So a good starting position is - we want to leave, what are you going to offer to keep us?
Answer: we are happy to hand back control of mung bean classification and maybe look at reforming banana shape regulations.
Now, David Cameron, do you want to leave? (we know the answer).
It's not David Cameron's decision. His answer will be 'Dunno if I can get that past the party, let alone the voters, Angela. We have a referendum coming up. You'd better come up with something a bit chunkier or I won't be able to stop them taking us out and leaving you in thrall to those Club Med layabouts'
Keep going, what's she going to suggest?
- Right-wingery like leaving the working time directive will demotivate the "yes" side and make the referendum problem worse. - Leaving CAP will be vetoed by the French. - Anything to do with human rights is EHCR, not EU. - Bankers bonuses would be a gift for populists everywhere trying to kill the treaty.
I guess what she can do is come up with a bunch of pro-growth and competitiveness reforms, and hope the British don't notice that they were going to do those all along.
You can't fault Griffin's ambition to keep up a media presence. Going to Syria is probably just about the only thing that could achieve that at the moment.
I guess what she can do is come up with a bunch of pro-growth and competitiveness reforms, and hope the British don't notice that they were going to do those all along.
That might actually be the key. As in any negotiation, you try to get wins, or at least the appearance of wins, for both sides (or all sides, in this case). That is why Cameron's speech in January was couched in terms of reform of the EU rather than just a UK-only thing, an approach endorsed in today's report by the Select Committee:
Of course there will be much posturing and the package will be presented in different ways by different politicians for different audiences. This is going to be a complex political dance.
Question: how is it that the Independent's "poll of polls" shows just a five percent average lead for Labour, mathematically speaking? I haven't seen enough polls in the region to justify that (and certainly not under it to account for the ones over). It's far from the 8 to 9 point region I would go with.
EDIT: Hmm. I suppose if the polls were not purely averaged using the arithmetic mean, then the average percentages for each party would not necessarily lead to the average lead. However, I don't know what system they use.
'Dunno if I can get that past the party, let alone the voters, Angela....
Its a fascinating prospect, let's see what happens.
Do you think Cam potentially has cash as a bargaining chip? ie suggesting Britain's contributions might increase (maybe substantially) if we got what we wanted.
Such an agreement would go down very well with German tax payers...
In what way would (theoretically) a UKIP member running as a Tory not be presenting a false prospectus to the electorate?
If you want the technicality then candidates run as themselves and are then backed/endorsed/etc by the parties. Way back in the day party's names weren't even listed on the ballot paper.
Both that point (and also manifesto commitments) have been long tested and ruled as unenforceable.
To answer EdmundinTokyo's question, if I were David Cameron, I would be looking for the following:
1) Reduction in the value of the Eurozone voting bloc such that Qualified Majority Voting in many areas was much harder to achieve against Britain's wishes (or any other non-Eurozone country's wishes).
2) Enshrining the Luxembourg compromise in the EU Treaty with a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a "very important national interest". Alternatively, permitting only votes from member states with a relevant national interest to be counted on some subjects (defined by percentage of activities in the given area being carried out in that member state).
3) Restricting freedom of movement for those that cannot show that they can support themselves in their new residence either through private funds or through work.
NB these are not policies that I personally would necessarily support.
Europe's tax commissioner, Algirdas Semeta, made it clear at the weekend that there had been no changes as yet to the plans for the FTT and that the financial sector - "probably the most powerful lobby in the world" - should expect to pay its share.
Good, if true.
Finance should pay its fair share and the dodgy deals can go somewhere else for all I care.
@BenM - Looks like Larry Elliott is making a strong bid for the hotly-contested Most Stupid Thing Written in the Guardian in 2013 Prize:
The City is engaged in a damage limitation exercise, but should count itself lucky. Other sectors of the economy - arguably more useful ones - pay VAT at 20%
Every time someone accuses UKIP of wanting to turn back the clock to the 1950s I suspect they actually make the party more popular because it's such a silly thing to say. If that were true, UKIP would have emerged a lot earlier, in the 80s or 90s for instance. The fact that they only became popular in about 2012 shows that people are annoyed about things that have happened in the last few years, not anything that took place between 1960 and 2000. And of course today's 65 year olds were in their teens and 20s in the 1960s and 70s when most of the social changes took place.
To answer EdmundinTokyo's question, if I were David Cameron, I would be looking for the following:
1) Reduction in the value of the Eurozone voting bloc such that Qualified Majority Voting in many areas was much harder to achieve against Britain's wishes (or any other non-Eurozone country's wishes).
2) Enshrining the Luxembourg compromise in the EU Treaty with a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a "very important national interest". Alternatively, permitting only votes from member states with a relevant national interest to be counted on some subjects (defined by percentage of activities in the given area being carried out in that member state).
3) Restricting freedom of movement for those that cannot show that they can support themselves in their new residence either through private funds or through work.
NB these are not policies that I personally would necessarily support.
Interesting. I doubt (1) would fly - outside Britain and Denmark nobody thinks the main problem with the EU is that it's too agile and has too few veto points.
(3) would obviously attract the opposition of poor countries, including ones that aren't in the Eurozone, but they could be bought off with cash, if richer countries were prepared to pay Eastern European governments for the privilege of telling their voters how they'd dealt with Eastern European spongers. If you've got a problem that the voters think is very expensive but isn't really, it sounds like you should be able to make a deal that sounds like good value to the voters to make it go away.
(2) might be doable as well. The idea of weighing by percentage of activity and thus letting producers dominate regulation of things that are used by consumers all across the EU sounds like something lobbyists all across Europe would love. I suspect the EU parliament would have something to say about this, but maybe the member states could roll over them, or offer them something they really want in return, like proper EU taxation powers.
On topic, as UKIP drop out of the news I reckon we'll start to see even more of a divide between pollsters that prompt for them and ones that don't, because it'll make more of a difference whether or not you get reminded that they exist.
On topic, as UKIP drop out of the news I reckon we'll start to see even more of a divide between pollsters that prompt for them and ones that don't, because it'll make more of a difference whether or not you get reminded that they exist.
Even if they do start to drop off now they'll bounce right back (and probably to new highs) next year.
This morning's production release was not stunning, the monthly and yearly growth numbers confirm that. In addition the index is still below the recent peak and way below the pre-crash peak. Manufacturing has been ok (flat mostly after the rebound), but oil/gas has dragged the numbers down considerably over last few years. The monthly numbers are erratic. Largely the impressive 3m/3m number is due to weakness in January.
But in terms of Q2 GDP this morning's release is potentially very significant. If production is flat in May/June (note flat), then production in Q2 will have risen approx 1.2% in comparison to Q1. That will almost certainly mean a big Q2 GDP number.
As I said in Q4, there were a lot of base-effects and temporary weaknesses building up in the data around and in the run up to xmas. These were always likely to unwind in Q2. If they don't then it really is time to worry. If construction is in any way positive and services continues its steady upward trend then Q2 alone could see more growth than most are predicting for 2013 as a whole.
Reminds me of the old trader's adage: the time to buy is when the market is at its most pessimistic.
Manufacturing is only about 11.% of the economy so the effect on GDP will not be that large but both manufacturing/production and construction have been drag factors over the last year or so. If they go positive the growth in services will shine through and that is clearly picking up.
I would guess 0.5% or 0.6% for Q2 at the moment which means we will have met yearly projections for growth in H1. H2 may not be quite as exciting but a figure over 1.5% is now really possible. I am anxious to see if this feeds into lower deficit figures. If so Osborne will look even smugger than he does already.
On topic, as UKIP drop out of the news I reckon we'll start to see even more of a divide between pollsters that prompt for them and ones that don't, because it'll make more of a difference whether or not you get reminded that they exist.
Even if they do start to drop off now they'll bounce right back (and probably to new highs) next year.
Right, assuming they hold up with the pollsters that prompt for them.
Their problem is going to be staying relevant between May, 2014 and May, 2015. They're going to have to work really hard finding ways to troll Scottish nationalists so they can stay in the news while that's going on.
Very sad news regarding Sir Henry Cecil, one of the great racehorse trainers of the age and a thorough gentleman. It will cast a shadow over next week's events in Berkshire.
On the ICM poll, little surprise to see the froth of UKIP support ebb and it may well continue to do so as politics retreats from the forefront of consciousness during the summer. The poll numbers would, I suspect, provide a more than healthy majority for Labour on a 7% swing from 2010.
Impressively synchronized graph on "most trusted team to run the economy". Normally you'd expect one of these lines to go up when the other one goes down, and vice versa...
On topic, as UKIP drop out of the news I reckon we'll start to see even more of a divide between pollsters that prompt for them and ones that don't, because it'll make more of a difference whether or not you get reminded that they exist.
Not because I'm UKIP but ICM is out of kilter with the mood of the country, and putting UKIP with others is also putting UKIP % out of kilter.
The comments on the GCSE changes on the BBC are positive for the government (although critics are alsways louder than those in favour of the status quo):
#1 As a teacher I watched GCSEs and A levels progressively dumbed down. I attended exam board seminars where teachers were effective told how to 'cheat' in the assessment of course work. The reforms are long overdue but still having three exams boards touting for (how low can you go?) business instead of one upholding standards is a nonsense.
#2 I was one of the first years to take GCSEs. Teachers were viciously complaining about the changes being introduced - some at my school went on strike. At least they are consistent.
#3 As a student having just finished my A2's, i can honestly say that the jump from GCSE to A level is stupidly high. I achieved two A's in science at GCSE and got a U in physics at AS. Me and other friends at school did no work at GCSE and got A's and B's while at A2 i have worked solidly just to maintain my target grades for university. GCSE's need to challenge and develop pupils.... atm they dont
#4 Please people; it is GCSEs, not GSCE's. Until you get that correct, you have no place commenting on standards of education.
#5 The article appears to describe the O-Levels I sat in the 1980s. Of course then, not everyone passed and not that many received the top grades, which I suppose was the problem with them (well, the perceived problem).
#6 "All it will do is penalise those who find exams difficult."---- I think you'll find that's rather the point - they are supposed to be difficult.
This morning's production release was not stunning, the monthly and yearly growth numbers confirm that. In addition the index is still below the recent peak and way below the pre-crash peak. Manufacturing has been ok (flat mostly after the rebound), but oil/gas has dragged the numbers down considerably over last few years. The monthly numbers are erratic. Largely the impressive 3m/3m number is due to weakness in January.
But in terms of Q2 GDP this morning's release is potentially very significant. If production is flat in May/June (note flat), then production in Q2 will have risen approx 1.2% in comparison to Q1. That will almost certainly mean a big Q2 GDP number.
As I said in Q4, there were a lot of base-effects and temporary weaknesses building up in the data around and in the run up to xmas. These were always likely to unwind in Q2. If they don't then it really is time to worry. If construction is in any way positive and services continues its steady upward trend then Q2 alone could see more growth than most are predicting for 2013 as a whole.
Reminds me of the old trader's adage: the time to buy is when the market is at its most pessimistic.
I would guess 0.5% or 0.6% for Q2 at the moment which means we will have met yearly projections for growth in H1. H2 may not be quite as exciting but a figure over 1.5% is now really possible. I am anxious to see if this feeds into lower deficit figures. If so Osborne will look even smugger than he does already.
Osborne would have to admit that it was growth all along that closes deficits.
Significant bit of the ICM commentary shows that using YouGov methodology Labour would be 12 points ahead: The difference between a medium-sized Labour lead and a Labour landslide hinges on whether people do in fact flock back to their former parties to the extent that ICM expects.
"That [7 point gap] is a somewhat smaller gap than in some other polls, largely because of adjustments that ICM makes for so-called "partial refusers" – respondents who reveal how they voted in 2010, but not their plans for next time.
In Tuesday's poll, ICM's adjustments make a substantial difference to the headline results (reducing a 12-point Labour lead to just seven) because of the record high numbers of such "shy voters", who represent 15% of the sample.
The split of the partial refusers is fairly typical – the biggest chunk, 39%, are "shy Tories", a third – 33% – are "shy Lib Dems" and only 19% are "shy Labour"; when ICM applies assumptions that half of such voters "return home" to the party that they backed at the last election this works to reduce the Labour lead."
I've always said that Labour were being too optimistic about the effect of UKIP's rise and the Tories too optimistic about what would happen if/when it fell.
This morning's production release was not stunning, the monthly and yearly growth numbers confirm that. In addition the index is still below the recent peak and way below the pre-crash peak. Manufacturing has been ok (flat mostly after the rebound), but oil/gas has dragged the numbers down considerably over last few years. The monthly numbers are erratic. Largely the impressive 3m/3m number is due to weakness in January.
But in terms of Q2 GDP this morning's release is potentially very significant. If production is flat in May/June (note flat), then production in Q2 will have risen approx 1.2% in comparison to Q1. That will almost certainly mean a big Q2 GDP number.
As I said in Q4, there were a lot of base-effects and temporary weaknesses building up in the data around and in the run up to xmas. These were always likely to unwind in Q2. If they don't then it really is time to worry. If construction is in any way positive and services continues its steady upward trend then Q2 alone could see more growth than most are predicting for 2013 as a whole.
Reminds me of the old trader's adage: the time to buy is when the market is at its most pessimistic.
I would guess 0.5% or 0.6% for Q2 at the moment which means we will have met yearly projections for growth in H1. H2 may not be quite as exciting but a figure over 1.5% is now really possible. I am anxious to see if this feeds into lower deficit figures. If so Osborne will look even smugger than he does already.
Osborne would have to admit that it was growth all along that closes deficits.
Awkward.
Oh I think he might cope. He is a politician after all.
I've always said that Labour were being too optimistic about the effect of UKIP's rise and the Tories too optimistic about what would happen if/when it fell.
Only 1 poll but the fall in UKIP= recovery in the tory's position theory seems to need a little work.
I don't think the recent news cycles were great for Con, were they?
You may have a trend of UKIP votes going back to Con because people are forgetting they exist, countered by a conflicting trend of floating voters moving from Con to everybody else because the papers showed Cameron looking unreasonably relaxed when he was supposed to be out on the streets personally catching terrorists or something.
Comments
- Right-wingery like leaving the working time directive will demotivate the "yes" side and make the referendum problem worse.
- Leaving CAP will be vetoed by the French.
- Anything to do with human rights is EHCR, not EU.
- Bankers bonuses would be a gift for populists everywhere trying to kill the treaty.
I guess what she can do is come up with a bunch of pro-growth and competitiveness reforms, and hope the British don't notice that they were going to do those all along.
Like the Syrians dont have enough problems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22850617
Of course there will be much posturing and the package will be presented in different ways by different politicians for different audiences. This is going to be a complex political dance.
EDIT: Hmm. I suppose if the polls were not purely averaged using the arithmetic mean, then the average percentages for each party would not necessarily lead to the average lead. However, I don't know what system they use.
Its a fascinating prospect, let's see what happens.
Do you think Cam potentially has cash as a bargaining chip? ie suggesting Britain's contributions might increase (maybe substantially) if we got what we wanted.
Such an agreement would go down very well with German tax payers...
Both that point (and also manifesto commitments) have been long tested and ruled as unenforceable.
Pfsh.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335749/Shadrack-McGill-Alabama-state-senators-wife-lashes-Facebook-women-soliciting-husband-sex.html
1) Reduction in the value of the Eurozone voting bloc such that Qualified Majority Voting in many areas was much harder to achieve against Britain's wishes (or any other non-Eurozone country's wishes).
2) Enshrining the Luxembourg compromise in the EU Treaty with a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a "very important national interest". Alternatively, permitting only votes from member states with a relevant national interest to be counted on some subjects (defined by percentage of activities in the given area being carried out in that member state).
3) Restricting freedom of movement for those that cannot show that they can support themselves in their new residence either through private funds or through work.
NB these are not policies that I personally would necessarily support.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/10/reports-death-financial-transactions-tax-exaggerated Good, if true.
Finance should pay its fair share and the dodgy deals can go somewhere else for all I care.
The City is engaged in a damage limitation exercise, but should count itself lucky. Other sectors of the economy - arguably more useful ones - pay VAT at 20%
(3) would obviously attract the opposition of poor countries, including ones that aren't in the Eurozone, but they could be bought off with cash, if richer countries were prepared to pay Eastern European governments for the privilege of telling their voters how they'd dealt with Eastern European spongers. If you've got a problem that the voters think is very expensive but isn't really, it sounds like you should be able to make a deal that sounds like good value to the voters to make it go away.
(2) might be doable as well. The idea of weighing by percentage of activity and thus letting producers dominate regulation of things that are used by consumers all across the EU sounds like something lobbyists all across Europe would love. I suspect the EU parliament would have something to say about this, but maybe the member states could roll over them, or offer them something they really want in return, like proper EU taxation powers.
Con 29 (+1), Lab 36 (+2) LD 12 (+1), UKIP 12 (-6)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/11/ukip-support-falls-main-parties-weak
I would guess 0.5% or 0.6% for Q2 at the moment which means we will have met yearly projections for growth in H1. H2 may not be quite as exciting but a figure over 1.5% is now really possible. I am anxious to see if this feeds into lower deficit figures. If so Osborne will look even smugger than he does already.
Their problem is going to be staying relevant between May, 2014 and May, 2015. They're going to have to work really hard finding ways to troll Scottish nationalists so they can stay in the news while that's going on.
2013 Faragasm
2014 ?
2015 ?
Very sad news regarding Sir Henry Cecil, one of the great racehorse trainers of the age and a thorough gentleman. It will cast a shadow over next week's events in Berkshire.
On the ICM poll, little surprise to see the froth of UKIP support ebb and it may well continue to do so as politics retreats from the forefront of consciousness during the summer. The poll numbers would, I suspect, provide a more than healthy majority for Labour on a 7% swing from 2010.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/11/1370951534353/ICMECONOMY.png
Up three points in two months is good progress
#1 As a teacher I watched GCSEs and A levels progressively dumbed down. I attended exam board seminars where teachers were effective told how to 'cheat' in the assessment of course work. The reforms are long overdue but still having three exams boards touting for (how low can you go?) business instead of one upholding standards is a nonsense.
#2 I was one of the first years to take GCSEs. Teachers were viciously complaining about the changes being introduced - some at my school went on strike. At least they are consistent.
#3 As a student having just finished my A2's, i can honestly say that the jump from GCSE to A level is stupidly high. I achieved two A's in science at GCSE and got a U in physics at AS. Me and other friends at school did no work at GCSE and got A's and B's while at A2 i have worked solidly just to maintain my target grades for university. GCSE's need to challenge and develop pupils.... atm they dont
#4 Please people; it is GCSEs, not GSCE's. Until you get that correct, you have no place commenting on standards of education.
#5 The article appears to describe the O-Levels I sat in the 1980s. Of course then, not everyone passed and not that many received the top grades, which I suppose was the problem with them (well, the perceived problem).
#6 "All it will do is penalise those who find exams difficult."---- I think you'll find that's rather the point - they are supposed to be difficult.
Awkward.
"That [7 point gap] is a somewhat smaller gap than in some other polls, largely because of adjustments that ICM makes for so-called "partial refusers" – respondents who reveal how they voted in 2010, but not their plans for next time.
In Tuesday's poll, ICM's adjustments make a substantial difference to the headline results (reducing a 12-point Labour lead to just seven) because of the record high numbers of such "shy voters", who represent 15% of the sample.
The split of the partial refusers is fairly typical – the biggest chunk, 39%, are "shy Tories", a third – 33% – are "shy Lib Dems" and only 19% are "shy Labour"; when ICM applies assumptions that half of such voters "return home" to the party that they backed at the last election this works to reduce the Labour lead."
I've always said that Labour were being too optimistic about the effect of UKIP's rise and the Tories too optimistic about what would happen if/when it fell.
You may have a trend of UKIP votes going back to Con because people are forgetting they exist, countered by a conflicting trend of floating voters moving from Con to everybody else because the papers showed Cameron looking unreasonably relaxed when he was supposed to be out on the streets personally catching terrorists or something.