.
We've actually landed upon a fairly reasonable system, which for various reasons different parties and interest groups are continually choosing to misrepresent.
No because there is a time limit on the loans repayments. Once that limit is reached that's the end of the repayments. The limits are (from Wikipedia).
The borrower reaches age 50 and the borrower was aged below 40 when they took out their last loan
The borrower reaches age 60 and the borrower was aged 40 or over when they took out their last loan
The 25th anniversary is reached from when the borrower took out their last loan
For the government there was a cut off point where the new scheme started to cost more than the old scheme. Guess what recently happened...
It was the Labour Party wot introduced Tuition Fees in the first place! Luckily I did my finals round about the time of the 1997 election.
But there has been trouble between the Authorities and various minorities for years.
France has some very real tensions simmering away below the surface.
And I wouldn't be so sure about the SNP, post-GE. Cameron being PM suits them. Drawing unrealistic red lines on Trident seems to be setting their stall out to ultimately do Labour over [possibly after 6-18 months of a very weak administration].
Greece: "We will cancel half the debt"
Germany: "Eh?"
Greece: " We will repay all our debts..."
In short I suspect that rUK politicians need to consider an orderly break-up with our friends north of the Tweed sooner rather than later. Whatever the GE result, Scotland is so very clearly another country.
Whether other parties would deal with him rather than Labour, especially given the verbal onslaughts of the election campaign, is debatable.
All this assumes the Conservatives having a cushion of sorts - last time, there were only two options, a Con-LD deal or a minority CON Government. This time, there may be other permutations (Lab-LD-SNP) or CON-DUP on the table.
At least UKIP are clear, if in my view mistaken.
The Minister is, I think, being silly in his comparisons. You have to pay the whole loan off + interest which varies depending on your income. Your £27K borrowing becomes a whole lot larger and goes on for longer than your course. That debt will affect how much money you have lefto to spend on other matters and how much you can borrow for a mortgage, for instance. Whether the "investment" is worth it is another matter.
But pretending that it's only the equivalent of a coffee and insignificant makes him appear out of touch. It's a big debt to take on and it's by no means a given that graduates will earn such a big amount by comparison with non-graduates (as used to be the case) to make it worthwhile.
Period. The Greeks aren't children, they should be forced to face up to the implications of their actions - just as the Venezuelans are having to face up to the implications of theirs.
:-)
I agree BOO'ers need to paint a clearer more positive vision for a post-EU Britain, and I've said so on here before.
By contrast, the negotiation the Out side would have to undertake won't have started at all. It would be a complete leap into the dark, and the EU will no doubt be muttering darkly about how dreadful the terms would be. Worse still, different Kippers seem to want to jump in different directions, and none of them seem to have the faintest clue as to what they are even aiming at in the trade treaty.
You'd have thought that the less dim-witted Kippers might have begun to think about this problem, but there's precious little sign of that.
But the people on here apparently know better
Furthermore, inside the Labour Party, there is the feeling that, with a second election and a new leader they'd be in a much better position. And there are lots of people inside the Conservatives who feel the same about Cameron. This pressure from the backbenches not to do a sell out deal - especially after the Con-LD coalition - would be enormous.
Both parties would rather roll the dice on a second election than do something that puts their longer term future in jeopardy.
If there is a second election, and things are still "up in the air", that could change. But I cannot see a circumstance - short of war - where Cameron would sit in Milliband's cabinet, or vice-versa.
Southport too.
(*A completed renegotiation is one where no further renegotiation is left to be done with any party that can block the deal.)
I'm not BTW saying this is a good outcome - on the contrary, as I've been warning for two years, I think there's a substantial risk of no effective government.
But apparently Carswell knows better.
And I am 100% certain that you will argue it is a wonderful new deal that completely changes the calculus of being in the EU and shows how David Cameron is a fantastic Prime Minister.
The difference between us, of course, is that I am willing to spell out requirements for me to believe the renegotiation is significant, while you refuse to spell out the requirements for the renegotiation to be insignificant, proving the difference in intellectual honesty between us.
Let's say, hypothetically, that amendments are negotiated by mid 2017, why would any other country have a referendum on treaty changes until after we've decided if we'd stay in given the changes?
Even war would not see Cameron sitting in Miliband's cabinet, or vice versa.
By the way we need to confirm what our UKIP vs LD vote price was.. I think you said £50 at Even Money but I thought you took 4/6
These are people who are leaving Labour because they want a MORE left wing party !
And Labour will get the mother of all swingbacks in the 2016 Holyrood elections.
If the Greeks thought the euro was being run badly they should have voted for a party that would take them out of it.
The simple fact is the Greeks want the advantages of being in the euro without the obligations.
The longer we indulge their childishness the more of it we will see.
Well, maybe total war would see such a coalition, but, short of that, it's a non-starter.
Why am I not surprised.
Regional variations will be interesting - I'm looking forward to seeing how well antifrank's Yes% method stacks up. Very well, I suspect, hence betting on Glasgow.
Question 2 will be better for Danny, but not good enough.
Probably saves Charlie though - Viscount Thurso could show the biggest question 2 shift...
I do hope they've not just polled the almost cert SNP gains too - or wasted their time in any of the 6 currently held SNP seats either.
I think he has a problem in that he could never influence politics as much as he wanted to, or at least as he would liked to have done within the Tory party, and these polls are to feed his ego and make him seem important.
And our referendum would be conditional. A popular mandate for staying in a reformed EU by implication means that if the reforms don't go through in a substantially similar format then there is no mandate. I'd expect that will be made explicit in any enabling legislation.
(And yes, I know you are going to pick me up on "substantially similar" and froth about how you can't trust Cameron. But if the Irish, for instance, demanded that all future Treaties be written in green ink I don't think that should weigh very heavily on our decision to stay in or not)
Con + LD + DUP doesn't add up to a majority and if things move further towards the SNP after tomorrow then Labour will be looking at 270 seats rather than 280, not enough to run a minority government.
There should be panic but everyone seems happy for it to play out.
Lord Ashcroft was 17% out at Heywood & Middleton: the least accurate pollster in Britain.