SeanT I refer you to the result of the 1993 election in Canada, the Liberals won 41% and 177 seats, up from 81 in 1988, the UKIP-like Reform Party 18% and 51 seats, up from 1 in 1988, and the Cameron-like Progressive Tories 16% and 2 seats, down from 156 at the last election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
UKIP would look to feed on Tory Out voters in a narrow In vote much as the SNP ate into Scottish Labour Yes voters (especially if Cameron leads the In campaign)
What Labour Yes voters? You seem to be under the delusion that Labour was the big party at the time of the vote.
The SNP got 45% in 2011 and then Yes got 45% in 2014. The EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE! Which Labour Yes voters are you talking about? Unless SNP voters suddenly started voting No to compensate?
Did 100% of SNP supporters vote Yes?
I am sure 110% did.
Edit - *To any Nats reading this it was joke about the fervent passion of SNP members and supporters, not a suggestion of electoral fraud*
Good call on the edit there. You were about to rue the day...
SeanT I refer you to the result of the 1993 election in Canada, the Liberals won 41% and 177 seats, up from 81 in 1988, the UKIP-like Reform Party 18% and 51 seats, up from 1 in 1988, and the Cameron-like Progressive Tories 16% and 2 seats, down from 156 at the last election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
UKIP would look to feed on Tory Out voters in a narrow In vote much as the SNP ate into Scottish Labour Yes voters (especially if Cameron leads the In campaign)
What Labour Yes voters? You seem to be under the delusion that Labour was the big party at the time of the vote.
The SNP got 45% in 2011 and then Yes got 45% in 2014. The EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE! Which Labour Yes voters are you talking about? Unless SNP voters suddenly started voting No to compensate?
Did 100% of SNP supporters vote Yes?
I always read Mr Thompson's comments, but in this case it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that the Yes percentage in 2012 - from polling (I know, I know) was about 25% (as I recall) and was only brought to 45% by the masterly Unionist campaign. And SNP voting then jumped up to its current levels.
Another difference between the 2011 election and Indyref is, of course, turnout.
PhilipThompson Rubbish, opposition to the EU has aroused politicians from Enoch Powell to Michael Foot and Tony Benn to John Redwood and Daniel Hannan and Frank Field. Millions have voted for UKIP and their predecessor the Referendum Party, in fact more in absolute terms than have voted SNP. Many believe the EU is now the source of most of our laws and has destroyed Parliamentary Sovereignty. AV enthused Nick Clegg and Eddie Izzard and a few voters in Islington
Arousing the passions of politicians is what AV and the EU have in common yes.
What Scottish nationalism has is having aroused the passions of both nationalists and warriors for centuries. It is a totally different beast. If you can't see that, then you're being silly - I suspect even most Kippers here would agree that Scottish Nationalism and EU Independence are not the same thing.
Which doesn't belittle EU independence. Its an important issue that should be treated seriously, but your constant grasping for the mantle of anything the Scots has done rather tarnishes your points as its clear that it isn't true. Why not back up what you have to say on Europe with facts that are real, rather than pretending some equivalence with Scotland that simply doesn't exist.
Charles Not if the EU becomes the defining determinant of some of those Tories votes, at least not until a future merger between the Tories and UKIP in a still FPTP system, as the Canadian Tories eventually merged with Reform
Speedy AV was a referendum on a complex voting system few understood and few were enthusiastic about outside the Metropolitan elite. EUref has as much potential to fire nationalistic fervour as indyref
No it doesn't. Do you even believe these things when you write them? Scottish nationalism has hundreds if not a thousand years of history, countless wars, legends like Wallace and is about leaving an actual country that has existed for over three hundred years. The EUref is about whether we stay in a transnational sort-of-trade-and-somewhat-more agreement between countries. It isn't about nationalism, except to a few extremists who number about as many as those who get excited about voting reform.
And even if we were to leave we would still end up bound into a single market rules free movement of labour free trade area.
So we get the economic benefits, with lower costs and without the political impositions. And that's supposed to be a bad thing?
snip 10 billion is too much for us to have to pay to be a member of a club.
Its not a club its a rapidly developing market. Thats why we are paying 10 billion to help develop those markets in the new accession countries for our goods. Because we have access to those market we get a big share of inward investment to the EU. Throw it away? For what? Do you know ? No you don't. No one does, its all speculation. leave. Throw away something solid. For something ephemeral, a mirage. I suppose you can ask UKIPs economic spokesman - who is he?
By all means let us leave. We can stay in or join the EEA. Fine. But in any way that is meaningful it will be exactly the same.
Evening all. I'm not enthusiastic about the EU; it seems to belong to a past era, so I'm inclined to be a BOOer. However, I doubt if out will win a referendum. My actual vote will depend on what kind of concessions/exemptions our team secures.
BOO should win comfortably. I will adjudicate within six-months.
:track-record:
No way. A comfortable In majority. Farage crying in his beer.
If the designated OUT campaign promotes EFTA many of the IN arguments will be redundant. The argument for leaving can be made based on an increase in sovereignty, democracy and improved governance. It would become a positive campaign and not one which is based on immigrants, squabbling about how many millions of jobs will be lost and which businesses will be leaving.
If there was an IN vote Dave needs to explain what that means for us presuming he has not obtained an opt out for ever closer union. Further integration will be on the cards as the EU is in a complete mess.
It could be. But I fear there are too many people committed to true exit from Europe that would swamp the debate.
Charles Not if the EU becomes the defining determinant of some of those Tories votes, at least not until a future merger between the Tories and UKIP in a still FPTP system, as the Canadian Tories eventually merged with Reform
I suspect I have a better grip on the inner workings of the Tory party than you
PhilipThompson Unless you have had your head under the duvet for the past fortnight Labour won 42% in Scotland at the 2010 general election, that fell to 24% in the 2015 general election as Labour Yes voters switched to the SNP.
Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past four years 2011 happened in-between 2010 and 2015.
The SNP got 45% in 2011. Stop pretending they didn't or just ignoring the fact.
The SNP started seriously taking over Scotland back in 2007 - in 2010 Labour were propped up by the fact it was the very Scottish Gordon Brown versus the very English David Cameron. That was Labour borrowing SNP voters not the other way around.
Philip Thompson The basic desire of nats and Kippers to run themselves free from an oppressive 'other', whether that 'other' be Westminster or Brussels is very similar. Of course Scottish culture and identity still existed before Scotland joined the union in the 18th century, just as British culture and identity existed before the UK joined the EEC in 1973
It's the public recantation by Patrick O'Flynn which is most disturbing. Eerily reminiscent of those 50s and 60s appearances by brain-washed pilots who had been shot down behind the iron curtain.
It is creepy. Makes me think of Winston Smith pledging his love for Big Brother at the end of 1984 after his time with O'Brien's though police.
You supported the prosecution of the NI bakers and then quote 1984, oh the irony.
The elephant in the room is when the Eurozone starts voting as a block for things they have pre-agreed. QMV then means that gets imposed on the UK. snip
Cameron has pointedly said and this was several years ago now, that he did not want or believe in ever closer union. He would not take the UK there. We are not in the Euro. We will want reform of our relationship to deal with that as well as the reform of movement rules relating to benefits etc. The immigration that the so called WWC are opposed to has nothing to do with polish plumbers its to do with 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistanis.
Charles Not if the EU becomes the defining determinant of some of those Tories votes, at least not until a future merger between the Tories and UKIP in a still FPTP system, as the Canadian Tories eventually merged with Reform
Reform and UKIP are totally different beasts. Reform was appealing to right wing Conservatives in extraordinarily right wing areas like Alberta. My in-laws live in Alberta and love to make jokes about how Albertans make Texas look soft. Reform's voters were Conservatives voting for another Conservative Party, making a merger a reconciliation of sorts.
UKIP have been appealing all over the place on votes. Their voters aren't "Conservatives on holiday", a significant proportion of UKIP voters (if not now most) are ex-Labour voters too. A merger between UKIP and the Conservatives wouldn't see the two sets of voters unite, it'd see the ex-Labour voters either going back to Labour or to some other protest party.
Earlier this week (at the Progress event) Hunt said that the reason he had not spoken out about Labour's poor campaign/prospects was that he had thought it was going well, casting himself as merely clueless (whereas Creagh, Cooper and Burnham avoided answering, and Kendall trued to imply she did what she could), which to my mind makes him an odd one to suggest he has the answers to any problem, given he claims not to have even privately spotted previous problems in advance.
Anyone with constituency wide canvassing records of a dozen in play marginals around the country would know exactly what was going on. I am strongly of the opinion that this information was tightly controlled at the very very top.
I knew the direction of travel in my own constituency and i knew the people who knew the direction of travel in other marginals in the same region. That is where I came with my prediction of the Tories at *least* getting their 2010 percentage, with a chance of a slight increase. I never guessed Labour would be so low though. I was thrown by the national polls, but I did make just short of a couple of hundred on my constituency with Ladbrokes
They *must* have knew at the very top. It is possible that information was filtered to Ed?
Philip Thompson The basic desire of nats and Kippers to run themselves free from an oppressive 'other', whether that 'other' be Westminster or Brussels is very similar. Of course Scottish culture and identity still existed before Scotland joined the union in the 18th century, just as British culture and identity existed before the UK joined the EEC in 1973
The EU/EEC isn't a country and it certainly isn't oppressive. The UK is a country. Scottish independence from a country its a part of is far more dramatic than UK leaving a somewhat-more-than-a-trade-area-bloc.
It's the public recantation by Patrick O'Flynn which is most disturbing. Eerily reminiscent of those 50s and 60s appearances by brain-washed pilots who had been shot down behind the iron curtain.
It is creepy. Makes me think of Winston Smith pledging his love for Big Brother at the end of 1984 after his time with O'Brien's though police.
You supported the prosecution of the NI bakers and then quote 1984, oh the irony.
I support the law being applied equally yes.
As I said at the time, if a commission for a cake is accepted and then rejected because of illegal discrimination then the case was valid, as the judge found. Just the same as if it was rejected for racial reasons - under laws that have existed for many decades.
As I said and nobody responded to, besides in agreement, if it had been an engagement cake with a picture of a black couple and a message saying "congratulations x and y" and the baker had accepted the cake then rejected it due to not liking blacks and being against black marriage due to their religion - then that would be illegal. Under laws that have been on the books for decades. This should be viewed in exactly the same light.
If you want to remove all these legal protections from everyone, whether black or white, gay or straight, male or female then fine. If you want to say a company is perfectly entitled to discriminate against Jews, Blacks, Gays, Irish or anyone else then you're consistent. If you think other discrimination is wrong, but discriminating against gays is OK - no sorry, I do draw the line there. That's not a brave moral standard, that is hypocrisy.
PhilipThompson UKIP and Reform are/were both socially conservative, traditional parties, polling before the 2015 election showed 45% of UKIP voters voted for Cameron in 2010, some may have come back to get the referendum, but Cameron won many LD voters too, he still lost a fair number to UKIP. UKIP's policy is still to cut the top tax rate to 40% and slash spending on overseas aid etc, economically it is not a million miles from what Reform was offering either. The premise of a merger anyway was based on the Tories losing significant numbers of Out voters to UKIP, not the UKIP vote as presently stands
EU referendum campaign as always is going to be fascinating. As regular PB'ers know, I've been calling for a year for a big turn down in the global economy from the start of October this year. A Grexit event will shift the whole dynamic of the argument on the EU, for if Greece leaves the Euro it no longer becomes unthinkable that Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland would leave in due course. I think Greece one way or another will stagger on for the next 4-5 months, but I think the game will finally change once we get into October.
If the EU referendum does occur in the first week of May 2016 against the backdrop of a renewed crisis in the periphery of the Eurozone with a Grexit having already occurred, then BOO I think could become a real possibility. Why tie yourself to a failing economic area would I think become the dominant theme of the campaign. Equally though, if the global sovereign debt crisis has enveloped the UK by that point then I could see that helping the Yes campaign holding to the status quo through fear, although likely Cameron, Osborne and co would be much diminished figures, although it would arguably be a helpful distraction from economic troubles, much as Harold Wilson found in 1975.
I think there is too many unknown unknowns right now to have a firm opinion on where this is going to go. I'd still favour yes, but I think it will critically depend on how far advanced the global sovereign debt crisis is by the point that its held. If its not held until 2017, then I think events will move things on rapidly from where we see the terms on which the referendum will be fought today.
I will be voting for BOO almost certainly, but as with the Scottish Yes campaign last year, it must be fought on an optimistic tone - Britain looking outward to the rest of the trading world beyond the EU / examples of Norway and Switzerland being the most prosperous countries in Europe outside the EU etc to stand any chance of success. I fear that a positive result for the BOO campaign will be highly unrealistic if Farage is at the head of it all. It has to be a much broader coalition with the likes of Anthony Bamford of JCB and other 'mainstream' figures pushed to the fore as much as possible.
PhilipThompson Tell that to Eurosceptics who argue 70%+ of our laws are now made in Brussels or Strasbourg, on that basis Holyrood now makes more of Scotland's laws than Westminster does of the UK's
Earlier this week (at the Progress event) Hunt said that the reason he had not spoken out about Labour's poor campaign/prospects was that he had thought it was going well, casting himself as merely clueless (whereas Creagh, Cooper and Burnham avoided answering, and Kendall trued to imply she did what she could), which to my mind makes him an odd one to suggest he has the answers to any problem, given he claims not to have even privately spotted previous problems in advance.
Anyone with constituency wide canvassing records of a dozen in play marginals around the country would know exactly what was going on. I am strongly of the opinion that this information was tightly controlled at the very very top.
I knew the direction of travel in my own constituency and i knew the people who knew the direction of travel in other marginals in the same region. That is where I came with my prediction of the Tories at *least* getting their 2010 percentage, with a chance of a slight increase. I never guessed Labour would be so low though. I was thrown by the national polls, but I did make just short of a couple of hundred on my constituency with Ladbrokes
They *must* have knew at the very top. It is possible that information was filtered to Ed?
Agreed. I thought something was wrong when I saw Miliband campaigning in Warwickshire North on the Tuesday evening just 36 hours before polls opened. I stupidly rationalised it away as doing a favour for Mike O'Brien when he went to Pudsey after that.
One thing that was mentioned I think a couple of nights ago was the 'herding' of the opinion polls before polling day which happened in 2010, and 2005 IIRC. We shouldn't forget before that the phone polls although understating the Tory position were a lot more accurate than the internet polls for the majority of the campaign. I still think that is mainly down to sampling error, and the insiders at CCHQ / Labour HQ clearly give lie to the notion of any late swing nonsense. How the phone pollsters must be ruing the fact that they herded in line with the internet pollsters. Had they held their nerve in the final week, then I think the post-mortem being conducted now would be on more realistic terms than it seems to have been conducted over the past 12 days.
All this talk about keeping Nigel away from the referendum, what planet are people living on. The only people with any credibility on Euroscepticism are NIgel Farage and UKIP, whilst the part time eurosceptics over the previous 40 years have achieved.. well a big fat zero.
Whole careers and good livings have been made by people like Bill Cash, the fake eurosceptic in chief, who campaigned like a true eurosceptic to stop the Maastricht Treaty, but when the chips were down his euroscepticism disappeared like a fart in a hurricane, and he meekly went through the government lobbies to vote for Maastricht.
Fake Euroscepticism is the father of the bastard child UKIP, safely delivered into the world by Nurse Cash, and it will ensure that in this coming fake IN/OUT referendum, the fake eurosceptics especially in the Conservative Party have their feet held ffirmly to the fire,.
Your language is why out will lose by a long way
I thought it was a live podcast from Speakers' Corner.
I went to Speakers' Corner a few weeks ago - there weren't any speakers! Just people chillaxing in the sun!
PhilipThompson UKIP and Reform are/were both socially conservative, traditional parties, polling before the 2015 election showed 45% of UKIP voters voted for Cameron in 2010, some may have come back to get the referendum, but Cameron won many LD voters too, he still lost a fair number to UKIP. UKIP's policy is still to cut the top tax rate to 40% and slash spending on overseas aid etc, economically it is not a million miles from what Reform was offering either. The premise of a merger anyway was based on the Tories losing significant numbers of Out voters to UKIP, not the UKIP vote as presently stands
"Polling before the 2015 election" was bollocks. The polls have stopped for a reason, they got it wrong. Any assumptions based on that are assumptions based on something known to be wrong. It showed a level tie between Labour and Conservatives, not a 7 point Tory lead.
It is clear from the voting numbers as SeanT so aptly demonstrated that it was Labour that was hurt by UKIP. Which means that UKIP going away would benefit Labour.
By and large the millions of people aren't voting for UKIP because they want to see the top rate of tax cut. They're voting for UKIP because they don't like immigration (or for many they simply don't like Muslims).
RobD If the EU referendum dominates the political debate for much of the next 5 years then UKIP will have acres of free publicity
They have had it all week. Keep it coming I say. Who will be making the reasoned economic case for leaving the EU now? Geoffrey Bloom? Neil Hamilton? Some other rough diamond? Or some other crude nativist?
Regarding the EU, I think it's important to remember there are four theoretical "states":
1. A member of the Eurozone 2. A member of the EU, but not in the Eurozone 3. A member of EFTA/the EEA, but not in the EU 4. Outside EFTA/the EEA, but with trade agreements with the EU
The EU is not currently designed to deal with (2) very well. The assumption has always been that there is a common goal (ever closer union) and that while there might be different speeds, everyone is heading in the same direction.
Furthermore, it is realistic to expect that the Eurozone is going to either break-apart completely or integrate further. I suspect that even if ultimate break up is likely, over the medium term (say the next 20 years), it is more likely Eurozone will start implementing things such as common bonds, and further political integration. This will create further tension between the countries in (2) and the countries in (1).
A lot of businesses in the UK would have (3) as the preferred outcome, but would choose (2) over (4). If the debate is framed as (2) vs (4), they will become "inners". I do not believe, absent the collapse of the Eurozone, that (4) can beat (2).
It is in the interests of the people in favour of (2) and the people in favour of (4) to claim that (3) is just the status quo. ("There's no point in being a member of EFTA, as we'd still have to accept unlimited immigration, and pay fees, so we might as well be full members and have a say" - say the Inners... and "There's no point in being a member of EFTA as it would still mean unlimited immigration and paying money to Brussels" - say the Outers.) But this is deeply misleading. EFTA/EEA countries do not have to implement the full cannon of EU law, can have trade deals outside the EU, pay less, and - while you can't stop a citizen of another EEA member state accepting a job in your country - you don't have to pay benefits, and you can "kick out" those who commit crimes or do not have the means to support themselves.
Whatever option we take, it will make very little difference to our terms of trade with the rest of the world. The bulk of trade negotiations now take place under the auspices of the WTO, and we would undoubtedly piggy-back on existing negotiations. It is unlikely that there would be significant deals that took place outside that forum.
I was pleased to see that Simon Danczuk's majority in Rochdale rose to over 12,000 given all his tireless work on the child sex abuse inquiry - note how the Lib Dems dropped to 4th and 10% of the vote there with over a 24% drop - and given the legacy of their former MP there, I don't expect them to bounce back any time soon.....and quite right too in my book.
I was pleased to see that Simon Danczuk's majority in Rochdale rose to over 12,000 given all his tireless work on the child sex abuse inquiry - note how the Lib Dems dropped to 4th and 10% of the vote there with over a 24% drop - and given the legacy of their former MP there, I don't expect them to bounce back any time soon.....and quite right too in my book.
Earlier this week (at the Progress event) Hunt said that the reason he had not spoken out about Labour's poor campaign/prospects was that he had thought it was going well, casting himself as merely clueless (whereas Creagh, Cooper and Burnham avoided answering, and Kendall trued to imply she did what she could), which to my mind makes him an odd one to suggest he has the answers to any problem, given he claims not to have even privately spotted previous problems in advance.
Anyone with constituency wide canvassing records of a dozen in play marginals around the country would know exactly what was going on. I am strongly of the opinion that this information was tightly controlled at the very very top.
I knew the direction of travel in my own constituency and i knew the people who knew the direction of travel in other marginals in the same region. That is where I came with my prediction of the Tories at *least* getting their 2010 percentage, with a chance of a slight increase. I never guessed Labour would be so low though. I was thrown by the national polls, but I did make just short of a couple of hundred on my constituency with Ladbrokes
They *must* have knew at the very top. It is possible that information was filtered to Ed?
Agreed. I thought something was wrong when I saw Miliband campaigning in Warwickshire North on the Tuesday evening just 36 hours before polls opened. I stupidly rationalised it away as doing a favour for Mike O'Brien when he went to Pudsey after that.
One thing that was mentioned I think a couple of nights ago was the 'herding' of the opinion polls before polling day which happened in 2010, and 2005 IIRC. We shouldn't forget before that the phone polls although understating the Tory position were a lot more accurate than the internet polls for the majority of the campaign. I still think that is mainly down to sampling error, and the insiders at CCHQ / Labour HQ clearly give lie to the notion of any late swing nonsense. How the phone pollsters must be ruing the fact that they herded in line with the internet pollsters. Had they held their nerve in the final week, then I think the post-mortem being conducted now would be on more realistic terms than it seems to have been conducted over the past 12 days.
The decision for Cameron to finish his campaigning in Carlisle on the eve of polls was made a week before. I suspect at that point the Conservatives expected to be neutral at the end of the night, with any losses to Labour made up with gains from LibDems.
PhilipThompson UKIP and Reform are/were both socially conservative, traditional parties, polling before the 2015 election showed 45% of UKIP voters voted for Cameron in 2010, some may have come back to get the referendum, but Cameron won many LD voters too, he still lost a fair number to UKIP. UKIP's policy is still to cut the top tax rate to 40% and slash spending on overseas aid etc, economically it is not a million miles from what Reform was offering either. The premise of a merger anyway was based on the Tories losing significant numbers of Out voters to UKIP, not the UKIP vote as presently stands
"Polling before the 2015 election" was bollocks. The polls have stopped for a reason, they got it wrong. Any assumptions based on that are assumptions based on something known to be wrong. It showed a level tie between Labour and Conservatives, not a 7 point Tory lead.
It is clear from the voting numbers as SeanT so aptly demonstrated that it was Labour that was hurt by UKIP. Which means that UKIP going away would benefit Labour.
By and large the millions of people aren't voting for UKIP because they want to see the top rate of tax cut. They're voting for UKIP because they don't like immigration (or for many they simply don't like Muslims).
Absolutely...which just goes to show how out of touch with reality the Labour metropolitan elite in London principally have become. Their arrogant 'UKIP are no threat to us' nonsense throughout the last 5 years has really bitten them on the bum in the biggest way imaginable.
As I said at the time, if a commission for a cake is accepted and then rejected because of illegal discrimination then the case was valid, as the judge found. Just the same as if it was rejected for racial reasons - under laws that have existed for many decades.
As I said and nobody responded to, besides in agreement, if it had been an engagement cake with a picture of a black couple and a message saying "congratulations x and y" and the baker had accepted the cake then rejected it due to not liking blacks and being against black marriage due to their religion - then that would be illegal. Under laws that have been on the books for decades. This should be viewed in exactly the same light.
I ought to refrain from engaging with this, but it is just too tempting. There is no doubt that under English law if you enter into a contract to bake a cake, and then attempt to resile from it, you have, save in exceptional circumstances, committed a breach of contract which sounds in damages. That was the case long before the equality legislation came into force. The difference is that damages for breach of contract are compensatory. Broader heads of damage may be claimed in statutory discrimination cases.
It is settled law that direct discrimination does not depend on the motive or intention of the defendant. He may commit direct discrimination with the best of motives, or not be liable despite having motives or intentions which are to be deprecated. This much is clear from R v Birmingham City Council, Ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1989] AC 1155 (HL); James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), and Regina (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2010] 2 AC 728 (SC).
In the example you give it is not clear whether a white customer who asked for a similar cake featuring a black couple would have been refused. If he would have been, as a matter of law, the refusal to serve the black couple would not have been direct discrimination, but indirect discrimination. The key difference in law is that indirect discrimination may be justified.* The difference between your example and the Northern Irish case is this. It is hard to justify forcing business owners to give platforms to political views which they dissent from. It is very difficult to provide a shred of objective justification for the behaviour in your example.
*Direct discrimination on the grounds of age may also be justified.
@rcs1000 - Should be possible to present option 3 as the Common Market people voted for in the Seventies, but a bit like DevoMax it is unlikely to be on the ballot paper.
EU referendum campaign as always is going to be fascinating. As regular PB'ers know, I've been calling for a year for a big turn down in the global economy from the start of October this year. A Grexit event will shift the whole dynamic of the argument on the EU, for if Greece leaves the Euro it no longer becomes unthinkable that Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland would leave in due course. I think Greece one way or another will stagger on for the next 4-5 months, but I think the game will finally change once we get into October.
I disagree on two points.
One: It's already accepted and priced into the markets that Greece (and by extension Portugal etc) can leave. Nobody seriously thinks its unthinkable anymore. Portugal etc have spent the last five years addressing their issues in a credible manner in which Greece hasn't - Grexit will affect Greece and Greece alone primarily now. This wasn't the case five years ago, but it is now. For an Australian analogy it like the difference between a controlled burn in a forest, or an uncontrolled bushfire. Five years ago the first was uncontrolled and unexpected, but by now everyone has made their arrangements in preparation.
Secondly: I don't see a big global downturn in October. If you want a bet I'll offer you a tenner at evens that the UK will see economic growth in every quarter this financial year (ie upto and including Q1 next year). Bet settled on first official ONS growth statistics if you want to make a bet on it.
The tensions in the ruling SYRIZA party are running very high at the moment. The latest Juncker plan - which is an effective huge haircut, albeit without calling it that - still requires reforms. And the IMF will not sign off on any deal that does not dramatically reform the Greek economy. And Germany and Finland (and others) will not back any deal that the IMF will not sign off on.
One wing of SYRIZA realises that effectively halving Greek debt, and reducing the primary budget surplus to 1.5% per year is a fabulous deal, and thinks they've done a fabulous negotiating job, and wants it all to be over now. While the other SYRIZA wing sees any implementation of "austerity" (which includes privatisations, raises to the retirement age, etc.) as being a sell out.
There seem three likely outcomes:
1. Tsipras puts the deal before the Greek people in a referendum. 2. SYRIZA splits and the deal either goes through with ND support, or we have a new elections. (Presumably with True SYRIZA and Genuine SYRIZA as separate parties). 3. Grexit/Greccident.
Earlier this week (at the Progress event) Hunt said that the reason he had not spoken out about Labour's poor campaign/prospects was that he had thought it was going well, casting himself as merely clueless (whereas Creagh, Cooper and Burnham avoided answering, and Kendall trued to imply she did what she could), which to my mind makes him an odd one to suggest he has the answers to any problem, given he claims not to have even privately spotted previous problems in advance.
Anyone with constituency wide canvassing records of a dozen in play marginals around the country would know exactly what was going on. I am strongly of the opinion that this information was tightly controlled at the very very top.
I knew the direction of travel in my own constituency and i knew the people who knew the direction of travel in other marginals in the same region. That is where I came with my prediction of the Tories at *least* getting their 2010 percentage, with a chance of a slight increase. I never guessed Labour would be so low though. I was thrown by the national polls, but I did make just short of a couple of hundred on my constituency with Ladbrokes
They *must* have knew at the very top. It is possible that information was filtered to Ed?
Agreed
The decision for Cameron to finish his campaigning in Carlisle on the eve of polls was made a week before. I suspect at that point the Conservatives expected to be neutral at the end of the night, with any losses to Labour made up with gains from LibDems.
IIRC he finished in Carlisle in 2010 as well at one of the Eddie Stobart depots, so I personally didn't read too much into that. Very impressive Tory result there building on the surprise gain in 2010.
O/T - been watching a lot of YouTube videos on the Yellowstone super volcano. It last erupted around 630-640,000 years ago, and erupts usually on around a 600,000 year cycle, so it is due....but on a cycle of that length, there is simply no knowing when, although its a matter of when, not if. There certainly seems to be some heightened activity around the Yellowstone Park over the past 12-18 months or so, hence its something to keep an eye on. The US Geological Survey (USGS) seem to be rather cagey around things as well. Given the last super volcano erupted at Toba around 73-74,000 years ago, although we know a lot from carbon dating etc, there is a great deal which we simply don't know about super volcanic eruptions.....not as though anyone would wish to experience the devastating effects of one.
PhilipThompson Tell that to Eurosceptics who argue 70%+ of our laws are now made in Brussels or Strasbourg, on that basis Holyrood now makes more of Scotland's laws than Westminster does of the UK's
Which is why the whole nation passionately debate European politics while Westminster politics is considered a periphery local matter that is used for protest votes?
Oh no, we discuss Westminster in depth while the European elections are used for protest votes. The types who argue that our laws are made there do exist, as are the types who bang on about 35% or 37% being illegitimate. But they're not representative. The two types are far more comparable than the Scots are - its people obsessing over constitutional minutae that obsesses certain political obsessives but doesn't grip the public really.
EU referendum campaign as always is going to be fascinating. As regular PB'ers know, I've been calling for a year for a big turn down in the global economy from the start of October this year. A Grexit event will shift the whole dynamic of the argument on the EU, for if Greece leaves the Euro it no longer becomes unthinkable that Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland would leave in due course. I think Greece one way or another will stagger on for the next 4-5 months, but I think the game will finally change once we get into October.
I disagree on two points.
One: It's already accepted and priced into the markets that Greece (and by extension Portugal etc) can leave. Nobody seriously thinks its unthinkable anymore. Portugal etc have spent the last five years addressing their issues in a credible manner in which Greece hasn't - Grexit will affect Greece and Greece alone primarily now. This wasn't the case five years ago, but it is now. For an Australian analogy it like the difference between a controlled burn in a forest, or an uncontrolled bushfire. Five years ago the first was uncontrolled and unexpected, but by now everyone has made their arrangements in preparation.
Secondly: I don't see a big global downturn in October. If you want a bet I'll offer you a tenner at evens that the UK will see economic growth in every quarter this financial year (ie upto and including Q1 next year). Bet settled on first official ONS growth statistics if you want to make a bet on it.
I am broadly in agreement with you. It's notable that it is the Eurozone laggards who are doing best right now. Spain posted 0.9% GDP growth in Q1, and the Finance Minister stated yesterday that growth in April and May was running ahead of that rate. Spain created 85,000 new jobs in January and 90,000 in February. And it is doing this while deleveraging. Spanish government debt-to-GDP is likely to start declining as soon as next quarter. (Yes, I know I'm a bore on Spain - but I would point out that I called it two years before anyone else...)
@rcs1000 - Should be possible to present option 3 as the Common Market people voted for in the Seventies, but a bit like DevoMax it is unlikely to be on the ballot paper.
I think you're absolutely right: and that's because it's the extremists who are setting the terms of the debate.
(As an aside, I got completely mauled by @Socrates about six months ago when I suggested EEA/EFTA would be the preferred option of the British people.)
EU referendum campaign as always is going to be fascinating. As regular PB'ers know, I've been calling for a year for a big turn down in the global economy from the start of October this year. A Grexit event will shift the whole dynamic of the argument on the EU, for if Greece leaves the Euro it no longer becomes unthinkable that Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland would leave in due course. I think Greece one way or another will stagger on for the next 4-5 months, but I think the game will finally change once we get into October.
I disagree on two points.
One: It's already accepted and priced into the markets that Greece (and by extension Portugal etc) can leave. Nobody seriously thinks its unthinkable anymore. Portugal etc have spent the last five years addressing their issues in a credible manner in which Greece hasn't - Grexit will affect Greece and Greece alone primarily now. This wasn't the case five years ago, but it is now. For an Australian analogy it like the difference between a controlled burn in a forest, or an uncontrolled bushfire. Five years ago the first was uncontrolled and unexpected, but by now everyone has made their arrangements in preparation.
Secondly: I don't see a big global downturn in October. If you want a bet I'll offer you a tenner at evens that the UK will see economic growth in every quarter this financial year (ie upto and including Q1 next year). Bet settled on first official ONS growth statistics if you want to make a bet on it.
I'm not betting on that - quite likely that GDP growth would still be positive in the last quarter of this year, that's just the start point just as February 2007 was when the global sub prime mortgage index topped out. Now that took the best part of a year before the real problems started to emerge at the end of 2007. On your first point, we all remember well how 'well contained' the subprime problem was as pronounced by Greenspan and Bernanke at the end of 2007 don't we?! And I think the supposed 'firewall' around Greece will prove to be just such a similar illusion.
EU referendum campaign as always is going to be fascinating. As regular PB'ers know, I've been calling for a year for a big turn down in the global economy from the start of October this year. A Grexit event will shift the whole dynamic of the argument on the EU, for if Greece leaves the Euro it no longer becomes unthinkable that Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland would leave in due course. I think Greece one way or another will stagger on for the next 4-5 months, but I think the game will finally change once we get into October.
I disagree on two points.
One: It's already accepted and priced into the markets that Greece (and by extension Portugal etc) can leave. Nobody seriously thinks its unthinkable anymore. Portugal etc have spent the last five years addressing their issues in a credible manner in which Greece hasn't - Grexit will affect Greece and Greece alone primarily now. This wasn't the case five years ago, but it is now. For an Australian analogy it like the difference between a controlled burn in a forest, or an uncontrolled bushfire. Five years ago the first was uncontrolled and unexpected, but by now everyone has made their arrangements in preparation.
Secondly: I don't see a big global downturn in October. If you want a bet I'll offer you a tenner at evens that the UK will see economic growth in every quarter this financial year (ie upto and including Q1 next year). Bet settled on first official ONS growth statistics if you want to make a bet on it.
I'm not betting on that - quite likely that GDP growth would still be positive in the last quarter of this year, that's just the start point just as February 2007 was when the global sub prime mortgage index topped out. Now that took the best part of a year before the real problems started to emerge at the end of 2007. On your first point, we all remember well how 'well contained' the subprime problem was as pronounced by Greenspan and Bernanke at the end of 2007 don't we?! And I think the supposed 'firewall' around Greece will prove to be just such a similar illusion.
I think you miss the massive amount of private sector deleveraging there has been, particularly in the UK, in the US, in Ireland, and in Spain. Aggregate loans in the Spanish banking sector have fallen by €600bn. That's 60% of Spanish GDP.
PT Most polls got the UKIP and Green and SNP totals right though, there was a late swing from Labour and LD to Tory, but even so 3 of the final polls had the Tories ahead only 1 Labour ahead the rest had it tied. Labour did indeed suffer from UKIP too at this election, but by the next election Labour will have a better leader than Miliband and ex Labour voters who are most concerned about immigration will likely have voted UKIP in 2015 anyway.
If the EU referendum produces a narrow In vote with Cameron leading the In campaign then many Out voting Tories who voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum could well switch to UKIP by 2020
PT Most polls got the UKIP and Green and SNP totals right though, there was a late swing from Labour and LD to Tory, but even so 3 of the final polls had the Tories ahead only 1 Labour ahead the rest had it tied. Labour did indeed suffer from UKIP too at this election, but by the next election Labour will have a better leader than Miliband and ex Labour voters who are most concerned about immigration will likely have voted UKIP in 2015 anyway.
If the EU referendum produces a narrow In vote with Cameron leading the In campaign then many Out voting Tories who voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum could well switch to UKIP by 2020
"In" by 10% is fabulous for UKIP. "In" by 25+% kills the issue, at least in the short term.
PT Most polls got the UKIP and Green and SNP totals right though, there was a late swing from Labour and LD to Tory, but even so 3 of the final polls had the Tories ahead only 1 Labour ahead the rest had it tied. Labour did indeed suffer from UKIP too at this election, but by the next election Labour will have a better leader than Miliband and ex Labour voters who are most concerned about immigration will likely have voted UKIP in 2015 anyway.
If the EU referendum produces a narrow In vote with Cameron leading the In campaign then many Out voting Tories who voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum could well switch to UKIP by 2020
I'd argue it is much easier to get the UKIP and green numbers right, given that they are smaller. The fractional error may be a more helpful number.
I am broadly in agreement with you. It's notable that it is the Eurozone laggards who are doing best right now. Spain posted 0.9% GDP growth in Q1, and the Finance Minister stated yesterday that growth in April and May was running ahead of that rate. Spain created 85,000 new jobs in January and 90,000 in February. And it is doing this while deleveraging. Spanish government debt-to-GDP is likely to start declining as soon as next quarter. (Yes, I know I'm a bore on Spain - but I would point out that I called it two years before anyone else...)
That's a very good point. It's worth noting that five years ago we were talking about the PIIGS nations that were struggling and could leave the eurozone, or just PIGS if you omitted Italy to make it read better. Now we're talking about Greece and Greece alone.
For Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain that's because no news is good news. They're dealing with their issues which builds confidence in them. Grexit would confirm that Greece was a basket case, it wouldn't suddenly make Spain one.
Earlier this week (at the Progress event) Hunt said that the reason he had not spoken out about Labour's poor campaign/prospects was that he had thought it was going well, casting himself as merely clueless (whereas Creagh, Cooper and Burnham avoided answering, and Kendall trued to imply she did what she could), which to my mind makes him an odd one to suggest he has the answers to any problem, given he claims not to have even privately spotted previous problems in advance.
Anyone with constituency wide canvassing records of a dozen in play marginals around the country would know exactly what was going on. I am strongly of the opinion that this information was tightly controlled at the very very top.
I knew the direction of travel in my own constituency and i knew the people who knew the direction of travel in other marginals in the same region. That is where I came with my prediction of the Tories at *least* getting their 2010 percentage, with a chance of a slight increase. I never guessed Labour would be so low though. I was thrown by the national polls, but I did make just short of a couple of hundred on my constituency with Ladbrokes
They *must* have knew at the very top. It is possible that information was filtered to Ed?
Agreed
The decision for Cameron to finish his campaigning in Carlisle on the eve of polls was made a week before. I suspect at that point the Conservatives expected to be neutral at the end of the night, with any losses to Labour made up with gains from LibDems.
IIRC he finished in Carlisle in 2010 as well at one of the Eddie Stobart depots, so I personally didn't read too much into that. Very impressive Tory result there building on the surprise gain in 2010.
O/T - been watching a lot of YouTube videos on the Yellowstone super volcano. It last erupted around 630-640,000 years ago, and erupts usually on around a 600,000 year cycle, so it is due....but on a cycle of that length, there is simply no knowing when, although its a matter of when, not if. There certainly seems to be some heightened activity around the Yellowstone Park over the past 12-18 months or so, hence its something to keep an eye on. The US Geological Survey (USGS) seem to be rather cagey around things as well. Given the last super volcano erupted at Toba around 73-74,000 years ago, although we know a lot from carbon dating etc, there is a great deal which we simply don't know about super volcanic eruptions.....not as though anyone would wish to experience the devastating effects of one.
Thanks. You now have me worried about a huge eruption happening next door (geologically speaking)!!
@rcs1000 - Should be possible to present option 3 as the Common Market people voted for in the Seventies, but a bit like DevoMax it is unlikely to be on the ballot paper.
I think you're absolutely right: and that's because it's the extremists who are setting the terms of the debate.
(As an aside, I got completely mauled by @Socrates about six months ago when I suggested EEA/EFTA would be the preferred option of the British people.)
I agree with that - I wouldn't want to see us leave EFTA so personally would prefer 3 over 4. 4 is the retreat inward option, completely at odds with Britain's tradition of free trade and openness to the rest of the world, something to his credit that Farage usually stresses.
One thing which will be interesting is whether the EU referendum vote would be as remarkably uniform as the 1975 referendum vote, where Labour and Tory areas both voted in an incredibly similar way. The BOO campaign need to be getting the likes of Gisela Stuart to the fore now, and she has real credibility given her past employment in Brussels.
PhilipThompson UKIP have won a national election in 2014 as a party whose main reason for existence is opposition to the EU, no party whose main reason for existence is AV even exists. Indeed, as I already pointed out UKIP won almost 4 million votes at the general election, the SNP 1.4 million
I am broadly in agreement with you. It's notable that it is the Eurozone laggards who are doing best right now. Spain posted 0.9% GDP growth in Q1, and the Finance Minister stated yesterday that growth in April and May was running ahead of that rate. Spain created 85,000 new jobs in January and 90,000 in February. And it is doing this while deleveraging. Spanish government debt-to-GDP is likely to start declining as soon as next quarter. (Yes, I know I'm a bore on Spain - but I would point out that I called it two years before anyone else...)
That's a very good point. It's worth noting that five years ago we were talking about the PIIGS nations that were struggling and could leave the eurozone, or just PIGS if you omitted Italy to make it read better. Now we're talking about Greece and Greece alone.
For Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain that's because no news is good news. They're dealing with their issues which builds confidence in them. Grexit would confirm that Greece was a basket case, it wouldn't suddenly make Spain one.
I was running the numbers on Ireland today: once the banks are renationalised privatised, and the remaining assets of NAMA are sold off, then - assuming no budget supluses but a little bit of economic growth - you get the government debt-to-GDP down to 55% in 2020. That's pretty amazing for a country that was bust in 2010.
But, of course, it's actually not that unusual for countries to lower government debt-to-GDP as they exit crises. Ireland saw debt-to-GDP drop 60% in the six years following 1991; Sweden saw a similar drop following its 1991-1994 crisis.
Bet settled on first official ONS growth statistics if you want to make a bet on it.
I think the supposed 'firewall' around Greece will prove to be just such a similar illusion.
I think you miss the massive amount of private sector deleveraging there has been, particularly in the UK, in the US, in Ireland, and in Spain. Aggregate loans in the Spanish banking sector have fallen by €600bn. That's 60% of Spanish GDP.
Throughout history the next crisis is never the same as the last one....its the classic mistake of 'generals fighting the last war'. The next crisis is not going to be a repeat of 2008. The action and where the capital is now concentrating is in the soverign bond market, yes there has been some private sector deleveraging as you say, but global debt levels are 30-40% higher than back in 2007 thanks to the explosion in sovereign debt around the world. And just over the past month, since the 20th April when government bonds on long maturities (10 years and longer) topped out, with capital moving into the short end of government debt, leading to a noticeable steepening in the yield curve. I think the short end yields still have further to fall into even more negative territory before we should see the final peak at the end of September this year if the cycles are correct. That will then finally set us up for the global sovereign debt crisis. As I've said before, I'll be bullish on US stocks from then, once the capital flow really gets moving into private assets and gets away from the sovereign bond market and related debt in general. Throughout history, government debt has always proved to be the worst investment of the lot, at least with corporate bonds you usually have some recourse on the assets of the company involved depending on the covenants etc. With government debt, the government can stiff investors over, as they have done so repeatedly throughout history. The Medici clan back in the Middle Ages stayed away from government debt as far as possible, for they knew their history well, something which modern financial theory ignores at its peril.
"Walthamstow jihadi posts glowing guide to life in 'cosmpolitan' Islamic State
Succulent shwarmas, creamy lattes and a transnational empire on offer in Islamic State, claims recruitment guide described by experts as "juvenile and unconvincing"
PT Most polls got the UKIP and Green and SNP totals right though, there was a late swing from Labour and LD to Tory, but even so 3 of the final polls had the Tories ahead only 1 Labour ahead the rest had it tied. Labour did indeed suffer from UKIP too at this election, but by the next election Labour will have a better leader than Miliband and ex Labour voters who are most concerned about immigration will likely have voted UKIP in 2015 anyway.
If the EU referendum produces a narrow In vote with Cameron leading the In campaign then many Out voting Tories who voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum could well switch to UKIP by 2020
Yes it got the UKIP share right and its possible there was a direct shift of people who were going to vote Labour suddenly deciding to vote Conservatives. Except that won't explain the high UKIP share in the North - and it seems implausible that people suddenly switched from Labour to Conservatives directly.
What does explain everything neatly is that UKIP took soft Labour votes from people concerned over eg immigration; while UKIP/Conservative waverers voted Conservative perhaps due to a fear of the SNP/Cameron pledging a vote. Which makes the polling on where UKIP votes came from doubly-wrong.
"Walthamstow jihadi posts glowing guide to life in 'cosmpolitan' Islamic State
Succulent shwarmas, creamy lattes and a transnational empire on offer in Islamic State, claims recruitment guide described by experts as "juvenile and unconvincing"
PhilipThompson UKIP have won a national election in 2014 as a party whose main reason for existence is opposition to the EU, no party whose main reason for existence is AV even exists. Indeed, as I already pointed out UKIP won almost 4 million votes at the general election, the SNP 1.4 million
UKIP haven't won a proper national election.
They scraped 26.6% of the vote in a three way split in a partial protest vote election that has never been won by the party of government, not even Blair. 26.6% isn't equivalent to a typical winning vote.
Throughout history, government debt has always proved to be the worst investment of the lot, at least with corporate bonds you usually have some recourse on the assets of the company involved depending on the covenants etc. With government debt, the government can stiff investors over, as they have done so repeatedly throughout history. The Medici clan back in the Middle Ages stayed away from government debt as far as possible, for they knew their history well, something which modern financial theory ignores at its peril.
If only basic insolvency principles applied to indebted governments. A secured creditor is entitled to possession and sale of his security (perhaps the Germans could have been granted mortgages over a few Greek islands). Unsecured creditors are entitled to a proportionate share of the insolvent party's property. It would certainly encourage governments to be more fiscally responsible!
Throughout history the next crisis is never the same as the last one....its the classic mistake of 'generals fighting the last war'. The next crisis is not going to be a repeat of 2008. The action and where the capital is now concentrating is in the soverign bond market, yes there has been some private sector deleveraging as you say, but global debt levels are 30-40% higher than back in 2007 thanks to the explosion in sovereign debt around the world. [SNIP]
Except for a couple of things:
1. Sovereign debt-to-GDP levels are not particularly high (in most places) relative to history. Sure, they are high relative to post 1980 levels, but they're not high compared to 100 year levels.
2. Is QE debt really debt? The Bank of England and the Fed remit all interest recieved back to the government. If you don't pay interest on it, and the lender (the central bank) never demands repayment, in what sense is it debt at all? (25% off all UK debt is owned by the Bank of England, to put this in context.)
3. Government debt-to-GDP levels are exaggerated in a lot of places by actions taken during the crises. As Ireland reprivatizes its banks and sells off the remaining NAMA assets, it dramatically lowers government debt-to-GDP. The same is true of Spain and SAREB.
4. Government debt-to-GDP is falling in the US, in Germany, in Ireland, in the UK, and will start falling in Spain and Italy this year. Given there will be negative net issuance of Eurozone bonds this year, you are basically betting that central banks and politicians will allow their countries to go bust when there is a printing press available.
I agree generals always fight the last war. And that's why the next crisis is more likely to be an inflationary one driven by love of the printing press than a debt one.
PT Most polls got the UKIP and Green and SNP totals right though, there was a late swing from Labour and LD to Tory, but even so 3 of the final polls had the Tories ahead only 1 Labour ahead the rest had it tied. Labour did indeed suffer from UKIP too at this election, but by the next election Labour will have a better leader than Miliband and ex Labour voters who are most concerned about immigration will likely have voted UKIP in 2015 anyway.
If the EU referendum produces a narrow In vote with Cameron leading the In campaign then many Out voting Tories who voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum could well switch to UKIP by 2020
Yes it got the UKIP share right and its possible there was a direct shift of people who were going to vote Labour suddenly deciding to vote Conservatives. Except that won't explain the high UKIP share in the North - and it seems implausible that people suddenly switched from Labour to Conservatives directly.
What does explain everything neatly is that UKIP took soft Labour votes from people concerned over eg immigration; while UKIP/Conservative waverers voted Conservative perhaps due to a fear of the SNP/Cameron pledging a vote. Which makes the polling on where UKIP votes came from doubly-wrong.
The UKIP share was another area where the phone pollsters outperformed the internet pollsters throughout the campaign. Phone polls were always around 12-14%, unlike Survation pumping out the 16/17/18% nonsense throughout the campaign until herding right at the end.
I've heard from various sources about how good the Green candidate was in Bristol W, which has given them a real platform for the next election to claim their 2nd seat......although I still think the final busting of the global warming nonsense / sovereign debt crisis putting any environmental concerns on the backburner, will see to the Greens as a political force in the long run, which should help to shore up Labour's left flank going into the next election. We shall see. Green vote in Norwich S was a big disappointment for them though - does anyone have any inside knowledge of both their campaigns there?
Why is it implausible? Several voters may well have decided to back Cameron rather than Labour at the last minute especially with Sturgeon looming into view.
UKIP's vote as agreed matched the final votes, so it won both Labour voters concerned over immigration and kept most of the 2010 Tory-UKIP switchers. Cameron had also won several LD switchers well before election day to make them up
The UKIP share was another area where the phone pollsters outperformed the internet pollsters throughout the campaign. Phone polls were always around 12-14%, unlike Survation pumping out the 16/17/18% nonsense throughout the campaign until herding right at the end.
Good night all.
Across Europe, Internet pollsters have exaggerated insurgent parties. It happened in France, in Spain, and in the Netherlands.
And good night to you. We can continue arguing about the next crisis one other night... :-)
PT The Euro elections were of course a proper national election and as I said over half the 23% who voted Tory would be Out voters meaning getting on for 40% at least of the Tory + UKIP vote in 2014 would be Out voters in 2017
Throughout history, government debt has always proved to be the worst investment of the lot, at least with corporate bonds you usually have some recourse on the assets of the company involved depending on the covenants etc. With government debt, the government can stiff investors over, as they have done so repeatedly throughout history. The Medici clan back in the Middle Ages stayed away from government debt as far as possible, for they knew their history well, something which modern financial theory ignores at its peril.
If only basic insolvency principles applied to indebted governments. A secured creditor is entitled to possession and sale of his security (perhaps the Germans could have been granted mortgages over a few Greek islands). Unsecured creditors are entitled to a proportionate share of the insolvent party's property. It would certainly encourage governments to be more fiscally responsible!
You would be putting financial markets ahead of sovereignty, and putting an awful lot of power in an extra-sovereign body to act as an insolvency court.
PT The Euro elections were of course a proper national election and as I said over half the 23% who voted Tory would be Out voters meaning getting on for 40% at least of the Tory + UKIP vote in 2014 would be Out voters in 2017
Not wanting to get involved too much in your debate, but a lot of UKIP voters in the 2014 Euros were Conservative BOOers...
You would be putting financial markets ahead of sovereignty, and putting an awful lot of power in an extra-sovereign body to act as an insolvency court.
Haha, I admit the suggestion is utopian, and I am not seriously advocating it, but is it any more of a restriction on sovereignty than the principles which led to the creation of the International Criminal Court? In any event, there would be nothing to stop a government adopting the policy unilaterally and allowing creditors to enforce their rights in that country's courts, if the population of the said country would permit it, which seems most unlikely...
You would be putting financial markets ahead of sovereignty, and putting an awful lot of power in an extra-sovereign body to act as an insolvency court.
Haha, I admit the suggestion is utopian, and I am not seriously advocating it, but is it any more of a restriction on sovereignty than the principles which led to the creation of the International Criminal Court? In any event, there would be nothing to stop a government adopting the policy unilaterally and allowing creditors to enforce their rights in that country's courts, if the population of the said country would permit it, which seems most unlikely...
It does raise interesting questions, though. But now I must go to bed...
Green vote in Norwich S was a big disappointment for them though - does anyone have any inside knowledge of both their campaigns there?
What little I know about Norwich South is this:
1. The Green candidate from last time stood in Cambridge this time. Perhaps the candidate this time wasn't so impressive?
2. The Conservatives campaigned hard in Norwich - to save Norwich North - and this appears to have spilled over into Norwich South. A friend of mine in the constituency said that there was lots of Tory posters, etc, so many people will have seen it as a Lab/Con marginal, and potential Green voters are very receptive to tactical voting arguments in that situation.
3. The Greens appeared to have been poised to win control of the council a few years ago, but it didn't happen. Seems reasonable to conclude that the local Labour party is better organised than in some places.
PT The Euro elections were of course a proper national election and as I said over half the 23% who voted Tory would be Out voters meaning getting on for 40% at least of the Tory + UKIP vote in 2014 would be Out voters in 2017
No they were not a proper national election. The euro elections have never been a proper national election as the result of the election doesn't really change anything. Plus they were only won on a technicality - they certainly didn't get a majority or lead a majority as the Coalition did in the Commons last time.
If the Euro elections are a serious national election name the last time the incumbent government won the vote. Incumbents nearly always win elections - all but two General Elections in the last 35 years have seen the incumbents win; while only one Scottish election hasn't seen the incumbent Scottish party of government win. When was the last time the incumbent national government won this so-called national election?
This is a vote that has always been a protest election. Even William Hague won it.
As for how many Tories would vote Out, I think you're wrong. Already today before the campaign starts the idea half would vote Out is stretching it ... but if the Tory PM is saying In then I predict at least half of Tory voters if not more would back that. So we're talking at most 37% from the UKIP/Tory 2014 vote.
I'd be surprised if Out gets more than 35% though. 33% Out is my projection.
PT The Euro elections were of course a proper national election and as I said over half the 23% who voted Tory would be Out voters meaning getting on for 40% at least of the Tory + UKIP vote in 2014 would be Out voters in 2017
Not wanting to get involved too much in your debate, but a lot of UKIP voters in the 2014 Euros were Conservative BOOers...
Agreed. You're double-counting the BOOers if you add all of them in 2014 and half the Conservatives (as those who stayed blue weren't proportionately the BOOers).
PT Many of the 37% will have voted UKIP in 2014, they will certainly be out and with many senior Tories like Hannan, Redwood, IDS, Fox, maybe even Hammond also backing Out more than half of Tories voting Out is likely. Indeed Hannan himself was a Tory Euro MEP in 2014
PT Thatcher won several Euro elections for example, it was also the first national UK election not won by Labour or the Tories since 1918
Totally meaningless statistic. Find me a real national UK election where 26.6% of the vote is "winning".
And you're right sorry, Thatcher won the very first two Euro elections in 79 and 84 (under a different voting system and just two parties) but not one since then has been won by the party of government. For the last 30 years they've been adopted now as a protest election.
PT Many of the 37% will have voted UKIP in 2014, they will certainly be out and with many senior Tories like Hannan, Redwood, IDS, Fox, maybe even Hammond also backing Out more than half of Tories voting Out is likely. Indeed Hannan himself was a Tory Euro MEP in 2014
Yes many will have voted Kip in '14 which is why they shouldn't be counted twice.
I don't think half of the 37% will vote Out, but even if they do then half of 37% plus 12.5% equals a total of 31%. Where is the other 20% coming from?
PT Many of the 37% will have voted UKIP in 2014, they will certainly be out and with many senior Tories like Hannan, Redwood, IDS, Fox, maybe even Hammond also backing Out more than half of Tories voting Out is likely. Indeed Hannan himself was a Tory Euro MEP in 2014
I sense that the euro referendum will be the biggest political betting money making opportunity since the invention of online exchanges. People are so wedded to expectations that have no relation to political reality.
PT Many of the 37% will have voted UKIP in 2014, they will certainly be out and with many senior Tories like Hannan, Redwood, IDS, Fox, maybe even Hammond also backing Out more than half of Tories voting Out is likely. Indeed Hannan himself was a Tory Euro MEP in 2014
I sense that the euro referendum will be the biggest political betting money making opportunity since the invention of online exchanges. People are so wedded to expectations that have no relation to political reality.
Indeed. It's funny to hear Redwood being listed as a "senior Tory" rather than the Prime Minister. Someone whose only stint as being a Secretary of State was twenty years ago in a rather embarrassing two years as Secretary of State for Wales. Or Dan Hannan, someone most members of the public couldn't even name and has certainly never been a Secretary of State for anything.
Redwood's certainly not unheard of that's for sure, but the most senior Tory is clearly the Prime Minister followed by the other cabinet ministers we have today like Osborne.
Farage is like Salmond was, very much the dominant frontman for his party. Like the SNP in the last parliament UKIP's focus will now entirely be driven by a referendum that goes to the heart of its raison d'etre, unless heavily defeated that will likely boost its profile further
The comparison to the SNP is totally facetious. The SNP are not the same as UKIP they're a party in government.
Besides the referendum is not why the SNP are doing well, the SNP did well which is why there is a referendum. Don't put the cart before the horse.
In fact in the 2011 election, referendum and 2015 election the SNP or Yes share has been consistent. Within a range that would be considered Margin of Error in polls.
Without UKIP, we wouldn't be having a referendum.
With the benefit of hindsight, Cameron could have avoided a referendum. UKIP did more damage to Labour than the Conservatives, but this came as a surprise.
Maybe, yes ! But the actual swings in England were as follows:
Con to UKIP 4.64% ; Lab to UKIP 3.55%. In every English region , the swing from Con to UKIP was higher than the corresponding swing away from Labour except East Midlands [ C-UKIP 5.11%; L-UKIP 5.31% ] and SW [ C-UKIP 2.67%; L-UKIP 3.39% ].
Ironically, the largest swing from Con to UKIP was in Yorks & Humber 6.71% ; Lab to UKIP 4.19%. Balls' defeat was a direct effect of Tory effort. Y&H also had the 3rd highest Con to Lab swing in England.
PT IDS was a former party leader, Hammond is the Foreign Secretary and could also be for Out, Thatcher would have been for Out had she been alive and Tebbit will be for Out too
PT Macdonald became PM in 1924 with 33%, not far off.
That's nearly a century ago and 33% is very "far off" from 26%. Saying its not far off is like saying Miliband wasn't far off from winning the popular vote.
IDS is a failed former leader not PM and even then I'm not sure if even he will come out for Out. He has been rather quiet on that matter lately. Hammond too I'd be very surprised if he came out for Out. Like Gove, he's said he'd be willing to leave but wants to see what Cameron can achieve - its notable that Cameron has kept them both in the reshuffle. I expect Cameron (and Hammond and Gove) have a very strong idea what can be achieved and that it will be enough for them to back In.
If as expected Cameron comes back with some sensible reforms and these people you're naming start saying yes they'll stay in on those terms, expect the bulk of the Conservative Party to agree to that.
PT If Cameron gets a full renegotiation then it is possible all those names, except maybe Tebbit, Redwood and Hannan could back an In vote. However, as at best Juncker is likely to give only token concessions I think Hammond and IDS could well come out for Out, as I said Thatcher would have been for Out had she lived a few more years and she was a former PM, the only living Tory ex PM is Major who will certainly be for In, not that that will sway many Outs, goodnight
HYUFD - It's much easier to register a protest vote under PR. That its PR doesn't make it less of a midterm protest vote, so I'm not sure what your point is. It is just not that incredible.
Anyone BOO who wanted to take a free kick at the Conservatives knowing that it didn't risk a Labour government was freely capable to do so. And 26% of the country did, at a time that no-one other than Clegg making the case for In.
The Out campaign has been going strong for years. Once the In campaign starts up, led by the Prime Minister, expect a swing to In. There's little reason to expect a swing to Out and even on your own very optimistic numbers of "half the Tories" its not close.
O/T - been watching a lot of YouTube videos on the Yellowstone super volcano. It last erupted around 630-640,000 years ago, and erupts usually on around a 600,000 year cycle, so it is due....but on a cycle of that length, there is simply no knowing when, although its a matter of when, not if. There certainly seems to be some heightened activity around the Yellowstone Park over the past 12-18 months or so, hence its something to keep an eye on. The US Geological Survey (USGS) seem to be rather cagey around things as well. Given the last super volcano erupted at Toba around 73-74,000 years ago, although we know a lot from carbon dating etc, there is a great deal which we simply don't know about super volcanic eruptions.....not as though anyone would wish to experience the devastating effects of one.
As I understand it, the three most recent eruptions of Yellowstone have been:
640,000 years ago 1,300,000 years ago 2,100,000 years ago
but that data are not available for before then. So the claim that it "erupts every 600,000 years" (which is what they usually say) is a bit tenuous, based on a small data sample. It is perhaps reasonable to say that a new eruption is "due" in the sense that it is likely to happen anytime within the next 200,000 years, but not that it is "overdue".
Comments
Another difference between the 2011 election and Indyref is, of course, turnout.
What Scottish nationalism has is having aroused the passions of both nationalists and warriors for centuries. It is a totally different beast. If you can't see that, then you're being silly - I suspect even most Kippers here would agree that Scottish Nationalism and EU Independence are not the same thing.
Which doesn't belittle EU independence. Its an important issue that should be treated seriously, but your constant grasping for the mantle of anything the Scots has done rather tarnishes your points as its clear that it isn't true. Why not back up what you have to say on Europe with facts that are real, rather than pretending some equivalence with Scotland that simply doesn't exist.
The SNP got 45% in 2011. Stop pretending they didn't or just ignoring the fact.
The SNP started seriously taking over Scotland back in 2007 - in 2010 Labour were propped up by the fact it was the very Scottish Gordon Brown versus the very English David Cameron. That was Labour borrowing SNP voters not the other way around.
The immigration that the so called WWC are opposed to has nothing to do with polish plumbers its to do with 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistanis.
UKIP have been appealing all over the place on votes. Their voters aren't "Conservatives on holiday", a significant proportion of UKIP voters (if not now most) are ex-Labour voters too. A merger between UKIP and the Conservatives wouldn't see the two sets of voters unite, it'd see the ex-Labour voters either going back to Labour or to some other protest party.
I knew the direction of travel in my own constituency and i knew the people who knew the direction of travel in other marginals in the same region. That is where I came with my prediction of the Tories at *least* getting their 2010 percentage, with a chance of a slight increase. I never guessed Labour would be so low though. I was thrown by the national polls, but I did make just short of a couple of hundred on my constituency with Ladbrokes
They *must* have knew at the very top. It is possible that information was filtered to Ed?
As I said at the time, if a commission for a cake is accepted and then rejected because of illegal discrimination then the case was valid, as the judge found. Just the same as if it was rejected for racial reasons - under laws that have existed for many decades.
As I said and nobody responded to, besides in agreement, if it had been an engagement cake with a picture of a black couple and a message saying "congratulations x and y" and the baker had accepted the cake then rejected it due to not liking blacks and being against black marriage due to their religion - then that would be illegal. Under laws that have been on the books for decades. This should be viewed in exactly the same light.
If you want to remove all these legal protections from everyone, whether black or white, gay or straight, male or female then fine. If you want to say a company is perfectly entitled to discriminate against Jews, Blacks, Gays, Irish or anyone else then you're consistent. If you think other discrimination is wrong, but discriminating against gays is OK - no sorry, I do draw the line there. That's not a brave moral standard, that is hypocrisy.
http://yvetteforlabour.co.uk
Qualified: Russia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Romania, Hungary, Greece, Albania, Belgium and Serbia
Eliminated: Macedonia, Finland, Denmark, Moldova, Belarus, Netherlands
If the EU referendum does occur in the first week of May 2016 against the backdrop of a renewed crisis in the periphery of the Eurozone with a Grexit having already occurred, then BOO I think could become a real possibility. Why tie yourself to a failing economic area would I think become the dominant theme of the campaign. Equally though, if the global sovereign debt crisis has enveloped the UK by that point then I could see that helping the Yes campaign holding to the status quo through fear, although likely Cameron, Osborne and co would be much diminished figures, although it would arguably be a helpful distraction from economic troubles, much as Harold Wilson found in 1975.
I think there is too many unknown unknowns right now to have a firm opinion on where this is going to go. I'd still favour yes, but I think it will critically depend on how far advanced the global sovereign debt crisis is by the point that its held. If its not held until 2017, then I think events will move things on rapidly from where we see the terms on which the referendum will be fought today.
I will be voting for BOO almost certainly, but as with the Scottish Yes campaign last year, it must be fought on an optimistic tone - Britain looking outward to the rest of the trading world beyond the EU / examples of Norway and Switzerland being the most prosperous countries in Europe outside the EU etc to stand any chance of success. I fear that a positive result for the BOO campaign will be highly unrealistic if Farage is at the head of it all. It has to be a much broader coalition with the likes of Anthony Bamford of JCB and other 'mainstream' figures pushed to the fore as much as possible.
One thing that was mentioned I think a couple of nights ago was the 'herding' of the opinion polls before polling day which happened in 2010, and 2005 IIRC. We shouldn't forget before that the phone polls although understating the Tory position were a lot more accurate than the internet polls for the majority of the campaign. I still think that is mainly down to sampling error, and the insiders at CCHQ / Labour HQ clearly give lie to the notion of any late swing nonsense. How the phone pollsters must be ruing the fact that they herded in line with the internet pollsters. Had they held their nerve in the final week, then I think the post-mortem being conducted now would be on more realistic terms than it seems to have been conducted over the past 12 days.
It is clear from the voting numbers as SeanT so aptly demonstrated that it was Labour that was hurt by UKIP. Which means that UKIP going away would benefit Labour.
By and large the millions of people aren't voting for UKIP because they want to see the top rate of tax cut. They're voting for UKIP because they don't like immigration (or for many they simply don't like Muslims).
1. A member of the Eurozone
2. A member of the EU, but not in the Eurozone
3. A member of EFTA/the EEA, but not in the EU
4. Outside EFTA/the EEA, but with trade agreements with the EU
The EU is not currently designed to deal with (2) very well. The assumption has always been that there is a common goal (ever closer union) and that while there might be different speeds, everyone is heading in the same direction.
Furthermore, it is realistic to expect that the Eurozone is going to either break-apart completely or integrate further. I suspect that even if ultimate break up is likely, over the medium term (say the next 20 years), it is more likely Eurozone will start implementing things such as common bonds, and further political integration. This will create further tension between the countries in (2) and the countries in (1).
A lot of businesses in the UK would have (3) as the preferred outcome, but would choose (2) over (4). If the debate is framed as (2) vs (4), they will become "inners". I do not believe, absent the collapse of the Eurozone, that (4) can beat (2).
It is in the interests of the people in favour of (2) and the people in favour of (4) to claim that (3) is just the status quo. ("There's no point in being a member of EFTA, as we'd still have to accept unlimited immigration, and pay fees, so we might as well be full members and have a say" - say the Inners... and "There's no point in being a member of EFTA as it would still mean unlimited immigration and paying money to Brussels" - say the Outers.) But this is deeply misleading. EFTA/EEA countries do not have to implement the full cannon of EU law, can have trade deals outside the EU, pay less, and - while you can't stop a citizen of another EEA member state accepting a job in your country - you don't have to pay benefits, and you can "kick out" those who commit crimes or do not have the means to support themselves.
Whatever option we take, it will make very little difference to our terms of trade with the rest of the world. The bulk of trade negotiations now take place under the auspices of the WTO, and we would undoubtedly piggy-back on existing negotiations. It is unlikely that there would be significant deals that took place outside that forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc34JKvCQ3Q
It is settled law that direct discrimination does not depend on the motive or intention of the defendant. He may commit direct discrimination with the best of motives, or not be liable despite having motives or intentions which are to be deprecated. This much is clear from R v Birmingham City Council, Ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1989] AC 1155 (HL); James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), and Regina (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2010] 2 AC 728 (SC).
In the example you give it is not clear whether a white customer who asked for a similar cake featuring a black couple would have been refused. If he would have been, as a matter of law, the refusal to serve the black couple would not have been direct discrimination, but indirect discrimination. The key difference in law is that indirect discrimination may be justified.* The difference between your example and the Northern Irish case is this. It is hard to justify forcing business owners to give platforms to political views which they dissent from. It is very difficult to provide a shred of objective justification for the behaviour in your example.
*Direct discrimination on the grounds of age may also be justified.
One: It's already accepted and priced into the markets that Greece (and by extension Portugal etc) can leave. Nobody seriously thinks its unthinkable anymore. Portugal etc have spent the last five years addressing their issues in a credible manner in which Greece hasn't - Grexit will affect Greece and Greece alone primarily now. This wasn't the case five years ago, but it is now. For an Australian analogy it like the difference between a controlled burn in a forest, or an uncontrolled bushfire. Five years ago the first was uncontrolled and unexpected, but by now everyone has made their arrangements in preparation.
Secondly: I don't see a big global downturn in October. If you want a bet I'll offer you a tenner at evens that the UK will see economic growth in every quarter this financial year (ie upto and including Q1 next year). Bet settled on first official ONS growth statistics if you want to make a bet on it.
The tensions in the ruling SYRIZA party are running very high at the moment. The latest Juncker plan - which is an effective huge haircut, albeit without calling it that - still requires reforms. And the IMF will not sign off on any deal that does not dramatically reform the Greek economy. And Germany and Finland (and others) will not back any deal that the IMF will not sign off on.
One wing of SYRIZA realises that effectively halving Greek debt, and reducing the primary budget surplus to 1.5% per year is a fabulous deal, and thinks they've done a fabulous negotiating job, and wants it all to be over now. While the other SYRIZA wing sees any implementation of "austerity" (which includes privatisations, raises to the retirement age, etc.) as being a sell out.
There seem three likely outcomes:
1. Tsipras puts the deal before the Greek people in a referendum.
2. SYRIZA splits and the deal either goes through with ND support, or we have a new elections. (Presumably with True SYRIZA and Genuine SYRIZA as separate parties).
3. Grexit/Greccident.
I would put the odds as 40:40:20 right now.
O/T - been watching a lot of YouTube videos on the Yellowstone super volcano. It last erupted around 630-640,000 years ago, and erupts usually on around a 600,000 year cycle, so it is due....but on a cycle of that length, there is simply no knowing when, although its a matter of when, not if. There certainly seems to be some heightened activity around the Yellowstone Park over the past 12-18 months or so, hence its something to keep an eye on. The US Geological Survey (USGS) seem to be rather cagey around things as well. Given the last super volcano erupted at Toba around 73-74,000 years ago, although we know a lot from carbon dating etc, there is a great deal which we simply don't know about super volcanic eruptions.....not as though anyone would wish to experience the devastating effects of one.
Oh no, we discuss Westminster in depth while the European elections are used for protest votes. The types who argue that our laws are made there do exist, as are the types who bang on about 35% or 37% being illegitimate. But they're not representative. The two types are far more comparable than the Scots are - its people obsessing over constitutional minutae that obsesses certain political obsessives but doesn't grip the public really.
(As an aside, I got completely mauled by @Socrates about six months ago when I suggested EEA/EFTA would be the preferred option of the British people.)
If the EU referendum produces a narrow In vote with Cameron leading the In campaign then many Out voting Tories who voted Tory in 2015 for an EU referendum could well switch to UKIP by 2020
"In" by 25+% kills the issue, at least in the short term.
For Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain that's because no news is good news. They're dealing with their issues which builds confidence in them. Grexit would confirm that Greece was a basket case, it wouldn't suddenly make Spain one.
One thing which will be interesting is whether the EU referendum vote would be as remarkably uniform as the 1975 referendum vote, where Labour and Tory areas both voted in an incredibly similar way. The BOO campaign need to be getting the likes of Gisela Stuart to the fore now, and she has real credibility given her past employment in Brussels.
But, of course, it's actually not that unusual for countries to lower government debt-to-GDP as they exit crises. Ireland saw debt-to-GDP drop 60% in the six years following 1991; Sweden saw a similar drop following its 1991-1994 crisis.
Succulent shwarmas, creamy lattes and a transnational empire on offer in Islamic State, claims recruitment guide described by experts as "juvenile and unconvincing"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11616783/Walthamstow-jihadi-posts-glowing-guide-to-life-in-cosmpolitan-Islamic-State.html
What does explain everything neatly is that UKIP took soft Labour votes from people concerned over eg immigration; while UKIP/Conservative waverers voted Conservative perhaps due to a fear of the SNP/Cameron pledging a vote. Which makes the polling on where UKIP votes came from doubly-wrong.
They scraped 26.6% of the vote in a three way split in a partial protest vote election that has never been won by the party of government, not even Blair. 26.6% isn't equivalent to a typical winning vote.
The threat at Hakone has recently been raised to level 2 (of 5) and part of Owakudani out of bounds.
1. Sovereign debt-to-GDP levels are not particularly high (in most places) relative to history. Sure, they are high relative to post 1980 levels, but they're not high compared to 100 year levels.
2. Is QE debt really debt? The Bank of England and the Fed remit all interest recieved back to the government. If you don't pay interest on it, and the lender (the central bank) never demands repayment, in what sense is it debt at all? (25% off all UK debt is owned by the Bank of England, to put this in context.)
3. Government debt-to-GDP levels are exaggerated in a lot of places by actions taken during the crises. As Ireland reprivatizes its banks and sells off the remaining NAMA assets, it dramatically lowers government debt-to-GDP. The same is true of Spain and SAREB.
4. Government debt-to-GDP is falling in the US, in Germany, in Ireland, in the UK, and will start falling in Spain and Italy this year. Given there will be negative net issuance of Eurozone bonds this year, you are basically betting that central banks and politicians will allow their countries to go bust when there is a printing press available.
I agree generals always fight the last war. And that's why the next crisis is more likely to be an inflationary one driven by love of the printing press than a debt one.
I've heard from various sources about how good the Green candidate was in Bristol W, which has given them a real platform for the next election to claim their 2nd seat......although I still think the final busting of the global warming nonsense / sovereign debt crisis putting any environmental concerns on the backburner, will see to the Greens as a political force in the long run, which should help to shore up Labour's left flank going into the next election. We shall see. Green vote in Norwich S was a big disappointment for them though - does anyone have any inside knowledge of both their campaigns there?
Good night all.
UKIP's vote as agreed matched the final votes, so it won both Labour voters concerned over immigration and kept most of the 2010 Tory-UKIP switchers. Cameron had also won several LD switchers well before election day to make them up
And good night to you. We can continue arguing about the next crisis one other night... :-)
In order to get 50.1% in an Euro Out referendum won't require just 2 million votes.
1. The Green candidate from last time stood in Cambridge this time. Perhaps the candidate this time wasn't so impressive?
2. The Conservatives campaigned hard in Norwich - to save Norwich North - and this appears to have spilled over into Norwich South. A friend of mine in the constituency said that there was lots of Tory posters, etc, so many people will have seen it as a Lab/Con marginal, and potential Green voters are very receptive to tactical voting arguments in that situation.
3. The Greens appeared to have been poised to win control of the council a few years ago, but it didn't happen. Seems reasonable to conclude that the local Labour party is better organised than in some places.
If the Euro elections are a serious national election name the last time the incumbent government won the vote. Incumbents nearly always win elections - all but two General Elections in the last 35 years have seen the incumbents win; while only one Scottish election hasn't seen the incumbent Scottish party of government win. When was the last time the incumbent national government won this so-called national election?
This is a vote that has always been a protest election. Even William Hague won it.
I'd be surprised if Out gets more than 35% though. 33% Out is my projection.
37%/2 + 13% = 31.5% ... that's pretty close to the 33% I'm projecting.
And you're right sorry, Thatcher won the very first two Euro elections in 79 and 84 (under a different voting system and just two parties) but not one since then has been won by the party of government. For the last 30 years they've been adopted now as a protest election.
I don't think half of the 37% will vote Out, but even if they do then half of 37% plus 12.5% equals a total of 31%. Where is the other 20% coming from?
Redwood's certainly not unheard of that's for sure, but the most senior Tory is clearly the Prime Minister followed by the other cabinet ministers we have today like Osborne.
Con to UKIP 4.64% ; Lab to UKIP 3.55%. In every English region , the swing from Con to UKIP was higher than the corresponding swing away from Labour except East Midlands [ C-UKIP 5.11%; L-UKIP 5.31% ] and SW [ C-UKIP 2.67%; L-UKIP 3.39% ].
Ironically, the largest swing from Con to UKIP was in Yorks & Humber 6.71% ; Lab to UKIP 4.19%. Balls' defeat was a direct effect of Tory effort. Y&H also had the 3rd highest Con to Lab swing in England.
IDS is a failed former leader not PM and even then I'm not sure if even he will come out for Out. He has been rather quiet on that matter lately. Hammond too I'd be very surprised if he came out for Out. Like Gove, he's said he'd be willing to leave but wants to see what Cameron can achieve - its notable that Cameron has kept them both in the reshuffle. I expect Cameron (and Hammond and Gove) have a very strong idea what can be achieved and that it will be enough for them to back In.
If as expected Cameron comes back with some sensible reforms and these people you're naming start saying yes they'll stay in on those terms, expect the bulk of the Conservative Party to agree to that.
Anyone BOO who wanted to take a free kick at the Conservatives knowing that it didn't risk a Labour government was freely capable to do so. And 26% of the country did, at a time that no-one other than Clegg making the case for In.
The Out campaign has been going strong for years. Once the In campaign starts up, led by the Prime Minister, expect a swing to In. There's little reason to expect a swing to Out and even on your own very optimistic numbers of "half the Tories" its not close.
640,000 years ago
1,300,000 years ago
2,100,000 years ago
but that data are not available for before then. So the claim that it "erupts every 600,000 years" (which is what they usually say) is a bit tenuous, based on a small data sample. It is perhaps reasonable to say that a new eruption is "due" in the sense that it is likely to happen anytime within the next 200,000 years, but not that it is "overdue".