Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2001 LAB incumbency experience: Can CON expect somethin

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2001 LAB incumbency experience: Can CON expect something similar 3 weeks tomorrow?

Labour returned to power in May 1997 and four years and one month later Tony Blair went to the country to renew his mandate. The outcome was never really in doubt and on the day, as the official record shows above, LAB won on a reduced vote share. Yet this hardly mattered in terms of seats

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    First
  • If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.

    But...if solar really gets cheap (think giant of rolls of PV sheet you can just buy at B&Q and plug in to a standard unit in your junction box - plus a battery) then Africa becomes alot less necessary too.

    I think the transformative technologies in energy are going to be:
    1. Batteries. Alot of progress in getting closer to being able to store renewable generation and removing the problem of its intermittency. Greatly improved storage. Greatly improved recharge times. At scale - not just mobile phones!
    2. Super cheap, easy and effective PV. Nearly every inch of roof space in the world is covered and feeds the batteries. Maybe road surfaces. It's everywhere. It's happening now - we're experiencing a sort of Moore's Law of PV cost effectiveness already.
    3. Electric cars. This depends alot on 1 above, and 2 to some extent. But when we're there then truly capable and very quickly rechargeable cars will destroy the internal combustion engine business model.
    4. Smart and local grids / generation. Your house has a battery that covers all your needs for days without needing a recharge. PV sheets on the roof (see 2 above) can pretty much top it up most of the time. The car in your garage acts as a sort of back-up. Buildings, houses, streets can connect to each other smartly and provide collective back-up.
    5. Heat pumps. Almost every property in the UK could meet its hot water and heating needs with a heat pump. Expensive to install but no gas bills thereafter. 5 and 3 together can destroy the fossil fuel business model.
    6. Small scale and non-pressurised water nuclear power. Could take alot of the cost and risk out of powergen. Fusion would be the Holy Grail and solve mankind's energy worries for millenia - but the way we do fission is pretty screwed up now and could be ALOT more cost effective, safer and lower risk.

    It won't happen overnight but I believe we are the beginning of a journey towards a world of smart and cheap electricity that displaces a big chunk of fossil fuel energy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    This forms the basis of the ARSE.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    FPT Re Reckless and Carswell campaigning in their constituencies

    Sean_F said:

    "Is there any need? The consensus here seems to be that the Conservatives are strolling to victory in each seat."
    As it was before both by elections

    The consensus on here will not tolerate anyone advising the Tories might not win., or are a bad value bet.

    Richard Nabavi, a good guy that I have met and like, and I think, unusually for Tories on this site (Tissue price & Casino Royale excepted), knows his stuff betting wise, wrote a lengthy analysis on why the Tories would win Rochester by election, with the conclusion that they would win by between 3-10% I think. The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    I disagreed, said Reckless would win easily, and was ridiculed

    Reckless won easily. People talked about something else
  • FPT
    Danny565 said:

    Interesting chat just now at lunch. Some people shyly in favour of some UKIP policy directions at least, and a general murmur of agreement that the EU is on balance bad for us.

    But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.

    Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.

    Yup, in my experience the big stigma around UKIP isn't really that they're racist. It's that they're seen as weird and old fogey-ish.
    Cue berserk rage from the usual PB suspects, as the blazingly obvious problems with their party - "a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality", "weird and old fogey-ish" - are accurately identified.

    UKIP without 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality would be like spaghetti bolognese without pasta. I genuinely cannot see how UKIP could get rid of these attitudes and have anything left. It would be like making tea without tea leaves. Can anyone else?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    I'm not sure an incumbency bonus was the whole story behind the increased "vote efficiency" for Labour in 2001, though. Part of it was they fell quite heavily in a lot of their safe seats because traditional Labour voters felt pissed off.

    To be fair, something similar might happen for the Tories this time with the UKIP effect, so the end result might be the same.
  • Barnesian said:

    antifrank said:

    Morning all, here are the latest Labour constituency seat markets, ranked by odds of them winning:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-labour-battleground-in-april-2015.html

    I'll be going through each of the parties in turn this week for the final run-up to the election.

    Thanks Antifrank - very useful.

    I've bet on South Swindon Lab win at 6/4 with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a tie. My model shows a 2% Lab lead.

    I've also bet on Halesowen Lab win at evens with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a 2% Lab lead. My model shows a 4% Lab lead.
    Ashfield is indeed a slam-dunk for Labour in the current circumstances (it probably was before).

    BTW, Anna and I are likely to be on the ITV East Mids 6 o'clock news tonight - they're doing Broxtowe as their day's key seat coverage.
    Isn't that Sourby's former employer Nick?!
  • Patrick said:

    If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.

    But...if solar really gets cheap (think giant of rolls of PV sheet you can just buy at B&Q and plug in to a standard unit in your junction box - plus a battery) then Africa becomes alot less necessary too.

    I think the transformative technologies in energy are going to be:
    1. Batteries. Alot of progress in getting closer to being able to store renewable generation and removing the problem of its intermittency. Greatly improved storage. Greatly improved recharge times. At scale - not just mobile phones!
    2. Super cheap, easy and effective PV. Nearly every inch of roof space in the world is covered and feeds the batteries. Maybe road surfaces. It's everywhere. It's happening now - we're experiencing a sort of Moore's Law of PV cost effectiveness already.
    3. Electric cars. This depends alot on 1 above, and 2 to some extent. But when we're there then truly capable and very quickly rechargeable cars will destroy the internal combustion engine business model.
    4. Smart and local grids / generation. Your house has a battery that covers all your needs for days without needing a recharge. PV sheets on the roof (see 2 above) can pretty much top it up most of the time. The car in your garage acts as a sort of back-up. Buildings, houses, streets can connect to each other smartly and provide collective back-up.
    5. Heat pumps. Almost every property in the UK could meet its hot water and heating needs with a heat pump. Expensive to install but no gas bills thereafter. 5 and 3 together can destroy the fossil fuel business model.
    6. Small scale and non-pressurised water nuclear power. Could take alot of the cost and risk out of powergen. Fusion would be the Holy Grail and solve mankind's energy worries for millenia - but the way we do fission is pretty screwed up now and could be ALOT more cost effective, safer and lower risk.

    It won't happen overnight but I believe we are the beginning of a journey towards a world of smart and cheap electricity that displaces a big chunk of fossil fuel energy.

    Interesting. One thing we can be sure of is that nothing being pushed by the left now will be any part of the solution, and lots of will be part of a new and quite gratuitous problem. Defunct wind farms are one, but we will also be saddled with carbon taxes forever, in the same way that we still have income tax 200 years after we defeated Napoleonic France.
  • I remember reading in the Telegraph in 1999, a member of the Shadow cabinet saying off the record something along the lines of

    "We've already got 100 gains in the bag"

    He might have been related to Sion Simon.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,717

    Barnesian said:

    antifrank said:

    Morning all, here are the latest Labour constituency seat markets, ranked by odds of them winning:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-labour-battleground-in-april-2015.html

    I'll be going through each of the parties in turn this week for the final run-up to the election.

    Thanks Antifrank - very useful.

    I've bet on South Swindon Lab win at 6/4 with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a tie. My model shows a 2% Lab lead.

    I've also bet on Halesowen Lab win at evens with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a 2% Lab lead. My model shows a 4% Lab lead.
    Ashfield is indeed a slam-dunk for Labour in the current circumstances (it probably was before).

    BTW, Anna and I are likely to be on the ITV East Mids 6 o'clock news tonight - they're doing Broxtowe as their day's key seat coverage.
    Isn't that Sourby's former employer Nick?!
    Why does the tag "past and future" come to mind!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    isam said:

    The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    Actually Sean F was one of those who thought my (very tentative) analysis was good.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    FPT .... @Casino_Royale

    Clearly the Brown leadership was an issue but the critical factors that undermined the Labour case were the poor numbers and the hostile attitude of too many Labour figures and their cack handed approach to the talks.

    If the numbers had been better, probably another 25 seats or so and a more consensual approach achieved then the Brown leadership wouldn't have been nearly so troublesome. The prospect of power has an almighty healing quality with any seemingly insurmountable difficulties.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Are we due another ICM today, or did I imagine that?
  • Danny565 said:

    Are we due another ICM today, or did I imagine that?

    You're thinking of Ipsos Mori, which I was hopeful might be today, but is more likely to be tomorrow
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,214
    Sat in a cafe in central London - just overheard Nicola S described as 'dangerous'!
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015
    Think UKIP can be dismissed as irrelevant. 12 mins into the BBC One of Clock news and its been Lib Dem launch and reaction from Harriet Harman and Nicola Sturgeon.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    Sat in a cafe in central London - just overheard Nicola S described as 'dangerous'!

    Clegg has a strong argument on that - Salmond, Farage or Me.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32311736
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711
    JackW said:

    FPT .... @Casino_Royale

    Clearly the Brown leadership was an issue but the critical factors that undermined the Labour case were the poor numbers and the hostile attitude of too many Labour figures and their cack handed approach to the talks.

    If the numbers had been better, probably another 25 seats or so and a more consensual approach achieved then the Brown leadership wouldn't have been nearly so troublesome. The prospect of power has an almighty healing quality with any seemingly insurmountable difficulties.

    I agree with that. If the numbers had been 25 seats better then the argument that Brown had been decisively rejected would have been much weaker.

    Conversely, as Laws says, had the Tories clocked up even a further 7 seats at Labour's expense then a LD-Lab deal would never have been a runner. The LDs would not have been in a strong negotiating position.

    Labour did really well to hang onto 258 seats last time and, in fact, I was astonished they did. I expected the Tories do to much better in London, Scotland and Birmingham.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    JackW said:

    FPT .... @Casino_Royale

    Clearly the Brown leadership was an issue but the critical factors that undermined the Labour case were the poor numbers and the hostile attitude of too many Labour figures and their cack handed approach to the talks.

    If the numbers had been better, probably another 25 seats or so and a more consensual approach achieved then the Brown leadership wouldn't have been nearly so troublesome. The prospect of power has an almighty healing quality with any seemingly insurmountable difficulties.

    I agree with that. If the numbers had been 25 seats better then the argument that Brown had been decisively rejected would have been much weaker.

    Conversely, as Laws says, had the Tories clocked up even a further 7 seats at Labour's expense then a LD-Lab deal would never have been a runner. The LDs would not have been in a strong negotiating position.

    Labour did really well to hang onto 258 seats last time and, in fact, I was astonished they did. I expected the Tories do to much better in London, Scotland and Birmingham.
    Crikey

    Hope you didn't stake too much there.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Sat in a cafe in central London - just overheard Nicola S described as 'dangerous'!

    If you're sitting in London with most of your public expenditure subsidised by being classed as "UK Wide Spending" then you better believe Nicola is dangerous. One thing the SNP will ensure is that London will have to stand on its own two feet and it's populace pay its own way.
  • Barnesian said:

    antifrank said:

    Morning all, here are the latest Labour constituency seat markets, ranked by odds of them winning:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-labour-battleground-in-april-2015.html

    I'll be going through each of the parties in turn this week for the final run-up to the election.

    Thanks Antifrank - very useful.

    I've bet on South Swindon Lab win at 6/4 with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a tie. My model shows a 2% Lab lead.

    I've also bet on Halesowen Lab win at evens with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a 2% Lab lead. My model shows a 4% Lab lead.
    Ashfield is indeed a slam-dunk for Labour in the current circumstances (it probably was before).

    BTW, Anna and I are likely to be on the ITV East Mids 6 o'clock news tonight - they're doing Broxtowe as their day's key seat coverage.
    Isn't that Sourby's former employer Nick?!
    Why does the tag "past and future" come to mind!
    Could be a decent campaign tactic for her: "Vote for me, or I'll present the regional news again and you'll have to put up with me every night"
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    Fair coverage of UKIP on BBC 1pm, though their reporter seemed lost in Thurrock - or, as he called it, an "anonymous hotel somewhere in Essex".

    Dear metropolitan media: places exist outside London and the big northern cities.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,543

    FPT

    Danny565 said:

    Interesting chat just now at lunch. Some people shyly in favour of some UKIP policy directions at least, and a general murmur of agreement that the EU is on balance bad for us.

    But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.

    Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.

    Yup, in my experience the big stigma around UKIP isn't really that they're racist. It's that they're seen as weird and old fogey-ish.
    Cue berserk rage from the usual PB suspects, as the blazingly obvious problems with their party - "a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality", "weird and old fogey-ish" - are accurately identified.

    UKIP without 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality would be like spaghetti bolognese without pasta. I genuinely cannot see how UKIP could get rid of these attitudes and have anything left. It would be like making tea without tea leaves. Can anyone else?
    I know it's hard for you to comprehend, but there are plenty of centre-right voters who, while acknowledging that the Conservative Party is better than Labour, still find the party highly unsatisfactory. And, most of those voters don't want to turn the UK into 1950's Mississippi.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited April 2015
    Dair said:

    Sat in a cafe in central London - just overheard Nicola S described as 'dangerous'!

    If you're sitting in London with most of your public expenditure subsidised by being classed as "UK Wide Spending" then you better believe Nicola is dangerous. One thing the SNP will ensure is that London will have to stand on its own two feet and it's populace pay its own way.
    Regions to survive on what they raise in revenue? London can start by keeping any property taxes raised in the Capital and South East.

    'Bye bye subsidised nurses for Northern Britain'
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015

    Sat in a cafe in central London - just overheard Nicola S described as 'dangerous'!

    Clegg has a strong argument on that - Salmond, Farage or Me.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32311736
    Yes but in no seat are the Liberals competing against UKIP and there is only one seat where they are competing with the SNP and have any sort of chance of winning.

    It's a redundant argument because it's a choice which is not on offer to almost every single voter.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387

    Danny565 said:

    Are we due another ICM today, or did I imagine that?

    You're thinking of Ipsos Mori, which I was hopeful might be today, but is more likely to be tomorrow
    Yeah, looks like it's not going to be today. Mori usually work with the Evening Standard which means their polls are typically released by now.

    Thursday or Friday it is.

    The last ComRes/Daily Mail poll was a week today, so maybe we might get a ComRes poll tonight?

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited April 2015

    isam said:

    The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    Actually Sean F was one of those who thought my (very tentative) analysis was good.
    Reading back through that thread, you did actually tip UKIP 40-45% and the Tories to win as the bet so cant really criticise, and to be honest I wasn't criticising you at all, but noting that positive post about Tory chances on here are lapped up unthinkingly by the no nothings

    My fav post from that thread


    TheScreamingEagles said:

    "That reaffirms my point.
    Survation because of their methodology have UKIP too high and the Tories too low"

    Isam said

    "If Survation are as wrong in Rochester as they were in Clacton, Reckless wins by 7.2% "
    What was the winning margin again?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,543

    isam said:

    The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    Actually Sean F was one of those who thought my (very tentative) analysis was good.
    It was a very reasonable analysis.


  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,972
    edited April 2015
    GIN1138 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Are we due another ICM today, or did I imagine that?

    You're thinking of Ipsos Mori, which I was hopeful might be today, but is more likely to be tomorrow
    Yeah, looks like it's not going to be today. Mori usually work with the Evening Standard which means their polls are typically released by now.

    Thursday or Friday it is.

    The last ComRes/Daily Mail poll was a week today, so maybe we might get a ComRes poll tonight?

    Tomorrow is my reckoning, because they'll want to release it before the challengers' debate.

    ComRes, I have no idea when that is out. It a joint poll between ITV News and the Mail.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,543
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Partition was a fact on the ground.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Eire wouldn't be catholic o_O ?!

    There are many counter-factual consequentials but I don't think that's one of them.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Hmm. DT live, more coalition positioning?
    The Lib Dems new favourite word? "Nuts". Both David Laws on the Today programme and now Ed Davey on the World at One have used it to describe how it would be a mistake for the party to insist on no EU referendum as a coalition negotiation red line.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Fair coverage of UKIP on BBC 1pm, though their reporter seemed lost in Thurrock - or, as he called it, an "anonymous hotel somewhere in Essex".

    Dear metropolitan media: places exist outside London and the big northern cities.

    Quite incredible really.. the Thurrock Hotel is actually within the M25
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    One thing the SNP will ensure is that London will have to stand on its own two feet and it's populace pay its own way.

    unspoofable.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Betting tip:

    Make sure you have some cover on both Lib-Lab and Con-Lib coalition.

    That is all
  • Populus Poll in the FT (also has in on 40% and out on 39%)


    The Populus poll also found that Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish nationalists had been the most impressive party leader so far in the election campaign, according to those polled between April 10 and 12.

    Some 38 per cent of voters thought she had performed better than expected against only 12 per cent who said she had failed to meet expectations.

    Ms Sturgeon was widely seen to have come across well in the televised debate between seven party leaders.

    Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, also outperformed with 29 per cent thinking he had done better than anticipated against 23 per cent for worse. Mr Cameron came in at 21:23, Nigel Farage at 19:24 and Nick Clegg at 16:23.

    Almost two-thirds of those polled thought the government needed to eliminate the deficit over the next five years, in line with varying commitments by the three main parties.
    Among those, 39 per cent think spending cuts should be prioritised while 2 per cent opt for tax increases.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8112935e-e2ca-11e4-bf4b-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3XNbLPuTA
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Dair said:

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
    Many UK companies would like to be able to buy at world market rates.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Pulpstar said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Eire wouldn't be catholic o_O ?!

    There are many counter-factual consequentials but I don't think that's one of them.
    It would be a Catholic country but it wouldn't be a Catholic RUN country. Probably.

    It would also have been Ireland's problem which, personally, I think the UK would have benefitted greatly from having no part of.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    isam said:

    isam said:

    The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    Actually Sean F was one of those who thought my (very tentative) analysis was good.
    Reading back through that thread, you did actually tip UKIP 40-45% and the Tories to win as the bet so cant really criticise, and to be honest I wasn't criticising you at all, but noting that positive post about Tory chances on here are lapped up unthinkingly by the no nothings

    My fav post from that thread


    TheScreamingEagles said:

    "That reaffirms my point.
    Survation because of their methodology have UKIP too high and the Tories too low"

    Isam said

    "If Survation are as wrong in Rochester as they were in Clacton, Reckless wins by 7.2% "
    What was the winning margin again?

    Lol - let it go, get a life ... are the obvious phrases that spring to mind. the world has moved on. :)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    I think you'll find it was all those Presbyterian Scots who pushed hardest for partition.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Dair said:

    Sat in a cafe in central London - just overheard Nicola S described as 'dangerous'!

    Clegg has a strong argument on that - Salmond, Farage or Me.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32311736
    Yes but in no seat are the Liberals competing against UKIP and there is only one seat where they are competing with the SNP and have any sort of chance of winning.

    It's a redundant argument because it's a choice which is not on offer to almost every single voter.
    I think that he is asking the electorate to give him enough seats to hold the balance of power otherwise the SNP or UKIP might fulfil that role. OK, I know and you know that UKIP are unlikely to be in that position.
    It matters not that UKIP and the LibDems are not in contention in any particular constituency, what matters to him is that voters in the constituencies that he holds realise that they can do something to stop the SNP or UKIP being involved in government.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited April 2015
    To my mind the economic analysis of who subsidises who is like this:

    London
    Scotland (Oil over $90 or so)
    England Ex London
    Scotland (Oil sub $90)
    UK
    rUK Ex Scotland
    Wales
    N Ireland.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688

    FPT

    Danny565 said:

    Interesting chat just now at lunch. Some people shyly in favour of some UKIP policy directions at least, and a general murmur of agreement that the EU is on balance bad for us.

    But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.

    Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.

    Yup, in my experience the big stigma around UKIP isn't really that they're racist. It's that they're seen as weird and old fogey-ish.
    Cue berserk rage from the usual PB suspects, as the blazingly obvious problems with their party - "a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality", "weird and old fogey-ish" - are accurately identified.

    UKIP without 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality would be like spaghetti bolognese without pasta. I genuinely cannot see how UKIP could get rid of these attitudes and have anything left. It would be like making tea without tea leaves. Can anyone else?
    Wrong in the last thread and wrong in this one. Your stereotyping of people would perhaps be surprising had you not voted for a racist party at the Euros. I can see that it is simply a reflection of your mindset.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Patting Myself On The Back quotes are IMO the most dire. Who cares?
    felix said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    Actually Sean F was one of those who thought my (very tentative) analysis was good.
    Reading back through that thread, you did actually tip UKIP 40-45% and the Tories to win as the bet so cant really criticise, and to be honest I wasn't criticising you at all, but noting that positive post about Tory chances on here are lapped up unthinkingly by the no nothings

    My fav post from that thread


    TheScreamingEagles said:

    "That reaffirms my point.
    Survation because of their methodology have UKIP too high and the Tories too low"

    Isam said

    "If Survation are as wrong in Rochester as they were in Clacton, Reckless wins by 7.2% "
    What was the winning margin again?
    Lol - let it go, get a life ... are the obvious phrases that spring to mind. the world has moved on. :)

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited April 2015
    IIRC after London & SE, it's Eastern England who sheds the most to sub others.
    Pulpstar said:

    To my mind the economic analysis of who subsidises who is like this:

    London
    Scotland (Oil over $90 or so)
    England Ex London
    Scotland (Oil sub $90)
    UK
    rUK Ex Scotland
    Wales
    N Ireland.

  • Sean_F said:

    FPT

    Danny565 said:

    Interesting chat just now at lunch. Some people shyly in favour of some UKIP policy directions at least, and a general murmur of agreement that the EU is on balance bad for us.

    But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.

    Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.

    Yup, in my experience the big stigma around UKIP isn't really that they're racist. It's that they're seen as weird and old fogey-ish.
    Cue berserk rage from the usual PB suspects, as the blazingly obvious problems with their party - "a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality", "weird and old fogey-ish" - are accurately identified.

    UKIP without 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality would be like spaghetti bolognese without pasta. I genuinely cannot see how UKIP could get rid of these attitudes and have anything left. It would be like making tea without tea leaves. Can anyone else?
    I know it's hard for you to comprehend, but there are plenty of centre-right voters who, while acknowledging that the Conservative Party is better than Labour, still find the party highly unsatisfactory. And, most of those voters don't want to turn the UK into 1950's Mississippi.
    And they're all still Tories.

    The ones who really do want to turn the UK into 1950s Mississippi; who hanker for the good old days of "no blacks or Irish"; and who think the only suitable place in a manifesto for a black face is on the page about stopping international aid - they're all in UKIP.

    Good.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    I think you'll find it was all those Presbyterian Scots who pushed hardest for partition.
    Certainly it was but hardly the point.

    Of the options available to Westminster, partition was probably the worst possibly choice and this is why the effects of partition still harm the UK (and Ireland) today.

    Obviously we can only speculate on how such a problem would have been best solved. Personally, the most viable solution would probably have been to revive the Scottish Home Rule bill and tack Ulster on to Scotland. Might even have resulted in a stable Federal UK.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    @Another_Dave,

    Bilateral trade balances are never particularly useful in themselves. If country (a) produces 1m cars, but no steel, and country (b) produces steel but no cars, and country (c) produces wheat for all then all countries can have zero net trade balances, but country (a) can have a massive imbalance with country (b), as it imports the steel for 1m cars, but only exports - say - 500k cars back.

    I think you have to look at the whole picture - which is that we run a trade deficit, as we have done for the majority of the period since 1945 - and ask why?

    Firstly, we - as a country -have substantial overseas investments, and these pay us money in the form of interest payments and dividends. This income then gets spent on imports. Countries with substantial income from overseas - which is particularly the UK and the US - tend to run trade deficits.

    Secondly, we have been a haven for foreign capital. As money has come in to buy up property, and the like, that creates excess liquidity sloshing around the UK. Liquidity that ends up in imports.

    Finally, outside of automotive where we are third in Europe, and some service industries, we don't actually make that much "stuff". If you look at manufactured products per person you get the following statistics:
    Germany	 7,634 
    Japan 7,547
    US 5,950
    Netherlands 4,863
    Italy 4,247
    Canada 4,111
    UK 3,692
    France 3,500
    Spain 2,997
    At 10% of GDP, we have the lowest share of manufacturing of any major industrialised country.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited April 2015
    Betway have gone 15/8 Farage for the debates. £50 offer on new accounts too.

    NB Betway do have a very poor prior reputation, but they have moved into the mainstream more recently. I'd withdraw any winnings fairly promptly...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Plato said:

    IIRC after London & SE, it's Eastern England who sheds the most to sub others.

    Pulpstar said:

    To my mind the economic analysis of who subsidises who is like this:

    London
    Scotland (Oil over $90 or so)
    England Ex London
    Scotland (Oil sub $90)
    UK
    rUK Ex Scotland
    Wales
    N Ireland.

    I'm surprised there is no movement for London independence tbh - it could do well ;)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Sat in a cafe in central London - just overheard Nicola S described as 'dangerous'!

    Clegg has a strong argument on that - Salmond, Farage or Me.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32311736
    Yes but in no seat are the Liberals competing against UKIP and there is only one seat where they are competing with the SNP and have any sort of chance of winning.

    It's a redundant argument because it's a choice which is not on offer to almost every single voter.
    I think that he is asking the electorate to give him enough seats to hold the balance of power otherwise the SNP or UKIP might fulfil that role. OK, I know and you know that UKIP are unlikely to be in that position.
    It matters not that UKIP and the LibDems are not in contention in any particular constituency, what matters to him is that voters in the constituencies that he holds realise that they can do something to stop the SNP or UKIP being involved in government.
    I get this is what he is trying to say.

    I just don't think it stands up to basic arithmetic. All he can do is take seats off the Tories and maybe a few Labourites. Doesn't change the impact of the SNP.

    The only thing that could stop the SNP holding power (as things look today) would be for the Tories to wipe the Liberals out. Every other outcome points to Lab/SNP agreement regardless of Liberal performance.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Livingstone tried it with the GLC- so Maggie abolished them
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato said:

    IIRC after London & SE, it's Eastern England who sheds the most to sub others.

    Pulpstar said:

    To my mind the economic analysis of who subsidises who is like this:

    London
    Scotland (Oil over $90 or so)
    England Ex London
    Scotland (Oil sub $90)
    UK
    rUK Ex Scotland
    Wales
    N Ireland.

    I'm surprised there is no movement for London independence tbh - it could do well ;)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135
    isam said:

    Fair coverage of UKIP on BBC 1pm, though their reporter seemed lost in Thurrock - or, as he called it, an "anonymous hotel somewhere in Essex".

    Dear metropolitan media: places exist outside London and the big northern cities.

    Quite incredible really.. the Thurrock Hotel is actually within the M25
    Thurrock has been a Unitary Authority for a number of years.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited April 2015
    Dair said:

    The only thing that could stop the SNP holding power (as things look today) would be for the Tories to wipe the Liberals out.

    Not strictly true but close enough - the Conservatives should push this line in Con-Lib marginals :D.

    Currently I'm thinking Lib-Lab coalition with SNP tacit support.

    Miliband may get the Libs in house even if he is over the line with the SNP alone...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    I think you'll find it was all those Presbyterian Scots who pushed hardest for partition.
    Certainly it was but hardly the point.

    Of the options available to Westminster, partition was probably the worst possibly choice and this is why the effects of partition still harm the UK (and Ireland) today.

    Obviously we can only speculate on how such a problem would have been best solved. Personally, the most viable solution would probably have been to revive the Scottish Home Rule bill and tack Ulster on to Scotland. Might even have resulted in a stable Federal UK.
    revive the Scottish Home Rule bill and tack Ulster on to Scotland.

    LOL you think more Scots is the solution ? Why not do it now ?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited April 2015
    felix said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    Actually Sean F was one of those who thought my (very tentative) analysis was good.
    Reading back through that thread, you did actually tip UKIP 40-45% and the Tories to win as the bet so cant really criticise, and to be honest I wasn't criticising you at all, but noting that positive post about Tory chances on here are lapped up unthinkingly by the no nothings

    My fav post from that thread


    TheScreamingEagles said:

    "That reaffirms my point.
    Survation because of their methodology have UKIP too high and the Tories too low"

    Isam said

    "If Survation are as wrong in Rochester as they were in Clacton, Reckless wins by 7.2% "
    What was the winning margin again?
    Lol - let it go, get a life ... are the obvious phrases that spring to mind. the world has moved on. :)

    Both of us were right.. Survation did have UKIP too high and the Cons too low.. actually no! I was wrong the winning margin was 7.3% #mybad
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Betway have gone 15/8 Farage for the debates. £50 offer on new accounts too.

    What is your spread on the salary of Betway's PR man?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    Dair said:

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
    Many UK companies would like to be able to buy at world market rates.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
    I very much doubt that leaving the EU make any substantive difference to the level of tariffs imposed on UK goods. And I very much doubt that we'd be more aggressive at cutting tariffs than the EU (through WTO negotiations) has been.

    As an aside, abolishing the CAP would clearly be a good thing. It's not the government's job to subsidise any particular industry, particularly when the consequences of that action increase the cost of food to consumers.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135
    edited April 2015

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    Two of the three main parties still can't be arsed to stand for election there though!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,972
    edited April 2015

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    The three main parties still can't be arsed to stand for election there though!
    The Tories are standing there.

    This is the Tory candidate for Upper Bann absolutely burning Ed Miliband in person

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZU81D6wZvw
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    isam said:

    Betway have gone 15/8 Farage for the debates. £50 offer on new accounts too.

    What is your spread on the salary of Betway's PR man?
    He's got a big job whatever it is!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    Aha now I understand it - the catholic position on contraception !

    How long is it before Sinn Fein have captured all of Northern Ireland, demographics must be on their side long term.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    I think you'll find it was all those Presbyterian Scots who pushed hardest for partition.
    Ironic given that Wolfe Tone was a Presbyterian.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    The three main parties still can't be arsed to stand for election there though!
    Conservatives are standing in 16 constituencies and UKIP in 10.

    It's mostly Labour who support sectarian politics.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    Betway have gone 15/8 Farage for the debates. £50 offer on new accounts too.

    What is your spread on the salary of Betway's PR man?
    He's got a big job whatever it is!
    Have a guess...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    The three main parties still can't be arsed to stand for election there though!
    The Tories are standing there.

    This is the Tory candidate for Upper Bann absolutely burning Ed Miliband in person

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZU81D6wZvw
    I corrected my post before seeing yours!
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    rcs1000 said:

    Dair said:

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
    Many UK companies would like to be able to buy at world market rates.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
    I very much doubt that leaving the EU make any substantive difference to the level of tariffs imposed on UK goods. And I very much doubt that we'd be more aggressive at cutting tariffs than the EU (through WTO negotiations) has been.

    As an aside, abolishing the CAP would clearly be a good thing. It's not the government's job to subsidise any particular industry, particularly when the consequences of that action increase the cost of food to consumers.
    The EU is essentially a protectionist barrier isn't it?

    Joining the EU redirected a lot of UK import business to EU members. Leaving the EU would strengthen the option of buying from non-EU members.




  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135
    Pulpstar said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    Aha now I understand it - the catholic position on contraception !

    How long is it before Sinn Fein have captured all of Northern Ireland, demographics must be on their side long term.
    Nationalist vote in recent NI elections has hovered around 42%.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,972
    edited April 2015
    Blimey, how dare you criticise Nigel Farage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=18&v=7yHNcckE3oE
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    The three main parties still can't be arsed to stand for election there though!
    Conservatives are standing in 16 constituencies and UKIP in 10.

    It's mostly Labour who support sectarian politics.
    I corrected my post before seeing yours!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135
    Pulpstar said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    Aha now I understand it - the catholic position on contraception !

    How long is it before Sinn Fein have captured all of Northern Ireland, demographics must be on their side long term.
    They came top in GE 2010, Northern Ireland-wise.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067

    Fair coverage of UKIP on BBC 1pm, though their reporter seemed lost in Thurrock - or, as he called it, an "anonymous hotel somewhere in Essex".

    Dear metropolitan media: places exist outside London and the big northern cities.

    Do they?

    Is there any civilised life outside the M25? ;-)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Pulpstar said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    Aha now I understand it - the catholic position on contraception !

    How long is it before Sinn Fein have captured all of Northern Ireland, demographics must be on their side long term.
    The economics aren't.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    murali_s said:

    Fair coverage of UKIP on BBC 1pm, though their reporter seemed lost in Thurrock - or, as he called it, an "anonymous hotel somewhere in Essex".

    Dear metropolitan media: places exist outside London and the big northern cities.

    Do they?

    Is there any civilised life outside the M25? ;-)
    Thurrock Hotel isn't even outside it!
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Lol, Coral's have now changed to "Winner determined by Survation poll" Bit amateur all round...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    The three main parties still can't be arsed to stand for election there though!
    Conservatives are standing in 16 constituencies and UKIP in 10.

    It's mostly Labour who support sectarian politics.
    I corrected my post before seeing yours!
    It casts serious doubts on your ELBOW.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    edited April 2015

    rcs1000 said:

    Dair said:

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
    Many UK companies would like to be able to buy at world market rates.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
    I very much doubt that leaving the EU make any substantive difference to the level of tariffs imposed on UK goods. And I very much doubt that we'd be more aggressive at cutting tariffs than the EU (through WTO negotiations) has been.

    As an aside, abolishing the CAP would clearly be a good thing. It's not the government's job to subsidise any particular industry, particularly when the consequences of that action increase the cost of food to consumers.
    The EU is essentially a protectionist barrier isn't it?

    Joining the EU redirected a lot of UK import business to EU members. Leaving the EU would strengthen the option of buying from non-EU members.

    I think that's a little harsh. About two years ago Socrates and I pulled out all the data on average tariff levels over the last 50 years, and since 1990 the average tariff imposed has fallen from 5.86% to 1.42% (2011).

    I very much doubt we'd have a lower tariff on goods imported from outside the EU - much as I would prefer a straight "zero".
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited April 2015
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Betway have gone 15/8 Farage for the debates. £50 offer on new accounts too.

    What is your spread on the salary of Betway's PR man?
    He's got a big job whatever it is!
    Have a guess...
    Well you're either asking because it's absurdly low or because it's absurdly high.

    So I'll go 110-120k :D

    Edit: with a saver on 18-22k
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    The three main parties still can't be arsed to stand for election there though!
    Conservatives are standing in 16 constituencies and UKIP in 10.

    It's mostly Labour who support sectarian politics.
    I corrected my post before seeing yours!
    It casts serious doubts on your ELBOW.
    ELBOW methodology has been consistent since its inception in August :)

    BTW, updating for last night's YG, part-ELBOW for the week so far gives a Lab lead of 0.7%!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    rcs1000 said:

    Dair said:

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
    Many UK companies would like to be able to buy at world market rates.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
    I very much doubt that leaving the EU make any substantive difference to the level of tariffs imposed on UK goods. And I very much doubt that we'd be more aggressive at cutting tariffs than the EU (through WTO negotiations) has been.

    As an aside, abolishing the CAP would clearly be a good thing. It's not the government's job to subsidise any particular industry, particularly when the consequences of that action increase the cost of food to consumers.
    The EU is essentially a protectionist barrier isn't it?

    Joining the EU redirected a lot of UK import business to EU members. Leaving the EU would strengthen the option of buying from non-EU members.

    As an aside, what goods do you think we would buy from outside the EU that we currently buy from inside the EU, other than food?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    Aha now I understand it - the catholic position on contraception !

    How long is it before Sinn Fein have captured all of Northern Ireland, demographics must be on their side long term.
    The economics aren't.
    Doesn't seem constituency boundaries are either !
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135
    Plato said:

    Livingstone tried it with the GLC- so Maggie abolished them

    Pulpstar said:

    Plato said:

    IIRC after London & SE, it's Eastern England who sheds the most to sub others.

    Pulpstar said:

    To my mind the economic analysis of who subsidises who is like this:

    London
    Scotland (Oil over $90 or so)
    England Ex London
    Scotland (Oil sub $90)
    UK
    rUK Ex Scotland
    Wales
    N Ireland.

    I'm surprised there is no movement for London independence tbh - it could do well ;)
    Boris is heir to Livingstone? :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Betway have gone 15/8 Farage for the debates. £50 offer on new accounts too.

    What is your spread on the salary of Betway's PR man?
    He's got a big job whatever it is!
    Have a guess...
    Well you're either asking because it's absurdly low or because it's absurdly high.

    So I'll go 110-120k :D

    Edit: with a saver on 18-22k
    I'd go for the low one...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,947
    isam said:


    FPT Re Reckless and Carswell campaigning in their constituencies

    Sean_F said:

    "Is there any need? The consensus here seems to be that the Conservatives are strolling to victory in each seat."
    As it was before both by elections

    The consensus on here will not tolerate anyone advising the Tories might not win., or are a bad value bet.

    Richard Nabavi, a good guy that I have met and like, and I think, unusually for Tories on this site (Tissue price & Casino Royale excepted), knows his stuff betting wise, wrote a lengthy analysis on why the Tories would win Rochester by election, with the conclusion that they would win by between 3-10% I think. The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    I disagreed, said Reckless would win easily, and was ridiculed

    Reckless won easily. People talked about something else

    I was about one and half points too optimistic (on the Tory side) in the contest for the winning margin for Reckless.

    That made me a helluva lot closer than most of the Kippers.

    I am saying the Kippers will poll nine point something in the General. On that basis Reckless is not an MP (and neither is anyone except Carswell).

    My entry in the pb.com election game was for one Kipper MP. Seeing nothing to change my mind on that.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited April 2015

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Betway have gone 15/8 Farage for the debates. £50 offer on new accounts too.

    What is your spread on the salary of Betway's PR man?
    He's got a big job whatever it is!
    Have a guess...
    Well you're either asking because it's absurdly low or because it's absurdly high.

    So I'll go 110-120k :D

    Edit: with a saver on 18-22k
    Astonishingly, my source tells me you are extremely close with one of those
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dair said:

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
    Many UK companies would like to be able to buy at world market rates.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
    I very much doubt that leaving the EU make any substantive difference to the level of tariffs imposed on UK goods. And I very much doubt that we'd be more aggressive at cutting tariffs than the EU (through WTO negotiations) has been.

    As an aside, abolishing the CAP would clearly be a good thing. It's not the government's job to subsidise any particular industry, particularly when the consequences of that action increase the cost of food to consumers.
    The EU is essentially a protectionist barrier isn't it?

    Joining the EU redirected a lot of UK import business to EU members. Leaving the EU would strengthen the option of buying from non-EU members.

    I think that's a little harsh. About two years ago Socrates and I pulled out all the data on average tariff levels over the last 50 years, and since 1990 the average tariff imposed has fallen from 5.86% to 1.42% (2011).

    I very much doubt we'd have a lower tariff on goods imported from outside the EU - much as I would prefer a straight "zero".
    Food is one area where tariffs would fall. Textiles might be another.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    edited April 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:


    No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.

    Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...

    You seem to be clutching at straws. The last time this happened - where a pro independence party controlled every seat in its purview, the UK broke apart. Of course this time it is full dissolution on the cards.

    Still, please, think as you will and make this happen. The sooner the better.
    Ah yes that would be the lot who signed up for partition, civil war and 70 years of poverty and emigration.

    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.
    Back in 1918, two of those Six Counties had Catholic majorities and a majority voted for either SF or IPP (that would be Fermanagh and Tyrone).

    Nowadays, four of the Six Counties have Catholic majorities, only Antrim and Down now have Protestant majorities.
    And yet the Union has never been safer.
    Aha now I understand it - the catholic position on contraception !

    How long is it before Sinn Fein have captured all of Northern Ireland, demographics must be on their side long term.
    The economics aren't.
    Doesn't seem constituency boundaries are either !
    Au contraire NI boundaries sort of reflect the vote 18 seats - 10 Unionists 8 Nationalists - circ 56/44 %

    Maybe if the english seats were less gerrymandered Cameron would be in with a chance to win.

    Oh the irony Ulster the epitome of representative politics !
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dair said:

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
    Many UK companies would like to be able to buy at world market rates.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
    I very much doubt that leaving the EU make any substantive difference to the level of tariffs imposed on UK goods. And I very much doubt that we'd be more aggressive at cutting tariffs than the EU (through WTO negotiations) has been.

    As an aside, abolishing the CAP would clearly be a good thing. It's not the government's job to subsidise any particular industry, particularly when the consequences of that action increase the cost of food to consumers.
    The EU is essentially a protectionist barrier isn't it?

    Joining the EU redirected a lot of UK import business to EU members. Leaving the EU would strengthen the option of buying from non-EU members.

    I think that's a little harsh. About two years ago Socrates and I pulled out all the data on average tariff levels over the last 50 years, and since 1990 the average tariff imposed has fallen from 5.86% to 1.42% (2011).

    I very much doubt we'd have a lower tariff on goods imported from outside the EU - much as I would prefer a straight "zero".
    Food is one area where tariffs would fall. Textiles might be another.
    Textile and clothing imports from LDCs are subject to zero duties already (see: https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/tariffs-and-duties-textiles-sector)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    As an aside, if you wish to find out what tariffs are, the best source is here: https://www.gov.uk/trade-tariff
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,485
    Patrick said:

    If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.

    But...if solar really gets cheap (think giant of rolls of PV sheet you can just buy at B&Q and plug in to a standard unit in your junction box - plus a battery) then Africa becomes alot less necessary too.

    I think the transformative technologies in energy are going to be:
    1. Batteries. Alot of progress in getting closer to being able to store renewable generation and removing the problem of its intermittency. Greatly improved storage. Greatly improved recharge times. At scale - not just mobile phones!
    2. Super cheap, easy and effective PV. Nearly every inch of roof space in the world is covered and feeds the batteries. Maybe road surfaces. It's everywhere. It's happening now - we're experiencing a sort of Moore's Law of PV cost effectiveness already.
    3. Electric cars. This depends alot on 1 above, and 2 to some extent. But when we're there then truly capable and very quickly rechargeable cars will destroy the internal combustion engine business model.
    4. Smart and local grids / generation. Your house has a battery that covers all your needs for days without needing a recharge. PV sheets on the roof (see 2 above) can pretty much top it up most of the time. The car in your garage acts as a sort of back-up. Buildings, houses, streets can connect to each other smartly and provide collective back-up.
    5. Heat pumps. Almost every property in the UK could meet its hot water and heating needs with a heat pump. Expensive to install but no gas bills thereafter. 5 and 3 together can destroy the fossil fuel business model.
    6. Small scale and non-pressurised water nuclear power. Could take alot of the cost and risk out of powergen. Fusion would be the Holy Grail and solve mankind's energy worries for millenia - but the way we do fission is pretty screwed up now and could be ALOT more cost effective, safer and lower risk.

    It won't happen overnight but I believe we are the beginning of a journey towards a world of smart and cheap electricity that displaces a big chunk of fossil fuel energy.

    I pretty much disagree that those are going to be large-scale transformative, at least in the next twenty or thirty years. I fear you think the technology is progressing more rapidly, and at a cheaper price, than it is.

    Although I really hope that you are right, and I am wrong. :-)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    Dair said:



    The Irish majority never signed up for partition, etc. That was purely the choice of Westminster and history has shown what a ridiculously stupid choice that was. Ironically if the six counties had gone with the rest of Ireland the Cahtolicisation of the country would (probably) not have happened.

    (1) The Irish were fairly evenly divided on the subject, but the majority under Collins were in favour of partition as a temporary measure. THat's why there was a civil war started by the minority who were against it, under de Valera.

    (2) Whether it was a ridiculously stupid choice or not, the alternative was an all-out three-cornered fight in which Ireland would have become a failed state and many thousands more people would have been killed. So it looked like a reasonable option at the time. It was also Ireland that agreed to keep partition as it was in exchange for a write-off of its debts (admittedly after the Boundary Commission had said it would not remove Tyrone and Fermanagh to the Free State as the Irish had hoped).

    (3) The 'Cahtolicisation' [sic] of Ireland would have happened anyway, because there were not enough protestants in Northern Ireland to alter the inertia of the 90% practicing CAtholics in the south. So things like the Mother and Child controversy would still have happened. Whether the IFS government would have treated the Protestants as badly as they feared is another question (and seems unlikely) but to suggest it would have made a difference to the cultural or political development of Ireland from that point of view is wrong.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:


    FPT Re Reckless and Carswell campaigning in their constituencies

    Sean_F said:

    "Is there any need? The consensus here seems to be that the Conservatives are strolling to victory in each seat."
    As it was before both by elections

    The consensus on here will not tolerate anyone advising the Tories might not win., or are a bad value bet.

    Richard Nabavi, a good guy that I have met and like, and I think, unusually for Tories on this site (Tissue price & Casino Royale excepted), knows his stuff betting wise, wrote a lengthy analysis on why the Tories would win Rochester by election, with the conclusion that they would win by between 3-10% I think. The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear

    I disagreed, said Reckless would win easily, and was ridiculed

    Reckless won easily. People talked about something else
    I was about one and half points too optimistic (on the Tory side) in the contest for the winning margin for Reckless.

    That made me a helluva lot closer than most of the Kippers.

    I am saying the Kippers will poll nine point something in the General. On that basis Reckless is not an MP (and neither is anyone except Carswell).

    My entry in the pb.com election game was for one Kipper MP. Seeing nothing to change my mind on that.

    Guessing games without betting odds or money staked don't really interest me
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited April 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dair said:

    @Dair, Financier.

    "Britain runs a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world)."

    http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/britain-and-the-eu-a-solution/

    So the UK is competitive in the global market place.

    I can't work out if your being ironic or your head is too deep in the sand.

    You don't stop needing to buy the stuff you currently buy from Europe by leaving the EU. All you do is increase the price paid. A catastrophe for an economy already a second rate trading nation and destined to be destroyed by an EU exit.
    Many UK companies would like to be able to buy at world market rates.

    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
    I very much doubt that leaving the EU make any substantive difference to the level of tariffs imposed on UK goods. And I very much doubt that we'd be more aggressive at cutting tariffs than the EU (through WTO negotiations) has been.

    As an aside, abolishing the CAP would clearly be a good thing. It's not the government's job to subsidise any particular industry, particularly when the consequences of that action increase the cost of food to consumers.
    The EU is essentially a protectionist barrier isn't it?

    Joining the EU redirected a lot of UK import business to EU members. Leaving the EU would strengthen the option of buying from non-EU members.

    As an aside, what goods do you think we would buy from outside the EU that we currently buy from inside the EU, other than food?
    Food is quite a big chunk of the average family's budget. Reducing import tariffs on food products should be a major focus of Cameron's renegotiation.

    I was speaking to a guy that owned an Import-Export company the other day, and he told me that the free market inside the EU was nowhere near as free as people often thought. He claimed that a lot of big companies use contract law to get round differential pricing, meaning arbitrage was not possible, and that the EU authorities turned a blind eye to big French and German players. I thought it was interesting, but not sure what the political solution is.
This discussion has been closed.