@jameschappers: Boost for #KM4SS campaign. Constituency bigwig tells Sky candidate must have local links and not be 'parachuted in' like DMil @Kevin_Maguire
Who was the local bigwig on SKY? Did anyone see it?
Luxembourg FM bridles at Berlin briefing on business model sustainability:
"Luxembourg's foreign minister accused Germany on Tuesday of "striving for hegemony" in the euro zone by telling Cyprus what business model it should pursue."
Yes let's give fidgety kids who can't concentrate strong drugs rather than extra care and teaching, and while we are at it give out boob jobs to any young women who are feeling a bit low.
My feelings of self-worth would be dramatically improved if my bank account had £100,000 more in it.
What Euro membership did do in places like Cyprus, Greece , Spain was to feed the addiction, as lenders assumed they were lending to somewhere just as credit-worthy as Germany.
The historic vote shares and political landscape in South Shields look much more like Middlesbrough than Eastleigh. It has been a super-safe Labour seat since time immemorial, and that's not going to change. Given that no-one other than Labour can possibly win, protest votes are even more cost-free than they would normally be in a by-election. Therefore I agree with Sean Fear: Labour will win massively, with UKIP second. I expect the latter to be well ahead of the Conservatives in third place, with the LibDems humiliated even more than the Tories.
I don't really agree with tim that the choices of candidate will matter very much; unlike in Eastleigh, everyone will know that the UKIP, Tory and LibDem candidates have zero chance of actually entering parliament, so who cares if any of them are fruitcakes?
What will be most interesting to watch is where UKIP's votes come from. My guess is a substantial proportion will be ex-LibDem voters (14.2% in 2010), but also ex-BNP (6.5% in 2010), as well as a good chunk of disgruntled Conservatives taking advantage of a free kick. Perhaps also a reasonable number of 2010 Labour voters will switch - I hope Lord Ashcroft repeats his sterling service to political geeks by doing a poll on this.
@iainmartin1: Blogging on D Miliband, trying to assemble list of achievements as Foreign Sec. Stuck after getting UK to sign up to Lisbon Treaty...
There are some who have always considered DM overrated. He was the great white hope of the Blairites, but there is not really much evidence DM is a Blairite, except in the narrow sense of preferring Blair to Brown. As Foreign Secretary, he was no great loss to the diplomatic corps.
pb Tories talk him up but how much is genuine reverence for the best PM we never had and how much partisan mischief making is left as an exercise for the reader.
Polruan's argument is even wankier than that. It's like saying, if we hadn't had the International System which led to the First World War, the First World War would have been even worse, with nukes and stuff.
Just laughable. And faintly disgraceful.
The form of the argument "we shouldn't have had monetary union because of the economic meltdown that is now coming" is exactly the same as the form of the argument "we shouldn't have fought WWII because a rather large number of people died".
You evaluate those arguments based on a view of the likely counterfactual. So in the wankier form you've cited above, one would be saying "if Britain hadn't entered the Second World War [when we did], the events following 1939 would have been even worse because..."
Isn't that exactly what one would say when discussing WWII?
All I'm asking is what underlies the certainty that monetary union is "worst" rather than "bad".
The fact that the economic problems in the Eurozone are clearly caused by the problems with the single currency, as agreed by every credible economic expert?
For those who believe Labour can't lose South Shields, then Ladbrokes' Evens on UKIP coming second trumps PP's 5/6 on UKIP in their " Winner excl Labour" market.
Yes, I have been trying to work out a speadsheet that will help predict UKIPs share in upcoming elections, and if we take Middlesbroughnor even Rotherham as comparable constituencies, then UKIP should be an absolute shoo in for 2nd place
There's a difference between reasonably analysable counterfactuals and those that are just plausible. Most decisions are made by weighing up a best guess at what will happen if I do x versus what will happen if I don't do x. A lot of European integration was driven by fear of further instability and warfare in the continent, including the fear of what could happen in the event of dramatically widening wealth gaps between those on the core and those other countries on the periphery, with which many of the states share land borders. You don't necessarily want a fascist military coup a short tank drive from your own parliament, after all.
I don't know whether these fears were rational - some decisions could be seen as trauma-driven choices resulting from the scars of the last two wars.But it's too simplistic to say that everything was pure ideological, head-in-sand, fingers-in-ears-singing-lalala refusal to acknowledge the wise warnings of what would go wrong a couple of decades down the road.
As for what it's like being an ideological right now, well, I wouldn't know. Instinctively, I tend towards capital controls, withholding taxes on cross-border distributions and putting up a big fence round my land in Cornwall before starting growing vegetables there and waiting out the economic meltdown. I'm loosely sceptical about the European project, but that doesn't mean I don't question whether the alternatives could have turned out worse.
It was CLEARLY ideological. Anyone who objected to the process was called a scare-mongerer or a xenophobe. Has there been war between Norway and Sweden, or between Switzerland and Italy? Or the USA and Mexico? No. Because democracies don't go to war with another. Countries within the EU now have more tension between them than countries like Norway and Switzerland that stayed out.
There have been plenty of wars between European countries. Those that devised and built the EU had either fought in the last big one, or lived through it. All had direct experience of its consequences. They also did it at a time when there was an iron curtain across the continent, which none of them wanted back in any shape or form once it had come down. As Polruan says, these things - rather than whether democracies ever fight wars with each other - may well have been at the forefront of their minds.
In my view it is important to separate the essentially pragmatic national leaders that helped construct the EU up to and including Maastricht, from the Commission and large parts of the Parliament, which are ideological and have become more powerful since then. Back in the early 90s, too many people bought into the very flawed notions of the "End of History" and "The Triumph of the West".
Polruan's argument is even wankier than that. It's like saying, if we hadn't had the International System which led to the First World War, the First World War would have been even worse, with nukes and stuff.
Just laughable. And faintly disgraceful.
The form of the argument "we shouldn't have had monetary union because of the economic meltdown that is now coming" is exactly the same as the form of the argument "we shouldn't have fought WWII because a rather large number of people died".
You evaluate those arguments based on a view of the likely counterfactual. So in the wankier form you've cited above, one would be saying "if Britain hadn't entered the Second World War [when we did], the events following 1939 would have been even worse because..."
Isn't that exactly what one would say when discussing WWII?
All I'm asking is what underlies the certainty that monetary union is "worst" rather than "bad".
The fact that the economic problems in the Eurozone are clearly caused by the problems with the single currency, as agreed by every credible economic expert?
That's the whole point of my question: we agree that the consequences of the single currency were caused by the single currency. And they're bad economic problems. But I was asking what would have happened otherwise, and would the political and economic situation have been better than those bad economic problems? It doesn't seem a particularly controversial question, and in forming a view on what happens next it seems a sensible one to consider.
As for democracies not going to war - well, let's grant that that's the case, but it's a pretty strong article of faith to be convinced that all the democracies round the edge of Europe would necessarily have carried on being democracies. Obviously the transition to democracy isn't always a one way trip. Trying to stabilise such situations seems a sensible pragmatic, rather than ideological aim, doesn't it?
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m Decision to block deportation of radical cleric Abu #Qatada to Jordan should not be lifted - UK Court of Appeal http://bbc.in/XGp6AG
There have been plenty of wars between European countries. Those that devised and built the EU had either fought in the last big one, or lived through it. All had direct experience of its consequences. They also did it at a time when there was an iron curtain across the continent, which none of them wanted back in any shape or form once it had come down. As Polruan says, these things - rather than whether democracies ever fight wars with each other - may well have been at the forefront of their minds.
I don't disagree with any of that. But these people were being ideological.
In my view it is important to separate the essentially pragmatic naitonal leaders that helped construct the EU up to and including Maastricht, from the Commission and large parts of the Parliament, which are ideological and have become more powerful sicne then. Back in the warly 90s, too many people bought into the very flawed notions of the "End of History" and "The Triumph of the West".
Ever closer union was enshrined as the first objective in 1957, trying to bring very different peoples together into one policy. It was Maastricht that included the catastrophic policy of monetary union. How on Earth is this pragmatic?
People in the UK have a hugely distorted understand of this, because our leaders generally did have pragmatic aims and argued that previous treaties were just about governing a free trade area etc. When actually, the goal of the eurocrats, openly advocated on the continent, was always a unified single state called Europe, going back decades. Nothing changes in the 1990s, other than the fact that Britons started waking up to the lies their own leaders had been telling them.
Thank you Pulp and PfP. That's another £100 for me.
Just put another £30 on with Ladbrokes at evens and £3 on at 18-1 with P Power to win. The disparity in the win market on Ladbrokes Win market indicates value in UKIP 2nd, which you can insure against them coming first cheaply with P Power who now have UKIP even shorter to come 2nd. If that all makes sense..
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 3m Decision to block deportation of radical cleric Abu #Qatada to Jordan should not be lifted - UK Court of Appeal http://bbc.in/XGp6AG
Cue populist grandstanding...
The Home Office tweets: "We will consider the judgement on Abu Qatada carefully and plan to seek leave to appeal."
Ladbrokes 2nd place match bet between UKIP and CON still at evens with UKIP. Also I don't think they should go Farage, too south-eastern for S Shields. Someone more like salt of the earth Nutall would be better.
There have been plenty of wars between European countries. Those that devised and built the EU had either fought in the last big one, or lived through it. All had direct experience of its consequences. They also did it at a time when there was an iron curtain across the continent, which none of them wanted back in any shape or form once it had come down. As Polruan says, these things - rather than whether democracies ever fight wars with each other - may well have been at the forefront of their minds.
I don't disagree with any of that. But these people were being ideological.
In my view it is important to separate the essentially pragmatic naitonal leaders that helped construct the EU up to and including Maastricht, from the Commission and large parts of the Parliament, which are ideological and have become more powerful sicne then. Back in the warly 90s, too many people bought into the very flawed notions of the "End of History" and "The Triumph of the West".
Ever closer union was enshrined as the first objective in 1957, trying to bring very different peoples together into one policy. It was Maastricht that included the catastrophic policy of monetary union. How on Earth is this pragmatic?
People in the UK have a hugely distorted understand of this, because our leaders generally did have pragmatic aims and argued that previous treaties were just about governing a free trade area etc. When actually, the goal of the eurocrats, openly advocated on the continent, was always a unified single state called Europe, going back decades. Nothing changes in the 1990s, other than the fact that Britons started waking up to the lies their own leaders had been telling them.
Yes, I should have said until Maastricht. That's where it started to go wrong. I do think, though, that there was an overwhelming notion of End of History and Triumph off the West as these things were being negotiated. Spain, Portugal and Greece - all recent fascist dictatorships - were growing rapidly as democracies; German reunification was forging ahead; Communism had been defeated; globalisation, digitisation, the internet etc were not yet part of the equation. Essentially, many thought that western Europe and the US had "won", that there would be no more "big" challenges, that what EU leaders wanted to happen would inevitably happen. Of course, it was all rubbish, but back then I can understand why many bought into it: it was a settlement born out of perceived victory and confirmation of EU values.
Polruan's argument is even wankier than that. It's like saying, if we hadn't had the International System which led to the First World War, the First World War would have been even worse, with nukes and stuff.
Just laughable. And faintly disgraceful.
The form of the argument "we shouldn't have had monetary union because of the economic meltdown that is now coming" is exactly the same as the form of the argument "we shouldn't have fought WWII because a rather large number of people died".
You evaluate those arguments based on a view of the likely counterfactual. So in the wankier form you've cited above, one would be saying "if Britain hadn't entered the Second World War [when we did], the events following 1939 would have been even worse because..."
Isn't that exactly what one would say when discussing WWII?
All I'm asking is what underlies the certainty that monetary union is "worst" rather than "bad".
The fact that the economic problems in the Eurozone are clearly caused by the problems with the single currency, as agreed by every credible economic expert?
That's the whole point of my question: we agree that the consequences of the single currency were caused by the single currency. And they're bad economic problems. But I was asking what would have happened otherwise, and would the political and economic situation have been better than those bad economic problems? It doesn't seem a particularly controversial question, and in forming a view on what happens next it seems a sensible one to consider.
As for democracies not going to war - well, let's grant that that's the case, but it's a pretty strong article of faith to be convinced that all the democracies round the edge of Europe would necessarily have carried on being democracies. Obviously the transition to democracy isn't always a one way trip. Trying to stabilise such situations seems a sensible pragmatic, rather than ideological aim, doesn't it?
So if we agree that Effect X is down to Cause A, and we are discussing a scenario in which Cause A did not happen, then someone arguing that Effect X could plausibly happen anyway, would have to demonstrate other events that (1) could plausibly happen and (2) would cause Effect X. You haven't done anything of the sort.
I completely agree in supporting the transition to democracy, but the EU had been in place decades before such countries converted to democracy, and when they happened it was down to unrelated events like Franco dying, the Soviet Union collapsing or the US intervention in the Balkans. Sure the EU, among others, has provided funds for transition, but the West has successfully done similar things in Japan, Korea, Germany etc without the involvement of the EU.
Lord only knows how they priced that one up. Still a no-brainer at 4/7. I think I'm right in saying Labour hasn't been that low in South Shields since 1918.
I see the BBC have this comment about the upcoming [probable] official recession we're about to get
"There are fears that the disruption caused by the recent cold weather may have pushed the economy back into recession. "
Osborne will be relieved - it's no answer as to why he's been such a failure, but he can at least rely on the weather for a bullcrap excuse for his diehard supporters to trumpet out for at least one more quarter.
Remember, eventually we will start having some growth again, law of averages and all that, and that will mean GO has been a success, right? What's that? A recovery of the sort required years after it was supposed to happen cannot really be used as support for GO, given he had said it would happen much earlier and so was probably in spite of his efforts? Oh well.
Yes, I should have said until Maastricht. That's where it started to go wrong. I do think, though, that there was an overwhelming notion of End of History and Triumph off the West as these things were being negotiated. Spain, Portugal and Greece - all recent fascist dictatorships - were growing rapidly as democracies; German reunification was forging ahead; Communism had been defeated; globalisation, digitisation, the internet etc were not . Essentially, many thought that western Europe and the US had "won", that there would be no more "big" challenges, that what EU leaders wanted to happen would inevitably happen. Of course, it was all rubbish, but back then I can understand why many bought into it: it was a settlement born out of perceived victory and confirmation of EU values.
I can agree to that. It was blind ideology that was perhaps excusable in the first few decades after the war, but became unthinking prejudice in more recent decades. That's why it's so hilarious when europhiles accuse eurosceptics of living in the past, when they're trying to create a 1950s dream, oblivious to the fact the world has moved on.
It beggars belief that apparently despite being so dangerous, the authorities in this country have never had enough evidence to convict Abu Qatada of any crime. Has he really never committed a crime here? Is he just an innocent if nasty man? Surely if he's as involved in shady things as claimed they'd have found something, even minor, to try him on?
A festering Mong like Mary Dejevsky was making the "little Englander = xenophobe = eurosceptic" equation as late as 2011,
"Mary Dejevsky: Britain must join the euro – and Cameron is the man to do it Tory Eurosceptics have one prejudice that unites them - xenophobic Little Englandism"
I'm on the UKIP horse for second in South Shields. I always feel nervous backing UKIP because generally they've had such a lousy track record in real elections. But the logic is inexorable.
The Jewish holiday of Passover has started. Why is it called Passover? Because the 10th plague in Egypt was that the Angel of Death passed over all the hebrew dwellings, and killed only the first born of all Egyptian families. With this plague Pharaoh finally let the Hebrews go.
I have a sudden feeling, reading SeanT's posts about a coming european meltdown and a new world war, that the Angel of Death is about to pass over Europe again. Can 2014 echo 1914?
The capital controls may only affect cash leaving the country, and not transactions within the island. Speaking to reporters after meeting government officials, head of the Cyprus chamber of commerce Phidias Pelides said:
Quote We have been assured that limitations will not affect transactions within Cyprus at all.
Where there will be limitations is on what we spend abroad and also on capital outflows.
Re the tenth plague, I'm not a man of faith, but someone once told me that God hardened Pharoh's heart so he wouldn't accede to the demand from Moses to let the Hebrews go free, resulting in the final punishment of the last plague. Is that true, does anyone know? (some religious types knocking on doors this week, I suppose I could ask them if they have a bible on them). Seems a bit unfair to demand something of someone, then take steps to ensure they say no. I may have been lied to about that though.
If they want to have the by-election along with the locals, when should they move the writ? Because the House goes into recess from tonight until April 15th
Polruan's argument is even wankier than that. It's like saying, if we hadn't had the International System which led to the First World War, the First World War would have been even worse, with nukes and stuff.
Just laughable. And faintly disgraceful.
The form of the argument "we shouldn't have had monetary union because of the economic meltdown that is now coming" is exactly the same as the form of the argument "we shouldn't have fought WWII because a rather large number of people died".
You evaluate those arguments based on a view of the likely counterfactual. So in the wankier form you've cited above, one would be saying "if Britain hadn't entered the Second World War [when we did], the events following 1939 would have been even worse because..."
Isn't that exactly what one would say when discussing WWII?
All I'm asking is what underlies the certainty that monetary union is "worst" rather than "bad".
The fact that the economic problems in the Eurozone are clearly caused by the problems with the single currency, as agreed by every credible economic expert?
That's the whole point of my question: we agree that the consequences of the single currency were caused by the single currency. And they're bad economic problems. But I was asking what would have happened otherwise, and would the political and economic situation have been better than those bad economic problems? It doesn't seem a particularly controversial question, and in forming a view on what happens next it seems a sensible one to consider.
As for democracies not going to war - well, let's grant that that's the case, but it's a pretty strong article of faith to be convinced that all the democracies round the edge of Europe would necessarily have carried on being democracies. Obviously the transition to democracy isn't always a one way trip. Trying to stabilise such situations seems a sensible pragmatic, rather than ideological aim, doesn't it?
So if we agree that Effect X is down to Cause A, and we are discussing a scenario in which Cause A did not happen, then someone arguing that Effect X could plausibly happen anyway, would have to demonstrate other events that (1) could plausibly happen and (2) would cause Effect X. You haven't done anything of the sort.
I completely agree in supporting the transition to democracy, but the EU had been in place decades before such countries converted to democracy, and when they happened it was down to unrelated events like Franco dying, the Soviet Union collapsing or the US intervention in the Balkans. Sure the EU, among others, has provided funds for transition, but the West has successfully done similar things in Japan, Korea, Germany etc without the involvement of the EU.
I'm not arguing anything about alternative outcomes. I've already said that I have no instinctive support for the European institutions. I realise that plenty of pro-European ideologues have said plenty of obnoxious things about those who raised questions about the Euro project, but that's not my agenda - I'd tend to think that those who argue for a particular point of view are doing it because they believe it will produce the best outcomes, and those who argue against it believe it wouldn't.
In this case, it's not about arguing how you get to effect X in the absence of cause A. It's "if not-A then there is more to the story than just not-X". Let's say that you get effect Y. There are plausible reasons for considering that some possible "effect Y" might have been worse than effect X. To my mind, increasing poverty in countries on the euro-fringe leading to the rise of nationalist parties, a breakdown in democracy.... etc etc etc... is one such effect Y which might have been worse than the current effect X. Or it might not. I get the impression that you're convinced that no such downside risks existed at the times that decisions were made, and I guess that other users of PB may be grateful if we just quietly disagree on that point from here on.
We have been assured that limitations will not affect transactions within Cyprus at all.
That makes no sense. People will just take the money out in nice safe Euro banknotes, hide them, and wait for the heat to be off before taking them out of the country.
The business to be in in Cyprus is good, secure, safes.
On topic - am expecting some odd results - certainly here in the west country, where if UKIP manage to stand candidate we could see a proper Tory meltdown.
We have been assured that limitations will not affect transactions within Cyprus at all.
That makes no sense. People will just take the money out in nice safe Euro banknotes, hide them, and wait for the heat to be off before taking them out of the country.
The business to be in in Cyprus is good, secure, safes.
@kle4 The government is trying to do him for breaching his bail conditions at the moment. But that always looked like a strategy to keep him in custody if the Court of Appeal found against the Secretary of State, as it did today. The simple truth remains: Mr Othman has been in this jurisdiction for nearly twenty years, and has never been convicted of an offence in a court of justice. If we do believe that every man is innocent until proven guilty, as we must, it is only safe to conclude that the assessments of his dangerousness by successive governments have been, to be kind, hyperbolic.
Had a look at local SS websites. Progressive Party's (a established local non-socialist" alliance) is interesting. I think they have councillors on the South Shields council. 1. They are only registered with the Electoral Commission to fight local elections; does that mean they can't use party funds to fight a Parliamentary seat? 2. They say that there has been a significant tendency recently for voters in the area to back Independent candidates.
Elsewhere, there's a UKIP councillor (?just across the border) in Boldon; not sure if that's part of South Shields or one of the Sunderland constituencies. South Tyneside Council, and particularly it's Labour leader are mired in controversy over spending on a clash with a blogger.
Could be "interesting" especially if a popular local figure stands as an Independent.
The Old Testament God didn't really do fair. Just look at The Book Of Job.
She'd loosened up a bit by New Testament times, and now of course she's a bit of a sandal-wearing liberal - women priests, same-sex marriage and the like.
Election Day: To be fixed by the acting returning officer: between days 15 to 17, 16 to 18 or 17 to 19, depending on the day fixed as the last for the delivery of nomination papers Note:in computing any period of time for the purposes of the timetable, the following days are disregarded: Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday, bank holidays and any day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning.
So if they move it on April 15th, they can't have a by-election on May 2
You'd think an EU country setting differential rules about whether you can spend your money in or out of the country would be infringing something, wouldn't you?
There has been a big debate on here as to whether UKIP can take votes in significant numbers from Labour supporters.
I guess South shields will test that notion, and that is why it is interesting. It will also be funny to see Labour counter UKIP with grovelling apologies about their immigration record, and gigantic lies about what they would do about immigration in office.
We have been assured that limitations will not affect transactions within Cyprus at all.
That makes no sense. People will just take the money out in nice safe Euro banknotes, hide them, and wait for the heat to be off before taking them out of the country.
The business to be in in Cyprus is good, secure, safes.
Apparently they're searching people leaving the country. Combined with a heavy punishment for breaking capital controls, it could be enough to dissuade a lot of people.
@kle4 The government is trying to do him for breaching his bail conditions at the moment. But that always looked like a strategy to keep him in custody if the Court of Appeal found against the Secretary of State, as it did today. The simple truth remains: Mr Othman has been in this jurisdiction for nearly twenty years, and has never been convicted of an offence in a court of justice. If we do believe that every man is innocent until proven guilty, as we must, it is only safe to conclude that the assessments of his dangerousness by successive governments have been, to be kind, hyperbolic.
Just send him back to Jordan, and let their security forces chop his bollocks off.
@Peter_the_Punter The point is that the Old Testament binds Jews. The New Testament released gentiles from their obligations to mosaic law. There is no scriptural authority, however, for the proposition that Christians have subsequently been freed from an obligation to follow the New Testament. On the subject of women priests, for example, 1 Timothy 2:12-13 is surely clear:
'But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.'
South Shield has, or had for a long time a significant Yemeni population with which apart from a riot in 1919 the majority popukation has always got on well. Significant intermarriage, apparently.
@Kle4: I don't know if God hardened Pharoh's heart so he wouldn't accede to the demand from Moses to let the Hebrews. It does say this in the bible, but as a convinced pagan I consider most of the bible as myth, and what is not myth is based on a very potted history.
However, having said that, I do believe that there are unknown forces that have a bearing on human affairs.
I think everyone is overestimating UKIP. SS ain't no Eastleigh.
It would require some UKIP or other party traction but the Tories have slipped below 10% in more by-elections in Labour held seats since 2010 than they've gone above it and South Shields isnt in the better half of seats in this category.
Apparently they're searching people leaving the country. Combined with a heavy punishment for breaking capital controls, it could be enough to dissuade a lot of people.
People will just hide the money for a year or so and wait for things to blow over, or take limited amounts in a series of trips.
I'm not arguing anything about alternative outcomes. I've already said that I have no instinctive support for the European institutions. I realise that plenty of pro-European ideologues have said plenty of obnoxious things about those who raised questions about the Euro project, but that's not my agenda - I'd tend to think that those who argue for a particular point of view are doing it because they believe it will produce the best outcomes, and those who argue against it believe it wouldn't.
In this case, it's not about arguing how you get to effect X in the absence of cause A. It's "if not-A then there is more to the story than just not-X". Let's say that you get effect Y. There are plausible reasons for considering that some possible "effect Y" might have been worse than effect X. To my mind, increasing poverty in countries on the euro-fringe leading to the rise of nationalist parties, a breakdown in democracy.... etc etc etc... is one such effect Y which might have been worse than the current effect X. Or it might not. I get the impression that you're convinced that no such downside risks existed at the times that decisions were made, and I guess that other users of PB may be grateful if we just quietly disagree on that point from here on.
While I could potentially see an outside case for a crisis hitting one country, it really is inconceivable for it to be affecting several across Europe at once if they weren't all bound up in the same currency. Check out this curve:
As for poverty, it's extremely hard to imagine places like Spain having 26% unemployment if they had their own currencies to adjust. Even when Argentina pretty much did everything wrong imaginable in the early 2000s they didn't do that badly. As for breakdown in democracy, there's little evidence that the EU played a role in preventing that.
What you seem to be missing is that this isn't a run of the mill crisis. This is the worst economic crisis to hit Europe since we began recording economic data. Output has fallen by more than the Great Depression. Thus it is extremely hard to imagine something this bad happening when the cause of it is taken away.
' The simple truth remains: Mr Othman has been in this jurisdiction for nearly twenty years, and has never been convicted of an offence in a court of justice'
The simple truth is that Abu Qatada is illegally in this country having arrived on a forged UAE passport,was convicted in Jordan of terrorist charges in 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment,the UK should not be used as a safe haven for terrorists.
I think everyone is overestimating UKIP. SS ain't no Eastleigh.
It would require some UKIP or other party traction but the Tories have slipped below 10% in more by-elections in Labour held seats since 2010 than they've gone above it and South Shields isnt in the better half of seats in this category.
PP have revised their policy re Political bets. The limits are now much more reasonable.
Brave of them to take on PB!
If they've done that on their Irish political markets there will be a killing to be made. What I wouldnt have given to get a decent amount on FG to win today's by-election at 4/1!
Is Jody Dunn from Hartlepool available for South Shields?
Andrea, I was younger then! Things are very parochial in the North East, they would be happier to accept someone from Surrey than Sunderland to stand in South Shields.
I think everyone is overestimating UKIP. SS ain't no Eastleigh.
It would require some UKIP or other party traction but the Tories have slipped below 10% in more by-elections in Labour held seats since 2010 than they've gone above it and South Shields isnt in the better half of seats in this category.
Even closer to Middlesbrough I would have thought. Which showed that it doesnt have to be UKIP that takes the anyone-but-Labour vote. There's a sizeable BNP vote that UKIP's anti Romanian rhetoric will play to. But you can point to plenty of cases where the Tories held more of their vote in Labour held seats. It's just that they were generally more obviously in with a chance of winning those seats.
Mind you I dont like being on the other side of a bet to Pong!
I think that's a reasonable position to view this by-election in. UKIP came close to winning Eastleigh in the end, but the situation on the ground is such that that will be difficult to replicate - perhaps a top 2 finish to aim for, which should be achievable given the LDs are certain to plummet and it being a safe Labour seats means no harm in not voting Tory if one is a disaffected Tory - but they need at least a result which furthers the narrative of improvement.
Given they didn't contest the seat last time, that should be easy to talk up whatever the result, but where's the realistic high bar I wonder. 15-20%?
Any bet Farage won't contest any by-elections before 2015? Having not tried in Eastleigh for a variety of reasons, which entailed talking up local UKIP candidates to fight such things, can be really parachute himself in when one looks winnable (like Portsmouth South if it happens), as it would look very cynical and provide evidence that he really was just running scared in Eastleigh. Best to wait until 2015, hoping to ride a wave of popularity to overcome lesser organization and base.
FTSE 100 company Land Securities has been defeated in court against HMRC over a tax avoidance dispute that could have cost the UK at least £60m.
The original dispute arose after Land Securities sold shares in one of its group companies to a Cayman Island subsidiary of US investment bank Morgan Stanley, which then inflated the value of the shares by pumping money into the subsidiary.
Land Securities claims that when it then bought back the shares at the inflated price, the effect of an existing anti-avoidance rule meant they had made a “loss” of £200m that could be used as a deduction against tax.
At the tribunal, the company argued that disallowing the loss would not be fair as it would be out of pocket if it sold the shares in the future. However, the tribunal ultimately disallowed the loss.
Exchequer secretary David Gauke says: “At a time when we must all pay our fair share, it is increasingly unacceptable for individuals and businesses to try to avoid or evade paying their taxes.
“HMRC has a strong set of weapons to tackle tax avoidance and the outcome of this case and the ruling should send a clear signal to the minority engaged in avoidance activities – the net is closing in.”
HMRC’s director general for business tax Jim Harra says: “This scheme was flagrant tax avoidance that provided finance to a FTSE 100 company that appeared cheap because the UK taxpayer was expected to pick up a £60m bill.
“This is HMRC’s eighth consecutive success in court against tax avoidance, sending a clear message that indulging in tax avoidance is now a very high risk and expensive strategy, because HMRC will continue to challenge avoidance at every turn.”
Carlotta...that is a brilliant piece about who really gets hit when these 'haircuts' and wealth taxes are levied - ie the poor middle class person who has saved all his or her life for a modest nest egg.
As ever, the crooks and billionaires escape or make other means, largely because they can afford to.
IIRC when they taxed bank accounts in Italy in 1992, thet did it with a retroactive date. It was on the sum you had on the midnight of the day before the law was approved....so they didn't have to worry about money being taken out.
Good stuff, now they should invite Morgan Stanley in for a cosy chat to tell them what they think of their tax avoidance wheezes and why they dont give contracts to or otherwise help companies who get involved in them.
kle4 - I'm not suggesting for a moment that UKIP will come within a million miles of winning SS. They won't. It's the percentages that will be interesting.
Is Jody Dunn from Hartlepool available for South Shields?
Andrea, I was younger then! Things are very parochial in the North East, they would be happier to accept someone from Surrey than Sunderland to stand in South Shields.
Icarus, they will need somone "from the town, for the town" :-)
"The father of one of the victims of the 7/7 bombings has hit out at Ed Miliband for allowing himself to be "steamrolled" into a deal with pressure group Hacked Off that he believes could "shackle" the press.
Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed in the attack at Edgware Road tube station in 2005, says he has an interest in the regulation of the press because he was told by police in 2011 that his phone and that of his son were hacked by someone linked to the now defunct News of the World."
Comments
"Luxembourg's foreign minister accused Germany on Tuesday of "striving for hegemony" in the euro zone by telling Cyprus what business model it should pursue."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/eurozone-cyprus-luxembourg-germany-idUSL2N0CI1FW20130326
I don't really agree with tim that the choices of candidate will matter very much; unlike in Eastleigh, everyone will know that the UKIP, Tory and LibDem candidates have zero chance of actually entering parliament, so who cares if any of them are fruitcakes?
What will be most interesting to watch is where UKIP's votes come from. My guess is a substantial proportion will be ex-LibDem voters (14.2% in 2010), but also ex-BNP (6.5% in 2010), as well as a good chunk of disgruntled Conservatives taking advantage of a free kick. Perhaps also a reasonable number of 2010 Labour voters will switch - I hope Lord Ashcroft repeats his sterling service to political geeks by doing a poll on this.
Turnout will presumably be fairly low.
John Anglin, local Party Secretary
pb Tories talk him up but how much is genuine reverence for the best PM we never had and how much partisan mischief making is left as an exercise for the reader.
Yes, I have been trying to work out a speadsheet that will help predict UKIPs share in upcoming elections, and if we take Middlesbroughnor even Rotherham as comparable constituencies, then UKIP should be an absolute shoo in for 2nd place
In my view it is important to separate the essentially pragmatic national leaders that helped construct the EU up to and including Maastricht, from the Commission and large parts of the Parliament, which are ideological and have become more powerful since then. Back in the early 90s, too many people bought into the very flawed notions of the "End of History" and "The Triumph of the West".
But could all end in tears if they do - would avoid the Ladbroke UKIP coming second bet - you would be very upset if they came first!
Thanks Tim.
Yes, that looks decent value, even if they do not put Shapps in charge of the show.
"I know we cant win but thought would give people a chance to show what they thought of other parties...."
highest growth since 2003 when it rose by 2.7%."
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_303085.pdf
BBC News
Thank you Pulp and PfP. That's another £100 for me.
As for democracies not going to war - well, let's grant that that's the case, but it's a pretty strong article of faith to be convinced that all the democracies round the edge of Europe would necessarily have carried on being democracies. Obviously the transition to democracy isn't always a one way trip. Trying to stabilise such situations seems a sensible pragmatic, rather than ideological aim, doesn't it?
Decision to block deportation of radical cleric Abu #Qatada to Jordan should not be lifted - UK Court of Appeal http://bbc.in/XGp6AG
Cue populist grandstanding...
People in the UK have a hugely distorted understand of this, because our leaders generally did have pragmatic aims and argued that previous treaties were just about governing a free trade area etc. When actually, the goal of the eurocrats, openly advocated on the continent, was always a unified single state called Europe, going back decades. Nothing changes in the 1990s, other than the fact that Britons started waking up to the lies their own leaders had been telling them.
PP: Labour: 37% or over: 8/11
Thanks.
I was wondering if it was the CLP Chair but it's the CLP Secretary instead.
I'm told Andrew Pierce, @Kevin_Maguire's Sky sparring partner, ready to run as Tory candidate if he enters South Shields byelection #KM4SS
People in the UK have a hugely distorted understand of this, because our leaders generally did have pragmatic aims and argued that previous treaties were just about governing a free trade area etc. When actually, the goal of the eurocrats, openly advocated on the continent, was always a unified single state called Europe, going back decades. Nothing changes in the 1990s, other than the fact that Britons started waking up to the lies their own leaders had been telling them.
Yes, I should have said until Maastricht. That's where it started to go wrong. I do think, though, that there was an overwhelming notion of End of History and Triumph off the West as these things were being negotiated. Spain, Portugal and Greece - all recent fascist dictatorships - were growing rapidly as democracies; German reunification was forging ahead; Communism had been defeated; globalisation, digitisation, the internet etc were not yet part of the equation. Essentially, many thought that western Europe and the US had "won", that there would be no more "big" challenges, that what EU leaders wanted to happen would inevitably happen. Of course, it was all rubbish, but back then I can understand why many bought into it: it was a settlement born out of perceived victory and confirmation of EU values.
I completely agree in supporting the transition to democracy, but the EU had been in place decades before such countries converted to democracy, and when they happened it was down to unrelated events like Franco dying, the Soviet Union collapsing or the US intervention in the Balkans. Sure the EU, among others, has provided funds for transition, but the West has successfully done similar things in Japan, Korea, Germany etc without the involvement of the EU.
Lord only knows how they priced that one up. Still a no-brainer at 4/7. I think I'm right in saying Labour hasn't been that low in South Shields since 1918.
"There are fears that the disruption caused by the recent cold weather may have pushed the economy back into recession. "
Osborne will be relieved - it's no answer as to why he's been such a failure, but he can at least rely on the weather for a bullcrap excuse for his diehard supporters to trumpet out for at least one more quarter.
Remember, eventually we will start having some growth again, law of averages and all that, and that will mean GO has been a success, right? What's that? A recovery of the sort required years after it was supposed to happen cannot really be used as support for GO, given he had said it would happen much earlier and so was probably in spite of his efforts? Oh well.
I'm afraid he's already used the weather excuse before. He's going to have to go with "the dog ate my economic growth strategy".
I wonder if inanother life she was writing articles in early 1945 along the lines of "It's not too late to negotiate peace with Herr Hitler"
Indeed, but this is a new weather excuse! It's been a bit nippy out lately, haven't you noticed? I'd have predicted 6% growth if not for that.
Lauda (who works for Mercedes now) questions Ross Brawn's team orders to Rosberg and Hamilton:
http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/104404.html
Wolff (CEO, I think, of Mercedes' F1 operations) has supported Brawn.
Meanwhile, paragon of morality and sportsmanship (and Webber's agent) Flavio Briatore has said Webber and Vettel can remain team mates in 2014:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106393
I have a sudden feeling, reading SeanT's posts about a coming european meltdown and a new world war, that the Angel of Death is about to pass over Europe again. Can 2014 echo 1914?
Re the tenth plague, I'm not a man of faith, but someone once told me that God hardened Pharoh's heart so he wouldn't accede to the demand from Moses to let the Hebrews go free, resulting in the final punishment of the last plague. Is that true, does anyone know? (some religious types knocking on doors this week, I suppose I could ask them if they have a bible on them). Seems a bit unfair to demand something of someone, then take steps to ensure they say no. I may have been lied to about that though.
Because the House goes into recess from tonight until April 15th
In this case, it's not about arguing how you get to effect X in the absence of cause A. It's "if not-A then there is more to the story than just not-X". Let's say that you get effect Y. There are plausible reasons for considering that some possible "effect Y" might have been worse than effect X. To my mind, increasing poverty in countries on the euro-fringe leading to the rise of nationalist parties, a breakdown in democracy.... etc etc etc... is one such effect Y which might have been worse than the current effect X. Or it might not. I get the impression that you're convinced that no such downside risks existed at the times that decisions were made, and I guess that other users of PB may be grateful if we just quietly disagree on that point from here on.
The business to be in in Cyprus is good, secure, safes.
On topic - am expecting some odd results - certainly here in the west country, where if UKIP manage to stand candidate we could see a proper Tory meltdown.
The government is trying to do him for breaching his bail conditions at the moment. But that always looked like a strategy to keep him in custody if the Court of Appeal found against the Secretary of State, as it did today. The simple truth remains: Mr Othman has been in this jurisdiction for nearly twenty years, and has never been convicted of an offence in a court of justice. If we do believe that every man is innocent until proven guilty, as we must, it is only safe to conclude that the assessments of his dangerousness by successive governments have been, to be kind, hyperbolic.
1. They are only registered with the Electoral Commission to fight local elections; does that mean they can't use party funds to fight a Parliamentary seat?
2. They say that there has been a significant tendency recently for voters in the area to back Independent candidates.
Elsewhere, there's a UKIP councillor (?just across the border) in Boldon; not sure if that's part of South Shields or one of the Sunderland constituencies.
South Tyneside Council, and particularly it's Labour leader are mired in controversy over spending on a clash with a blogger.
Could be "interesting" especially if a popular local figure stands as an Independent.
The Old Testament God didn't really do fair. Just look at The Book Of Job.
She'd loosened up a bit by New Testament times, and now of course she's a bit of a sandal-wearing liberal - women priests, same-sex marriage and the like.
Nice to know She's moving with the times.
Just need Jack's ARSE now.
Note:in computing any period of time for the purposes of the timetable, the following days are disregarded: Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday, bank holidays and any day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning.
So if they move it on April 15th, they can't have a by-election on May 2
Is Jody Dunn from Hartlepool available for South Shields?
Paddy's 5/6 on Tories < 10% also looks attractive. For the pennies you might get on.
I guess South shields will test that notion, and that is why it is interesting. It will also be funny to see Labour counter UKIP with grovelling apologies about their immigration record, and gigantic lies about what they would do about immigration in office.
The point is that the Old Testament binds Jews. The New Testament released gentiles from their obligations to mosaic law. There is no scriptural authority, however, for the proposition that Christians have subsequently been freed from an obligation to follow the New Testament. On the subject of women priests, for example, 1 Timothy 2:12-13 is surely clear:
I'm on:
UKIP under 22% 5/6
Tories over 10% 5/6
Lab over 37% 8/11
Winner W/O lab: Tories 13/8
Decent stakes too, as PP appear to have mistakenly lifted my betting limits.
Hurrah
"There is no mess quite so bad that eurocrat intervention won't make even worse."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100023741/cypriot-solution-threatens-further-economic-carnage-among-the-other-pigs/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
I don't know if God hardened Pharoh's heart so he wouldn't accede to the demand from Moses to let the Hebrews. It does say this in the bible, but as a convinced pagan I consider most of the bible as myth, and what is not myth is based on a very potted history.
However, having said that, I do believe that there are unknown forces that have a bearing on human affairs.
I think everyone is overestimating UKIP. SS ain't no Eastleigh.
http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/.a/6a015393ec64ea970b0162fdd9d29f970d-pi
As for poverty, it's extremely hard to imagine places like Spain having 26% unemployment if they had their own currencies to adjust. Even when Argentina pretty much did everything wrong imaginable in the early 2000s they didn't do that badly. As for breakdown in democracy, there's little evidence that the EU played a role in preventing that.
What you seem to be missing is that this isn't a run of the mill crisis. This is the worst economic crisis to hit Europe since we began recording economic data. Output has fallen by more than the Great Depression. Thus it is extremely hard to imagine something this bad happening when the cause of it is taken away.
PP have revised their policy re Political bets. The limits are now much more reasonable.
Brave of them to take on PB!
' The simple truth remains: Mr Othman has been in this jurisdiction for nearly twenty years, and has never been convicted of an offence in a court of justice'
The simple truth is that Abu Qatada is illegally in this country having arrived on a forged UAE passport,was convicted in Jordan of terrorist charges in 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment,the UK should not be used as a safe haven for terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_by-election,_2012
Or even Middlesborough ?
Bit sad I missed the 8-11 on Lab more than 37%
Thanks Life, but whatever Timothy might say, my Special One has a wholly different take on things - so I don't think I'll be quoting that to her.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/cypriot-parliament-investigates-government-after-dubious-transactions-a-891168.html
Mind you I dont like being on the other side of a bet to Pong!
Poor old Pharoh then; he's the real victim in the story then!
@Taffys
I think that's a reasonable position to view this by-election in. UKIP came close to winning Eastleigh in the end, but the situation on the ground is such that that will be difficult to replicate - perhaps a top 2 finish to aim for, which should be achievable given the LDs are certain to plummet and it being a safe Labour seats means no harm in not voting Tory if one is a disaffected Tory - but they need at least a result which furthers the narrative of improvement.
Given they didn't contest the seat last time, that should be easy to talk up whatever the result, but where's the realistic high bar I wonder. 15-20%?
Any bet Farage won't contest any by-elections before 2015? Having not tried in Eastleigh for a variety of reasons, which entailed talking up local UKIP candidates to fight such things, can be really parachute himself in when one looks winnable (like Portsmouth South if it happens), as it would look very cynical and provide evidence that he really was just running scared in Eastleigh. Best to wait until 2015, hoping to ride a wave of popularity to overcome lesser organization and base.
FTSE 100 company Land Securities has been defeated in court against HMRC over a tax avoidance dispute that could have cost the UK at least £60m.
The original dispute arose after Land Securities sold shares in one of its group companies to a Cayman Island subsidiary of US investment bank Morgan Stanley, which then inflated the value of the shares by pumping money into the subsidiary.
Land Securities claims that when it then bought back the shares at the inflated price, the effect of an existing anti-avoidance rule meant they had made a “loss” of £200m that could be used as a deduction against tax.
At the tribunal, the company argued that disallowing the loss would not be fair as it would be out of pocket if it sold the shares in the future. However, the tribunal ultimately disallowed the loss.
Exchequer secretary David Gauke says: “At a time when we must all pay our fair share, it is increasingly unacceptable for individuals and businesses to try to avoid or evade paying their taxes.
“HMRC has a strong set of weapons to tackle tax avoidance and the outcome of this case and the ruling should send a clear signal to the minority engaged in avoidance activities – the net is closing in.”
HMRC’s director general for business tax Jim Harra says: “This scheme was flagrant tax avoidance that provided finance to a FTSE 100 company that appeared cheap because the UK taxpayer was expected to pick up a £60m bill.
“This is HMRC’s eighth consecutive success in court against tax avoidance, sending a clear message that indulging in tax avoidance is now a very high risk and expensive strategy, because HMRC will continue to challenge avoidance at every turn.”
As ever, the crooks and billionaires escape or make other means, largely because they can afford to.
I noticed it a few months back.
They still have me under tight restraint as far as the horses go, but on Politics I can generally get about £200 on.
Their opening shows on S Shields were a bit wild and woolly but you'd think they might be better at Irish Politics.
All wards within SS constituency are 80+% white while in Middlesbrough 2-3 are below it (University less than 60% white)
Icarus, they will need somone "from the town, for the town" :-)
They opened with odds of 16/1 on SF coming 4th at the next GE. It's now 4/1 despite the conditions moving against that bet.
Sadly I am only on for a pittance on both!
Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed in the attack at Edgware Road tube station in 2005, says he has an interest in the regulation of the press because he was told by police in 2011 that his phone and that of his son were hacked by someone linked to the now defunct News of the World."
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/03/27/harry-hayfield-reviews-the-battle-of-may-2nd-the-locals/