Credit where credit is due to Dair. I backed Romania with a tenner at 80/1 and laid off at 38/1 at 20 mins in - got a risk free £400 profit if they win.
Also backed Romania + 36.5 points at evens with £20 and it now looks like I might collect on that. Not big money but good fun.
Thank you Dair. This site is always at its best when it focuses on betting.
My father and sister are at the game, France look good, I may put a small bet on them for the Cup
Hope they're enjoying it.
But France only leading a team like Romania by 11 points at 60 minutes in is a poor show. They were lucky to get those two quick tries before half-time as well. They should be hammering them.
At one point it looked like Romania were about to go 10-3 up. If they had, this could have been a very different game.
Will find out later, 25 points now. None of the other big hitters, England, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand have started that well and France are the only one yet to win a World Cup and are winning this by more than they won their first matches, S Africa even lost
Romania are getting tired now. They thought they could be Japan but lack the discipline and coordinated technique.
Nevertheless, France have not been putting in what looks like a World Cup winning performance this year. I'm not a backer.
France tend to perform best when the pressure is on and were finalists last time. Certainly nothing I have seen from the Southern Hempisphere nations or indeed England or the other Home Nations has wowed me either. France are certainly better than the 14/1 Ladbrokes have them, there is no point betting on New Zealand at 11/10 and England at 7/2, Australia at 7/1, Ireland at 9/1 and South Africa at 10/1 all have about the same chance as France https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/rugby-union/2015-world-cup/outright-betting/2015-rugby-world-cup/219898930/
Ireland is a better bet IMHO.
I'm on the Scots !
I think they'll come in from 135.0 if they qualify, which I think is likely.
Credit where credit is due to Dair. I backed Romania with a tenner at 80/1 and laid off at 38/1 at 20 mins in - got a risk free £400 profit if they win.
Also backed Romania + 36.5 points at evens with £20 and it now looks like I might collect on that. Not big money but good fun.
Thank you Dair. This site is always at its best when it focuses on betting.
My father and sister are at the game, France look good, I may put a small bet on them for the Cup
Hope they're enjoying it.
But France only leading a team like Romania by 11 points at 60 minutes in is a poor show. They were lucky to get those two quick tries before half-time as well. They should be hammering them.
At one point it looked like Romania were about to go 10-3 up. If they had, this could have been a very different game.
Will find out later, 25 points now. None of the other big hitters, England, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand have started that well and France are the only one yet to win a World Cup and are winning this by more than they won their first matches, S Africa even lost
Romania are getting tired now. They thought they could be Japan but lack the discipline and coordinated technique.
Nevertheless, France have not been putting in what looks like a World Cup winning performance this year. I'm not a backer.
France tend to perform best when the pressure is on and were finalists last time. Certainly nothing I have seen from the Southern Hempisphere nations or indeed England or the other Home Nations has wowed me either. France are certainly better than the 14/1 Ladbrokes have them, there is no point betting on New Zealand at 11/10 and England at 7/2, Australia at 7/1, Ireland at 9/1 and South Africa at 10/1 all have about the same chance as France https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/rugby-union/2015-world-cup/outright-betting/2015-rugby-world-cup/219898930/
Ireland is a better bet IMHO.
They may do OK against lesser nations but I cannot see them going all the way in the knock-out stages, France have been in 3 finals, Ireland 0
‘I would never have gone into coalition with the Lib Dems,’ she told a small group of newly-elected Tory MPs invited to her house soon after the 2010 election. ‘What would you have done?’ asked one of the new backbenchers. ‘I would have done what I always did,’ Thatcher replied. ‘Win the election.’
Well, he managed it in the end, so who cares? The book really would have more bite if Cameron were not now a proven winner, but he is (albeit with all sorts of caveats around size of majority, opposition faced etc)
I must saying, when people start going for the 'What would Thatcher think/do?' stuff, my reaction is to assume they've got nothing of interest to say pertaining to politics as it is now, so unless this really is a set up for something big still to come, they really did lead with the biggest story and been struggling to find bits of interest since.
Rather like the memory of Reagan is now sacred to the GOP. He is tediously name-dropped at every opportunity in case the magic rubs off on to the second tier.
It's not just a habit of the Right though. The Democrats over there and Labour here would do the same if they had anyone of any stature to look up to.
Well obviously they have Clinton and Blair, but Democrats tend to revere JFK/FDR more, Labour Attlee
Credit where credit is due to Dair. I backed Romania with a tenner at 80/1 and laid off at 38/1 at 20 mins in - got a risk free £400 profit if they win.
Also backed Romania + 36.5 points at evens with £20 and it now looks like I might collect on that. Not big money but good fun.
Thank you Dair. This site is always at its best when it focuses on betting.
My father and sister are at the game, France look good, I may put a small bet on them for the Cup
Hope they're enjoying it.
But France only leading a team like Romania by 11 points at 60 minutes in is a poor show. They were lucky to get those two quick tries before half-time as well. They should be hammering them.
At one point it looked like Romania were about to go 10-3 up. If they had, this could have been a very different game.
Will find out later, 25 points now. None of the other big hitters, England, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand have started that well and France are the only one yet to win a World Cup and are winning this by more than they won their first matches, S Africa even lost
Romania are getting tired now. They thought they could be Japan but lack the discipline and coordinated technique.
Nevertheless, France have not been putting in what looks like a World Cup winning performance this year. I'm not a backer.
France tend to perform best when the pressure is on and were finalists last time. Certainly nothing I have seen from the Southern Hempisphere nations or indeed England or the other Home Nations has wowed me either. France are certainly better than the 14/1 Ladbrokes have them, there is no point betting on New Zealand at 11/10 and England at 7/2, Australia at 7/1, Ireland at 9/1 and South Africa at 10/1 all have about the same chance as France https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/rugby-union/2015-world-cup/outright-betting/2015-rugby-world-cup/219898930/
Ireland is a better bet IMHO.
I'm on the Scots !
I think they'll come in from 135.0 if they qualify, which I think is likely.
Possibly good for a trader. I certainly didn't expect them to trounce Japan today.
Credit where credit is due to Dair. I backed Romania with a tenner at 80/1 and laid off at 38/1 at 20 mins in - got a risk free £400 profit if they win.
Also backed Romania + 36.5 points at evens with £20 and it now looks like I might collect on that. Not big money but good fun.
Thank you Dair. This site is always at its best when it focuses on betting.
My father and sister are at the game, France look good, I may put a small bet on them for the Cup
Hope they're enjoying it.
But France only leading a team like Romania by 11 points at 60 minutes in is a poor show. They were lucky to get those two quick tries before half-time as well. They should be hammering them.
At one point it looked like Romania were about to go 10-3 up. If they had, this could have been a very different game.
Will find out later, 25 points now. None of the other big hitters, England, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand have started that well and France are the only one yet to win a World Cup and are winning this by more than they won their first matches, S Africa even lost
Romania are getting tired now. They thought they could be Japan but lack the discipline and coordinated technique.
Nevertheless, France have not been putting in what looks like a World Cup winning performance this year. I'm not a backer.
France tend to perform best when the pressure is on and were finalists last time. Certainly nothing I have seen from the Southern Hempisphere nations or indeed England or the other Home Nations has wowed me either. France are certainly better than the 14/1 Ladbrokes have them, there is no point betting on New Zealand at 11/10 and England at 7/2, Australia at 7/1, Ireland at 9/1 and South Africa at 10/1 all have about the same chance as France https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/rugby-union/2015-world-cup/outright-betting/2015-rugby-world-cup/219898930/
Ireland is a better bet IMHO.
I'm on the Scots !
I think they'll come in from 135.0 if they qualify, which I think is likely.
Possibly good for a trader. I certainly didn't expect them to trounce Japan today.
Ye I'm treating it as a bet to qualify from the pool, there's no real liquidity in that direct market tho.
‘I would never have gone into coalition with the Lib Dems,’ she told a small group of newly-elected Tory MPs invited to her house soon after the 2010 election. ‘What would you have done?’ asked one of the new backbenchers. ‘I would have done what I always did,’ Thatcher replied. ‘Win the election.’
Well, he managed it in the end, so who cares? The book really would have more bite if Cameron were not now a proven winner, but he is (albeit with all sorts of caveats around size of majority, opposition faced etc)
I must saying, when people start going for the 'What would Thatcher think/do?' stuff, my reaction is to assume they've got nothing of interest to say pertaining to politics as it is now, so unless this really is a set up for something big still to come, they really did lead with the biggest story and been struggling to find bits of interest since.
Rather like the memory of Reagan is now sacred to the GOP. He is tediously name-dropped at every opportunity in case the magic rubs off on to the second tier.
It's not just a habit of the Right though. The Democrats over there and Labour here would do the same if they had anyone of any stature to look up to.
Well obviously they have Clinton and Blair, but Democrats tend to revere JFK/FDR more, Labour Attlee
However, nobody in Labour says Attlee would have done this or that. The others are obvious cults of personality, charismatic personality (including Clinton and Blair).
The young and the rich favour remaining in the EU at all costs. Interesting to note that the arguments most popular with pro-europeans are almost all false:
Leaving would mean business still must comply with EU laws but we would not have any say in settling them. (In reality Britain de-facto makes no input on EU laws or decisions anyway, Britain's voice is always ignored)
Being in the EU gives Britain access to a huge market for our exports, bringing jobs and prosperity. (In reality exporters cannot compete with German imports, costing jobs and bringing poverty to industrial areas)
Being in the EU allows Britons to work there, retire there and get free healthcare if they fall ill on their holiday. (In reality there are not many jobs outside of Germany, people could retire in europe before the EU existed and can do so after it ceases to exist, the healthcare bit is the only true fact)
Being in the EU attracts investment-global companies are based here because we are apart of it. (In reality most global companies come here because of relaxed financial regulations not just because of membership).
I'm convinced. I'm just not sure the Leave campaign is at all where it needs to be. Time is running out.
What worked well in the indyref was having Yessers soft talking round waverers and weak No voters to Yes amongst friends, work colleagues and family. That's why it was 55:45 and not 65:35 as I thought it would be.
I'm not sure many Leavers (present company excepted) could do the same.
Oh Goodness! Having seen the ruins of the bombing in Canterbury after the WW2 ended 10 years previously, I will always try and support peace in Europe. Yes, there will always be disagreements, who has not had arguments about what ever in their own families.
The EU has nothing to do with peace in Europe. Indeed the way they are behaving they are more likely than not to be responsible for the next war.
And how many times have trading partners, so interlinked as we are now gone to war with each other?
The young and the rich favour remaining in the EU at all costs. Interesting to note that the arguments most popular with pro-europeans are almost all false:
Leaving would mean business still must comply with EU laws but we would not have any say in settling them. (In reality Britain de-facto makes no input on EU laws or decisions anyway, Britain's voice is always ignored)
Being in the EU gives Britain access to a huge market for our exports, bringing jobs and prosperity. (In reality exporters cannot compete with German imports, costing jobs and bringing poverty to industrial areas)
Being in the EU allows Britons to work there, retire there and get free healthcare if they fall ill on their holiday. (In reality there are not many jobs outside of Germany, people could retire in europe before the EU existed and can do so after it ceases to exist, the healthcare bit is the only true fact)
Being in the EU attracts investment-global companies are based here because we are apart of it. (In reality most global companies come here because of relaxed financial regulations not just because of membership).
I'm convinced. I'm just not sure the Leave campaign is at all where it needs to be. Time is running out.
What worked well in the indyref was having Yessers soft talking round waverers and weak No voters to Yes amongst friends, work colleagues and family. That's why it was 55:45 and not 65:35 as I thought it would be.
I'm not sure many Leavers (present company excepted) could do the same.
Oh Goodness! Having seen the ruins of the bombing in Canterbury after the WW2 ended 10 years previously, I will always try and support peace in Europe. Yes, there will always be disagreements, who has not had arguments about what ever in their own families.
The EU has nothing to do with peace in Europe. Indeed the way they are behaving they are more likely than not to be responsible for the next war.
And how many times have trading partners, so interlinked as we are now gone to war with each other?
Dunno, but who were Germany's biggest trade partners in the 1930s?
‘I would never have gone into coalition with the Lib Dems,’ she told a small group of newly-elected Tory MPs invited to her house soon after the 2010 election. ‘What would you have done?’ asked one of the new backbenchers. ‘I would have done what I always did,’ Thatcher replied. ‘Win the election.’
Well, he managed it in the end, so who cares? The book really would have more bite if Cameron were not now a proven winner, but he is (albeit with all sorts of caveats around size of majority, opposition faced etc)
I must saying, when people start going for the 'What would Thatcher think/do?' stuff, my reaction is to assume they've got nothing of interest to say pertaining to politics as it is now, so unless this really is a set up for something big still to come, they really did lead with the biggest story and been struggling to find bits of interest since.
Rather like the memory of Reagan is now sacred to the GOP. He is tediously name-dropped at every opportunity in case the magic rubs off on to the second tier.
It's not just a habit of the Right though. The Democrats over there and Labour here would do the same if they had anyone of any stature to look up to.
Well obviously they have Clinton and Blair, but Democrats tend to revere JFK/FDR more, Labour Attlee
However, nobody in Labour says Attlee would have done this or that. The others are obvious cults of personality, charismatic personality (including Clinton and Blair).
Ideologically Attlee was the closest Labour have had to a Thatcher like Messiah, FDR the closest the Democrats have had to a Reagan like Messiah (and he indeed also had charisma). Clinton and Blair had charisma but they are not as revered by the centre left. Just as Tories do not revere Macmillan in the same way and will never revere Cameron in the same way and Republicans do not revere Eisenhower in the same way despite their election success and relatively effective leadership as they did not transform the nation in quite the same way
The young and the rich favour remaining in the EU at all costs. Interesting to note that the arguments most popular with pro-europeans are almost all false:
Leaving would mean business still must comply with EU laws but we would not have any say in settling them. (In reality Britain de-facto makes no input on EU laws or decisions anyway, Britain's voice is always ignored)
Being in the EU gives Britain access to a huge market for our exports, bringing jobs and prosperity. (In reality exporters cannot compete with German imports, costing jobs and bringing poverty to industrial areas)
Being in the EU allows Britons to work there, retire there and get free healthcare if they fall ill on their holiday. (In reality there are not many jobs outside of Germany, people could retire in europe before the EU existed and can do so after it ceases to exist, the healthcare bit is the only true fact)
Being in the EU attracts investment-global companies are based here because we are apart of it. (In reality most global companies come here because of relaxed financial regulations not just because of membership).
I'm convinced. I'm just not sure the Leave campaign is at all where it needs to be. Time is running out.
What worked well in the indyref was having Yessers soft talking round waverers and weak No voters to Yes amongst friends, work colleagues and family. That's why it was 55:45 and not 65:35 as I thought it would be.
I'm not sure many Leavers (present company excepted) could do the same.
Oh Goodness! Having seen the ruins of the bombing in Canterbury after the WW2 ended 10 years previously, I will always try and support peace in Europe. Yes, there will always be disagreements, who has not had arguments about what ever in their own families.
The EU has nothing to do with peace in Europe. Indeed the way they are behaving they are more likely than not to be responsible for the next war.
And how many times have trading partners, so interlinked as we are now gone to war with each other?
At the time of WW1 maybe?
It's not the fact of being trading partners which prevents wars. It's the fact of being liberal democracies. But liberal democracies who cannot control their own borders, who are told by outsiders what economic policies to have contrary to the wishes of their electorate, who are told who they must allow into their country are very soon not going to be democracies or liberal either, frankly.
It's like she's trying to provoke a right of centre Independence party. Not sure that would do anything except cannibalise what is left of the Tory vote, the SNP remaining pretty much untouched.
It's like she's trying to provoke a right of centre Independence party. Not sure that would do anything except cannibalise what is left of the Tory vote, the SNP remaining pretty much untouched.
It's like she's trying to provoke a right of centre Independence party. Not sure that would do anything except cannibalise what is left of the Tory vote, the SNP remaining pretty much untouched.
I don't see the issue. If you want to break up the Kingdom, what on earth are you doing in the Conservative party?
"Committed leave supporters, while smaller in number than committed remain supporters, are also more vocal. 17% of those who are certain to vote to leave say they discuss the issue of Britain’s membership of the EU very often with friends and family, compared to just 6% of those who are certain to vote to stay."
If discussing with friends and family equals "carrying ad nauseam in the pub" then that's right. Many of us who listen to our local "Outer" just sip our pints and change the discussion to sport as soon as we can! And when she's (in our case) gone we heave a sigh of relief, agree that she's off on one, and that we're well as we are.
Most of the committed leavers I know are basically old farts who would support the BNP if it existed in a respectable form,, and are blinkered bores on the subject. I often think of supporting Leave - and then see /hear their rubbish.Very offputting. Make Alf Garnett appear enlightened.
Most committed 'inners' are ignorant little Englanders whose experience of the big world beyond our shores is limited to 2 weeks eating fish and chips on the Costa Del Sol every year and think that makes them experts on the benefits of the EU.
I thnk you for making my point - on cue.
(as a certain old fart said "they don'tlike it up them " and react predictably:-)
Nope I was just pointing out that ignorance tends to rest on the side of the Inners. Having spent a large part of my life working and living around the world both inside and outside Europe I simply believe I know a hell of a lot more about the big wide world compared to the armchair specialists like yourself.
Hmm you appear to know more about me than I do.
Please advise where I posted that I had never worked outside the Uk..
I only worked in the States,Europe and Africa so I bow to your superior knowledge ..
I know I am really dumb but all you do is confirm my previously stated views of some UKIP supporters. Note I never said "All" UKIP supporters were old farts..just "some"
Yet your knowledge of the big wide world is so superior to mine you can tell me where I did not work - and get it wrong.
And all you are doing is persuading me the organisation you support is occupied by at least one person who believes he has telepathic powers.. have news for you:~ they don't work.
@suttonnick: Thursday's Daily Mail front page: UK drivers to sue VW for billions #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/gx01M70dY7
One of my work colleagues gives me investing advice (half in jest), telling me to bed and breakfast Barclays quite often for some reason...
Anyway I burst out laughing when he said to invest in Volkswagen the day they went down initially. The fallout from this is going to be huge, there will be fallout from all angles, they're going to be brought to the verge of bankruptcy or the German Gov't will be forced to step in.
@suttonnick: Thursday's Daily Mail front page: UK drivers to sue VW for billions #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/gx01M70dY7
One of my work colleagues gives me investing advice (half in jest), telling me to bed and breakfast Barclays quite often for some reason...
Anyway I burst out laughing when he said to invest in Volkswagen the day they went down initially. The fallout from this is going to be huge, there will be fallout from all angles, they're going to be brought to the verge of bankruptcy or the German Gov't will be forced to step in.
If theyve been cheating the MOT, which is a long shot, they should all be rounded up and scrapped with VW paying out retail price. Disgrace whats happened in the US, some people should be going to jail for it.
I don't know that you really disagree. Aren't there some things in the Conservative Party which make you feel it's really desirable that they win, and which would make you lose heart if they abandoned them?
Of course, and when IDS was leader I remember thinking I would be in a dilemma as to who to vote for, given that I couldn't in all honesty claim that the Conservatives under his leadership were a credible alternative to Labour under Blair. (I wasn't a party member at the time). Given that the Conservatives looked as though they were bound to lose miserably whatever happened, I might have voted Conservative anyway, on the basis that it was good for democracy for the opposition not to be totally wiped out, but only on the understanding that they didn't actually look like winning. Of course in the end the problem didn't arise because the Conservatives under Michael Howard were clearly back in the land of the competent, even if Howard wouldn't have been my ideal choice.
But Labour under Corbyn is a different kettle of fish. This is not just someone who is not up to the job or who on economics is out with the fairies; it's someone who is actively repellent on a whole load of issues to traditional, decent Labour supporters. Perhaps you think it's OK or even desirable to have as leader an IRA supporting, terrorist-sympathising, anti-American serial rebel who, if anyone in the party had been paying attention, should have been chucked out of the party years ago. If so, fair enough, but don't kid yourself as to the electoral consequences, or (even more important) the consequences for the unity of the Labour party.
I don't know that you really disagree. Aren't there some things in the Conservative Party which make you feel it's really desirable that they win, and which would make you lose heart if they abandoned them?
Of course, and when IDS was leader I remember thinking I would be in a dilemma as to who to vote for, given that I couldn't in all honesty claim that the Conservatives under his leadership were a credible alternative to Labour under Blair. (I wasn't a party member at the time). Given that the Conservatives looked as though they were bound to lose miserably whatever happened, I might have voted Conservative anyway, on the basis that it was good for democracy for the opposition not to be totally wiped out, but only on the understanding that they didn't actually look like winning. Of course in the end the problem didn't arise because the Conservatives under Michael Howard were clearly back in the land of the competent, even if Howard wouldn't have been my ideal choice.
But Labour under Corbyn is a different kettle of fish. This is not just someone who is not up to the job or who on economics is out with the fairies; it's someone who is actively repellent on a whole load of issues to traditional, decent Labour supporters. Perhaps you think it's OK or even desirable to have as leader an IRA supporting, terrorist-sympathising, anti-American serial rebel who, if anyone in the party had been paying attention, should have been chucked out of the party years ago. If so, fair enough, but don't kid yourself as to the electoral consequences, or (even more important) the consequences for the unity of the Labour party.
IDS polled 29% in his first poll as leader, Corbyn 30%
The young and the rich favour remaining in the EU at all costs. Interesting to note that the arguments most popular with pro-europeans are almost all false:
Leaving would mean business still must comply with EU laws but we would not have any say in settling them. (In reality Britain de-facto makes no input on EU laws or decisions anyway, Britain's voice is always ignored)
Being in the EU gives Britain access to a huge market for our exports, bringing jobs and prosperity. (In reality exporters cannot compete with German imports, costing jobs and bringing poverty to industrial areas)
Being in the EU attracts investment-global companies are based here because we are apart of it. (In reality most global companies come here because of relaxed financial regulations not just because of membership).
I'm convinced. I'm just not sure the Leave campaign is at all where it needs to be. Time is running out.
What worked well in the indyref was having Yessers soft talking round waverers and weak No voters to Yes amongst friends, work colleagues and family. That's why it was 55:45 and not 65:35 as I thought it would be.
I'm not sure many Leavers (present company excepted) could do the same.
Oh Goodness! Having seen the ruins of the bombing in Canterbury after the WW2 ended 10 years previously, I will always try and support peace in Europe. Yes, there will always be disagreements, who has not had arguments about what ever in their own families.
The EU has nothing to do with peace in Europe. Indeed the way they are behaving they are more likely than not to be responsible for the next war.
And how many times have trading partners, so interlinked as we are now gone to war with each other?
At the time of WW1 maybe?
It's not the fact of being trading partners which prevents wars. It's the fact of being liberal democracies. But liberal democracies who cannot control their own borders, who are told by outsiders what economic policies to have contrary to the wishes of their electorate, who are told who they must allow into their country are very soon not going to be democracies or liberal either, frankly.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
I don't know that you really disagree. Aren't there some things in the Conservative Party which make you feel it's really desirable that they win, and which would make you lose heart if they abandoned them?
Of course, and when IDS was leader I remember thinking I would be in a dilemma as to who to vote for, given that I couldn't in all honesty claim that the Conservatives under his leadership were a credible alternative to Labour under Blair. (I wasn't a party member at the time). Given that the Conservatives looked as though they were bound to lose miserably whatever happened, I might have voted Conservative anyway, on the basis that it was good for democracy for the opposition not to be totally wiped out, but only on the understanding that they didn't actually look like winning. Of course in the end the problem didn't arise because the Conservatives under Michael Howard were clearly back in the land of the competent, even if Howard wouldn't have been my ideal choice.
But Labour under Corbyn is a different kettle of fish. This is not just someone who is not up to the job or who on economics is out with the fairies; it's someone who is actively repellent on a whole load of issues to traditional, decent Labour supporters. Perhaps you think it's OK or even desirable to have as leader an IRA supporting, terrorist-sympathising, anti-American serial rebel who, if anyone in the party had been paying attention, should have been chucked out of the party years ago. If so, fair enough, but don't kid yourself as to the electoral consequences, or (even more important) the consequences for the unity of the Labour party.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
Please advise where I posted that I had never worked outside the Uk..
I only worked in the States,Europe and Africa so I bow to your superior knowledge ..
I know I am really dumb but all you do is confirm my previously stated views of some UKIP supporters. Note I never said "All" UKIP supporters were old farts..just "some"
Yet your knowledge of the big wide world is so superior to mine you can tell me where I did not work - and get it wrong.
And all you are doing is persuading me the organisation you support is occupied by at least one person who believes he has telepathic powers.. have news for you:~ they don't work.
I was basing my assessment of you on your outstandingly ignorant views of both the EU and those who oppose it. I can only assume you spent your time overseas drunk or comatose given how little you appear to understand of the world outside of the UK. Equating BOO with the BNP only serves to highlight your extraordinary ignorance.
Unskilled immigration doesn't make you less productive.
aggregate productivity numbers are largely meaningless, unless you think France has one of the most successful economies in the world
It does on average. And if that average declines, you have less GDP per capita to spend on public services.
That doesn't make any sense.
Productivity is measured by calculating total amount of work produced by number of hours worked. Therefore, countries which have very high social charges (like France) tend to have "high productivity". That doesn't mean their workers are any more productive, it means that there are a large number of people at the bottom of the income spectrum who are priced out of the workforce. (Because, irrespective of what it costs to employ them as far as hourly wages, the social costs make it uneconomic.)
If the economic definition of productivity was the be-all and end-all, the Eurozone would be flying and we would be in the dog house, because Eurozone productivity is about 7% higher than in the UK. (See: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL)
Your second statement that by dragging the average down means less to spend is equally absurd. If what you said was true then we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average. Does that make sense?
"If the average declines you have less GDP per capita to spend on public services". If you stop someone working who produces less than average GDP, in what way does that improve services?
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
Farron's tirade about Syrian refugees was a disgraceful but typical LD slur on everyone who puts realty over the smug pontificating self righteous sanctmonous holier than thou LD mindset. ln fact of course it was him using the refugees/migrants as a convenient mast to nail his tattered flag to. Yet he had the nerve the cheek the dishonesty to pretend that only he and his audience could care about this sad situation. He got his cheer - he survived to get off the podium - but he is a liar and a cheat. He can sod off.
Oh Goodness! Having seen the ruins of the bombing in Canterbury after the WW2 ended 10 years previously, I will always try and support peace in Europe. Yes, there will always be disagreements, who has not had arguments about what ever in their own families.
The EU has nothing to do with peace in Europe. Indeed the way they are behaving they are more likely than not to be responsible for the next war.
And how many times have trading partners, so interlinked as we are now gone to war with each other?
At the time of WW1 maybe?
It's not the fact of being trading partners which prevents wars. It's the fact of being liberal democracies. But liberal democracies who cannot control their own borders, who are told by outsiders what economic policies to have contrary to the wishes of their electorate, who are told who they must allow into their country are very soon not going to be democracies or liberal either, frankly.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
I'm not sure how I'll vote in the referendum. I take your point about Greece but their desire to be European has led them to the verge of bankruptcy, a democracy that barely fits the description and the rise of a quasi Nazi party. Eastern Europe is putting up fences and Germany is trying to blackmail others into accepting the consequences of Germany's unilateral decision on migration. The point is that these developments are going to put a strain on those new liberal democracies and those who are pro-EU ought to be less cavalier about the possible consequences of their high-handed attitude to the understandable desires of people to govern themselves and decide for themselves whom they want to invite into their country.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
May I intervene a little. Before the referendum I had the knowledge that greek opinion pollsters fake the results of every question except voting intention for parties, after the referendum it turned out that I was right.
Now though greek pollsters are faking voting intention too, according to the leader of the Union of Centrists who said 3 weeks ago on TV that some of his men working in a pollster called Metron Analysis had said that SYRIZA was leading by 6% but the company management decided to alter the figures to say that's neck and neck in order to trick voters to make them vote for the 2 large parties.
So until there is an actual referendum on euro membership in Greece, I believe nothing of what their pollsters say.
How long before the Daily Mail publishes more extract scoops about Dave's life, such as the toilet paper he uses and how he peed out of the window when he was at prep school. It can only be a matter of time.
l'm told when he was a baby his mum even had to wipe his arse. Unlike Lord Ashcroft who was brought up to talk out of his.
I'm not sure how I'll vote in the referendum. I take your point about Greece but their desire to be European has led them to the verge of bankruptcy, a democracy that barely fits the description and the rise of a quasi Nazi party. Eastern Europe is putting up fences and Germany is trying to blackmail others into accepting the consequences of Germany's unilateral decision on migration. The point is that these developments are going to put a strain on those new liberal democracies and those who are pro-EU ought to be less cavalier about the possible consequences of their high-handed attitude to the understandable desires of people to govern themselves and decide for themselves whom they want to invite into their country.
It's interesting how different Greece is to all the other PIIGS.
During the decade of the single currency's existence before the Eurozone crisis, it's worth remembering there was a Eurozone boom.
Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece all saw dramatic increases in GDP per head.
Why? Because most of them had inappropriately low interest rates that kicked off domestic building booms, alongside rapid rises in private sector debt. (Italy is the exception: household and corporate debt barely budged, and there was no property bubble.)
Anyway: during this period Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy used the "good times" to pay down government debt. Off the top of my head, Ireland went from 80% government debt-to-GDP to 30%, Spain saw debt-to-GDP decline to 40-odd percent, Italy went from 130% to 100%, and I don't remember the numbers for Portugal, but I'm sure they were much of a muchness.
Governments may have totally failed to deal with imbalances in the economy, and failed to realise the Eurozone was causing these problems, but at least governments ran prudent fiscal policies.
Greece was different. Despite the Eurozone boom, and the rapid rise in GDP per head, the government went on a spectacular spending spree. Government salaries (per person) more than doubled between 1999 and 2010. (In Ireland, by contrast, the rise was in the low 20s.)
Greece should never have entered the Eurozone, and there are many occasions when they should have left. But it's a little like any relationship. You have to blame both parties. And, like it or not, the Eurozone cannot "kick Greece out". And this is why you have such an unhappy relationship: one party doesn't like the rules, but doesn't want it to end. The other has no ability to sever the relationship.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
May I intervene a little. Before the referendum I had the knowledge that greek opinion pollsters fake the results of every question except voting intention for parties, after the referendum it turned out that I was right.
Now though greek pollsters are faking voting intention too, according to the leader of the Union of Centrists who said 3 weeks ago on TV that some of his men working in a pollster called Metron Analysis had said that SYRIZA was leading by 6% but the company management decided to alter the figures to say that's neck and neck in order to trick voters to make them vote for the 2 large parties.
So until there is an actual referendum on euro membership in Greece, I believe nothing of what their pollsters say.
While that may be true, the anti-EU breakaway Popular Unity was polling 4-5% in the polls, and ended up missing the 3% hurdle.
I'm not sure how I'll vote in the referendum. I take your point about Greece but their desire to be European has led them to the verge of bankruptcy, a democracy that barely fits the description and the rise of a quasi Nazi party. Eastern Europe is putting up fences and Germany is trying to blackmail others into accepting the consequences of Germany's unilateral decision on migration. The point is that these developments are going to put a strain on those new liberal democracies and those who are pro-EU ought to be less cavalier about the possible consequences of their high-handed attitude to the understandable desires of people to govern themselves and decide for themselves whom they want to invite into their country.
It's interesting how different Greece is to all the other PIIGS.
During the decade of the single currency's existence before the Eurozone crisis, it's worth remembering there was a Eurozone boom.
Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece all saw dramatic increases in GDP per head.
Why? Because most of them had inappropriately low interest rates that kicked off domestic building booms, alongside rapid rises in private sector debt. (Italy is the exception: household and corporate debt barely budged, and there was no property bubble.)
Anyway: during this period Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy used the "good times" to pay down government debt. Off the top of my head, Ireland went from 80% government debt-to-GDP to 30%, Spain saw debt-to-GDP decline to 40-odd percent, Italy went from 130% to 100%, and I don't remember the numbers for Portugal, but I'm sure they were much of a muchness.
Governments may have totally failed to deal with imbalances in the economy, and failed to realise the Eurozone was causing these problems, but at least governments ran prudent fiscal policies.
Greece was different. Despite the Eurozone boom, and the rapid rise in GDP per head, the government went on a spectacular spending spree. Government salaries (per person) more than doubled between 1999 and 2010. (In Ireland, by contrast, the rise was in the low 20s.)
Greece should never have entered the Eurozone, and there are many occasions when they should have left. But it's a little like any relationship. You have to blame both parties. And, like it or not, the Eurozone cannot "kick Greece out". And this is why you have such an unhappy relationship: one party doesn't like the rules, but doesn't want it to end. The other has no ability to sever the relationship.
Of course they can severe the relationship, they only have to say so. (the europeans at least, the greek government is in it for the brown envelopes stuffed with euros that they skim from Bailouts and EU development funds, so until the europeans stop giving money to Greece the crisis will go on)
The young and the rich favour remaining in the EU at all costs. Interesting to note that the arguments most popular with pro-europeans are almost all false:
Leaving would mean business still must comply with EU laws but we would not have any say in settling them. (In reality Britain de-facto makes no input on EU laws or decisions anyway, Britain's voice is always ignored)
Being in the EU gives Britain access to a huge market for our exports, bringing jobs and prosperity. (In reality exporters cannot compete with German imports, costing jobs and bringing poverty to industrial areas)
Being in the EU allows Britons to work there, retire there and get free healthcare if they fall ill on their holiday. (In reality there are not many jobs outside of Germany, people could retire in europe before the EU existed and can do so after it ceases to exist, the healthcare bit is the only true fact)
Being in the EU attracts investment-global companies are based here because we are apart of it. (In reality most global companies come here because of relaxed financial regulations not just because of membership).
I'm convinced. I'm just not sure the Leave campaign is at all where it needs to be. Time is running out.
What worked well in the indyref was having Yessers soft talking round waverers and weak No voters to Yes amongst friends, work colleagues and family. That's why it was 55:45 and not 65:35 as I thought it would be.
I'm not sure many Leavers (present company excepted) could do the same.
Oh Goodness! Having seen the ruins of the bombing in Canterbury after the WW2 ended 10 years previously, I will always try and support peace in Europe. Yes, there will always be disagreements, who has not had arguments about what ever in their own families.
I'll go with that.
Another "positve" is the Working Time Directive. People complain about individual effects but overall support it. And don't trust employers not to abuse the situation if it wasn't there.
Do you think Germany would declare war on us if we left the EU?
No. What have you been drinking to come up with that thought?
And, just to remind you, IIRC we declared war on Germany. With just cause, of course, but they've never decalered on us.
Productivity is measured by calculating total amount of work produced by number of hours worked. Therefore, countries which have very high social charges (like France) tend to have "high productivity". That doesn't mean their workers are any more productive, it means that there are a large number of people at the bottom of the income spectrum who are priced out of the workforce. (Because, irrespective of what it costs to employ them as far as hourly wages, the social costs make it uneconomic.)
If the economic definition of productivity was the be-all and end-all, the Eurozone would be flying and we would be in the dog house, because Eurozone productivity is about 7% higher than in the UK. (See: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL)
Your second statement that by dragging the average down means less to spend is equally absurd. If what you said was true then we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average. Does that make sense?
"If the average declines you have less GDP per capita to spend on public services". If you stop someone working who produces less than average GDP, in what way does that improve services?
Your argument is all over the place.
On your first argument. Productivity is an established metric, whether defined per hour or per worker. Just because you doubt its relevance does not cease to make the concept exist or mean I can define it differently. I can say that GDP is not the be-all and end-all, but that does not mean that GDP does not exist or I can change the definition to suit my opinions. There has been a widespread debate about the UK's low productivity numbers. One of the reasons for that is because we have added lots of low skilled, low productivity workers that drag the numbers down.
On your second argument. You seem to entirely be neglecting the fact we are talking about immigrants here. When they come here, they contribute in generating extra economic value, but drain by using public services. If they use public services at the same rate as the existing population, yet generate less revenue than average to fund them, then the public services will go down on average. (These calculations need to be on a lifetime basis.) Your example "we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average" does not work because those people would still be in the country and require social spending. The immigrants, in the alternative scenario, would not be.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
90% of voters here just voted for pro-EU parties. That doesn't mean 90% of us are pro-EU, it means the parties are pro-EU.
Productivity is measured by calculating total amount of work produced by number of hours worked. Therefore, countries which have very high social charges (like France) tend to have "high productivity". That doesn't mean their workers are any more productive, it means that there are a large number of people at the bottom of the income spectrum who are priced out of the workforce. (Because, irrespective of what it costs to employ them as far as hourly wages, the social costs make it uneconomic.)
If the economic definition of productivity was the be-all and end-all, the Eurozone would be flying and we would be in the dog house, because Eurozone productivity is about 7% higher than in the UK. (See: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL)
Your second statement that by dragging the average down means less to spend is equally absurd. If what you said was true then we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average. Does that make sense?
"If the average declines you have less GDP per capita to spend on public services". If you stop someone working who produces less than average GDP, in what way does that improve services?
Your argument is all over the place.
On your first argument. Productivity is an established metric, whether defined per hour or per worker. Just because you doubt its relevance does not cease to make the concept exist or mean I can define it differently. I can say that GDP is not the be-all and end-all, but that does not mean that GDP does not exist or I can change the definition to suit my opinions. There has been a widespread debate about the UK's low productivity numbers. One of the reasons for that is because we have added lots of low skilled, low productivity workers that drag the numbers down.
On your second argument. You seem to entirely be neglecting the fact we are talking about immigrants here. When they come here, they contribute in generating extra economic value, but drain by using public services. If they use public services at the same rate as the existing population, yet generate less revenue than average to fund them, then the public services will go down on average. (These calculations need to be on a lifetime basis.) Your example "we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average" does not work because those people would still be in the country and require social spending. The immigrants, in the alternative scenario, would not be.
Wow. Just read what you wrote tomorrow when you're sober.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
May I intervene a little. Before the referendum I had the knowledge that greek opinion pollsters fake the results of every question except voting intention for parties, after the referendum it turned out that I was right.
Now though greek pollsters are faking voting intention too, according to the leader of the Union of Centrists who said 3 weeks ago on TV that some of his men working in a pollster called Metron Analysis had said that SYRIZA was leading by 6% but the company management decided to alter the figures to say that's neck and neck in order to trick voters to make them vote for the 2 large parties.
So until there is an actual referendum on euro membership in Greece, I believe nothing of what their pollsters say.
While that may be true, the anti-EU breakaway Popular Unity was polling 4-5% in the polls, and ended up missing the 3% hurdle.
The pollsters did their job, you see the greek pollsters wanted to boost the big 2 by playing the fears that every vote counted in order to block the other major party from power, but more people were afraid of ND than SYRIZA, and Popular Unity voters were 90% from SYRIZA so they went back because of the fear that ND would win.
It's a very simple thing, the same effect happened in Britain too back in May. Of course that game can be played as long as the public believe the pollsters, if their credibility is shot then it won't work.
Of course they can severe the relationship, they only have to say so. (the europeans at least, the greek government is in it for the brown envelopes stuffed with euros that they skim from Bailouts and EU development funds, so until the europeans stop giving money to Greece the crisis will go on)
What mechanism exists for Greece to leave the Eurozone, at the behest of the Eurozone?
The Germans cannot simply say "please go". There is no mechanism for the Eurozone to "kick Greece out". There is no "governing council" of the Eurozone that gets to make those decisions.
Ultimately, only Greece can decide to go.
In theory, the other Eurozone members could precipitate Greece's exit by refusing to roll over EFSF debts (although most of that is very long maturity, so even that might not work). However, that would raise the borrowing costs dramatically for Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, so I can't see that being used as a tactic.
In practice, leaving the Eurozone requires a (brave) political decision by the Greek PM.
Let's imagine that Fox News decides that Paul and Huckabee don't make the next cut, who gets their voters?
Well the next debate is on CNBC a month from now, they won't have the pre-debate debate again, though they are still not sure if they will do the CNN thing with 11 candidates or if they limit it to 8, the latest I hear is that they may decide upon a 2% polling limit like in 2012.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
May I intervene a little. Before the referendum I had the knowledge that greek opinion pollsters fake the results of every question except voting intention for parties, after the referendum it turned out that I was right.
Now though greek pollsters are faking voting intention too, according to the leader of the Union of Centrists who said 3 weeks ago on TV that some of his men working in a pollster called Metron Analysis had said that SYRIZA was leading by 6% but the company management decided to alter the figures to say that's neck and neck in order to trick voters to make them vote for the 2 large parties.
So until there is an actual referendum on euro membership in Greece, I believe nothing of what their pollsters say.
While that may be true, the anti-EU breakaway Popular Unity was polling 4-5% in the polls, and ended up missing the 3% hurdle.
The pollsters did their job, you see the greek pollsters wanted to boost the big 2 by playing the fears that every vote counted in order to block the other major party from power, but more people were afraid of ND than SYRIZA, and Popular Unity voters were 90% from SYRIZA so they went back because of the fear that ND would win.
It's a very simple thing, the same effect happened in Britain too back in May.
I understand what you're saying, and it's plausible. And if Popular Unity had been trailed as being at "2.5% in the polls, and your vote will be wasted if you vote for them", then it would be plausible. But they were trailed as getting 4-5%, and they ended up sub-3%.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
90% of voters here just voted for pro-EU parties. That doesn't mean 90% of us are pro-EU, it means the parties are pro-EU.
Popular Unity broke off SYRIZA, led by the former Energy Minister. Given that 60% of Greeks voted against the bailout, and the Energy Minister - alongside Tsipras - led the campaign, I though Popular Unity was a cert for 20% in the election. Especially as it was the third largest grouping in the Greek parliament before the election.
Go look at my posts: I said I expected it to be level pegging between SYRIZA, ND and Popular Unity.
There was a credible anti-EU party. It was the third largest grouping in the Greek parliament.
And it flopped utterly. Flopped to the level of getting fewer than half the votes of PASOK.
Let's imagine that Fox News decides that Paul and Huckabee don't make the next cut, who gets their voters?
Well the next debate is on CNBC a month from now, they won't have the pre-debate debate again, though they are still not sure if they will do the CNN thing with 11 candidates or if they limit it to 8, the latest I hear is that they may decide upon a 2% polling limit like in 2012.
If CNBC drops three candidates, they will surely have to exit the race. I really can't work out who the Republican nominee will be.
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
So until there is an actual referendum on euro membership in Greece, I believe nothing of what their pollsters say.
While that may be true, the anti-EU breakaway Popular Unity was polling 4-5% in the polls, and ended up missing the 3% hurdle.
The pollsters did their job, you see the greek pollsters wanted to boost the big 2 by playing the fears that every vote counted in order to block the other major party from power, but more people were afraid of ND than SYRIZA, and Popular Unity voters were 90% from SYRIZA so they went back because of the fear that ND would win.
It's a very simple thing, the same effect happened in Britain too back in May.
I understand what you're saying, and it's plausible. And if Popular Unity had been trailed as being at "2.5% in the polls, and your vote will be wasted if you vote for them", then it would be plausible. But they were trailed as getting 4-5%, and they ended up sub-3%.
If you think your party is safe but you see that the party you hate might win then you choose to obstruct the party you hate, thinking that your favourite party doesn't need the votes to enter parliament anyway, call them tactical voters.
But as I said, it only works if you actually believe the pollsters, after what happened in May it will be very difficult to replicate it in Britain in 2020, or in fact in Greece at their next election now that pollster credibility is shattered.
Of course they can severe the relationship, they only have to say so. (the europeans at least, the greek government is in it for the brown envelopes stuffed with euros that they skim from Bailouts and EU development funds, so until the europeans stop giving money to Greece the crisis will go on)
What mechanism exists for Greece to leave the Eurozone, at the behest of the Eurozone?
The Germans cannot simply say "please go". There is no mechanism for the Eurozone to "kick Greece out". There is no "governing council" of the Eurozone that gets to make those decisions.
Ultimately, only Greece can decide to go.
In theory, the other Eurozone members could precipitate Greece's exit by refusing to roll over EFSF debts (although most of that is very long maturity, so even that might not work). However, that would raise the borrowing costs dramatically for Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, so I can't see that being used as a tactic.
In practice, leaving the Eurozone requires a (brave) political decision by the Greek PM.
Iirc didn't Greece severely cook the books in order to pass the tests to allow them into the Eurozone?
Of course they can severe the relationship, they only have to say so. (the europeans at least, the greek government is in it for the brown envelopes stuffed with euros that they skim from Bailouts and EU development funds, so until the europeans stop giving money to Greece the crisis will go on)
What mechanism exists for Greece to leave the Eurozone, at the behest of the Eurozone?
The Germans cannot simply say "please go". There is no mechanism for the Eurozone to "kick Greece out". There is no "governing council" of the Eurozone that gets to make those decisions.
Ultimately, only Greece can decide to go.
In theory, the other Eurozone members could precipitate Greece's exit by refusing to roll over EFSF debts (although most of that is very long maturity, so even that might not work). However, that would raise the borrowing costs dramatically for Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, so I can't see that being used as a tactic.
In practice, leaving the Eurozone requires a (brave) political decision by the Greek PM.
What joy if Greece had actually decided to follow the rules of the Eurozone and indeed had actually decided to collect some taxes.
Of course they can severe the relationship, they only have to say so. (the europeans at least, the greek government is in it for the brown envelopes stuffed with euros that they skim from Bailouts and EU development funds, so until the europeans stop giving money to Greece the crisis will go on)
What mechanism exists for Greece to leave the Eurozone, at the behest of the Eurozone?
The Germans cannot simply say "please go". There is no mechanism for the Eurozone to "kick Greece out". There is no "governing council" of the Eurozone that gets to make those decisions.
Ultimately, only Greece can decide to go.
In theory, the other Eurozone members could precipitate Greece's exit by refusing to roll over EFSF debts (although most of that is very long maturity, so even that might not work). However, that would raise the borrowing costs dramatically for Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, so I can't see that being used as a tactic.
In practice, leaving the Eurozone requires a (brave) political decision by the Greek PM.
The Greek government is in the eurozone only because it's members skim the Bailout money and the EU development funds, and in hard currency too, if that money stops flowing then the Greek government will have no personal monetary incentive to stay. It's all about bribes, of course another power can bribe the Greek government to leave the eurozone, but where can they find a bigger sucker than the EU and the IMF.
Isn't it from the line that's painted in front of each front bench in the HoC? (Mainly to stop people sticking their swords into people on the other side, although that's less of an issue these days)
Productivity is measured by calculating total amount of work produced by number of hours worked. Therefore, countries which have very high social charges (like France) tend to have "high productivity". That doesn't mean their workers are any more productive, it means that there are a large number of people at the bottom of the income spectrum who are priced out of the workforce. (Because, irrespective of what it costs to employ them as far as hourly wages, the social costs make it uneconomic.)
If the economic definition of productivity was the be-all and end-all, the Eurozone would be flying and we would be in the dog house, because Eurozone productivity is about 7% higher than in the UK. (See: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL)
Your second statement that by dragging the average down means less to spend is equally absurd. If what you said was true then we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average. Does that make sense?
"If the average declines you have less GDP per capita to spend on public services". If you stop someone working who produces less than average GDP, in what way does that improve services?
Your argument is all over the place.
On your first argument. Productivity is an established metric, whether defined per hour or per worker. Just because you doubt its relevance does not cease to make the concept exist or mean I can define it differently. I can say that GDP is not the be-all and end-all, but that does not mean that GDP does not exist or I can change the definition to suit my opinions. There has been a widespread debate about the UK's low productivity numbers. One of the reasons for that is because we have added lots of low skilled, low productivity workers that drag the numbers down.
On your second argument. You seem to entirely be neglecting the fact we are talking about immigrants here. When they come here, they contribute in generating extra economic value, but drain by using public services. If they use public services at the same rate as the existing population, yet generate less revenue than average to fund them, then the public services will go down on average. (These calculations need to be on a lifetime basis.) Your example "we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average" does not work because those people would still be in the country and require social spending. The immigrants, in the alternative scenario, would not be.
Wow. Just read what you wrote tomorrow when you're sober.
You made a flawed argument and now you are being rude to cover it up.
Let's imagine that Fox News decides that Paul and Huckabee don't make the next cut, who gets their voters?
Well the next debate is on CNBC a month from now, they won't have the pre-debate debate again, though they are still not sure if they will do the CNN thing with 11 candidates or if they limit it to 8, the latest I hear is that they may decide upon a 2% polling limit like in 2012.
If CNBC drops three candidates, they will surely have to exit the race. I really can't work out who the Republican nominee will be.
I'm focusing on the candidates way bellow as the next ones to drop out:
Bobby Jindal is polling 0% forever now, he won't get any debates again, but he still refuses to go. Santorum has been there before in 2012, so he wont drop out. Graham is running only to show his face in S.Carolina, so he won't drop out before then. I don't even know why Pataki is running, so I don't know if he's running simply to include it in his CV or not.
Paul might drop out if he's not included in a debate, because he has his Senate race to focus on. Huckabee and Kasich would probably stay even if they are excluded because they are waiting for either Cruz, Carson or Bush, Rubio, Fiorina to crash and burn to take their place.
Indeed, the most rightwing maybe, but interesting that Trump is also up, as well as Rubio and Carson, everyone else bar Christie down with Kasich unchanged. Night
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
Thanks. I had read otherwise.
Generally speaking, everything I have ever read about personal votes and individuals bucking trends has never stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
It is probably the biggest myth in UK politics.
I had an interesting chat earlier this week with a friend of mine. First time Congressman, so 9 months in post, after an extended election campaign and a $3m media buy *since* the election.
He reckons that his voter recognition *in his district* is less than 50%
A big perception problem for labour, even within its own voting block. It couldnt find a muslim it didnt love, and wouldnt turn a blind eye to, and there wasnt a welfare cheque it wouldnt write.
To neither of these perceptions is Corbyn the answer...
Though a lot of Europe has become liberal democracies because they want to join the EU. As for foreign policy, though Greeks are not to keen on the German attitude, they are overwhelmingly pro EU and pro Euro. British BOOers incorrectly project a lot of their own fears and loathing on the EU.
My Greek flatmate insists they're not overwhelmingly pro EU in the slightest. Do we have polling to suggest they're overwhelmingly pro-EU?
80% of voters voted for pro-EU parties last Sunday. Opinion polls were something like 2:1 in favour of staying in the Euro "whatever the cost".
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
90% of voters here just voted for pro-EU parties. That doesn't mean 90% of us are pro-EU, it means the parties are pro-EU.
Very good point, Lucky. Politicians of all stripes are always claiming mandates for all sorts of things on the basis that they won the vote. But hardly any of us are going to agree with everything that is in the party we voted for's manifesto.
If mandatory reselection goes through it will send signal even Tom Watson can't mitigate Corbynite excesses, and that will be a big deal...
I am sure that loyal, hard-working MPs will see this as nothing more than a rubber stamping exercise.
The idea from some of these Labour MPs that they have a divine right to remain an MP forevermore without any accountability to activists is baffling.
I didn't even vote for Corbyn, but I would want my MP to be deselected if he started routinely voting with the Tories on things like Syria, welfare, etc.
Is mandatory reselection back on the cards now? Thought it had been ruled out...
A u-turn? Andy Burnham's influence knows no bounds
Possibly, but all I can find is stuff saying it had been ruled out (can't find anything after the leadership election) Gladly be put right if somebody can post a link.
On Guido's blog (bear with me here), there is a quite saying he'll accept it if the membership vote for it.
Comments
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aviksaroy/2015/09/21/scott-walker-was-undone-by-overconfidence-and-inexperience/
I think they'll come in from 135.0 if they qualify, which I think is likely.
It's not the fact of being trading partners which prevents wars. It's the fact of being liberal democracies. But liberal democracies who cannot control their own borders, who are told by outsiders what economic policies to have contrary to the wishes of their electorate, who are told who they must allow into their country are very soon not going to be democracies or liberal either, frankly.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3ptu61d854/Final_Prediction_140918_Final_Website_Rebasing_W2.pdf
Please advise where I posted that I had never worked outside the Uk..
I only worked in the States,Europe and Africa so I bow to your superior knowledge ..
I know I am really dumb but all you do is confirm my previously stated views of some UKIP supporters. Note I never said "All" UKIP supporters were old farts..just "some"
Yet your knowledge of the big wide world is so superior to mine you can tell me where I did not work - and get it wrong.
And all you are doing is persuading me the organisation you support is occupied by at least one person who believes he has telepathic powers.. have news for you:~ they don't work.
@silvesterldn: @IsabelHardman Compare and contrast today with Ruth Davidson on what she thinks a Tory is... http://t.co/zcXYFJzzTV
@suttonnick: Thursday's Daily Mail front page:
UK drivers to sue VW for billions
#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/gx01M70dY7
Anyway I burst out laughing when he said to invest in Volkswagen the day they went down initially. The fallout from this is going to be huge, there will be fallout from all angles, they're going to be brought to the verge of bankruptcy or the German Gov't will be forced to step in.
But Labour under Corbyn is a different kettle of fish. This is not just someone who is not up to the job or who on economics is out with the fairies; it's someone who is actively repellent on a whole load of issues to traditional, decent Labour supporters. Perhaps you think it's OK or even desirable to have as leader an IRA supporting, terrorist-sympathising, anti-American serial rebel who, if anyone in the party had been paying attention, should have been chucked out of the party years ago. If so, fair enough, but don't kid yourself as to the electoral consequences, or (even more important) the consequences for the unity of the Labour party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/sports/yogi-berra-yogi-isms-quotes-explored.html?_r=0
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/23/uk-wage-growth-stifled-by-tepid-investment-and-low-skilled-migration
aggregate productivity numbers are largely meaningless, unless you think France has one of the most successful economies in the world
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/646783353698422792
Productivity is measured by calculating total amount of work produced by number of hours worked. Therefore, countries which have very high social charges (like France) tend to have "high productivity". That doesn't mean their workers are any more productive, it means that there are a large number of people at the bottom of the income spectrum who are priced out of the workforce. (Because, irrespective of what it costs to employ them as far as hourly wages, the social costs make it uneconomic.)
If the economic definition of productivity was the be-all and end-all, the Eurozone would be flying and we would be in the dog house, because Eurozone productivity is about 7% higher than in the UK. (See: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL)
Your second statement that by dragging the average down means less to spend is equally absurd. If what you said was true then we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average. Does that make sense?
"If the average declines you have less GDP per capita to spend on public services". If you stop someone working who produces less than average GDP, in what way does that improve services?
Bonkers, I think we'd all agree. (Greece should have left the Eurozone at the start of 2015 when they had the chance.) But that's the way they voted.
ln fact of course it was him using the refugees/migrants as a convenient mast to nail his tattered flag to. Yet he had the nerve the cheek the dishonesty to pretend that only he and his audience could care about this sad situation.
He got his cheer - he survived to get off the podium - but he is a liar and a cheat. He can sod off.
Before the referendum I had the knowledge that greek opinion pollsters fake the results of every question except voting intention for parties, after the referendum it turned out that I was right.
Now though greek pollsters are faking voting intention too, according to the leader of the Union of Centrists who said 3 weeks ago on TV that some of his men working in a pollster called Metron Analysis had said that SYRIZA was leading by 6% but the company management decided to alter the figures to say that's neck and neck in order to trick voters to make them vote for the 2 large parties.
So until there is an actual referendum on euro membership in Greece, I believe nothing of what their pollsters say.
New Fox News poll shows Carson recovering thanks to his anti-muslim comments, change from previous poll in brackets:
Trump 26 (+1)
Carson 18 (+6)
Rubio 9 (+5)
Fiorina 9 (+4)
Cruz 8 (-2)
Bush 7 (-2)
Christie 5 (+2)
Kasich 4 (0)
Huckabee 3 (-3)
Paul 2 (-1)
Others 0
Republican voters hate muslims, shock.
During the decade of the single currency's existence before the Eurozone crisis, it's worth remembering there was a Eurozone boom.
Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece all saw dramatic increases in GDP per head.
Why? Because most of them had inappropriately low interest rates that kicked off domestic building booms, alongside rapid rises in private sector debt. (Italy is the exception: household and corporate debt barely budged, and there was no property bubble.)
Anyway: during this period Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy used the "good times" to pay down government debt. Off the top of my head, Ireland went from 80% government debt-to-GDP to 30%, Spain saw debt-to-GDP decline to 40-odd percent, Italy went from 130% to 100%, and I don't remember the numbers for Portugal, but I'm sure they were much of a muchness.
Governments may have totally failed to deal with imbalances in the economy, and failed to realise the Eurozone was causing these problems, but at least governments ran prudent fiscal policies.
Greece was different. Despite the Eurozone boom, and the rapid rise in GDP per head, the government went on a spectacular spending spree. Government salaries (per person) more than doubled between 1999 and 2010. (In Ireland, by contrast, the rise was in the low 20s.)
Greece should never have entered the Eurozone, and there are many occasions when they should have left. But it's a little like any relationship. You have to blame both parties. And, like it or not, the Eurozone cannot "kick Greece out". And this is why you have such an unhappy relationship: one party doesn't like the rules, but doesn't want it to end. The other has no ability to sever the relationship.
On your first argument. Productivity is an established metric, whether defined per hour or per worker. Just because you doubt its relevance does not cease to make the concept exist or mean I can define it differently. I can say that GDP is not the be-all and end-all, but that does not mean that GDP does not exist or I can change the definition to suit my opinions. There has been a widespread debate about the UK's low productivity numbers. One of the reasons for that is because we have added lots of low skilled, low productivity workers that drag the numbers down.
On your second argument. You seem to entirely be neglecting the fact we are talking about immigrants here. When they come here, they contribute in generating extra economic value, but drain by using public services. If they use public services at the same rate as the existing population, yet generate less revenue than average to fund them, then the public services will go down on average. (These calculations need to be on a lifetime basis.) Your example "we could raise living standards by simply stopping people from working who have productivity less than the average" does not work because those people would still be in the country and require social spending. The immigrants, in the alternative scenario, would not be.
It's a very simple thing, the same effect happened in Britain too back in May.
Of course that game can be played as long as the public believe the pollsters, if their credibility is shot then it won't work.
The Germans cannot simply say "please go". There is no mechanism for the Eurozone to "kick Greece out". There is no "governing council" of the Eurozone that gets to make those decisions.
Ultimately, only Greece can decide to go.
In theory, the other Eurozone members could precipitate Greece's exit by refusing to roll over EFSF debts (although most of that is very long maturity, so even that might not work). However, that would raise the borrowing costs dramatically for Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, so I can't see that being used as a tactic.
In practice, leaving the Eurozone requires a (brave) political decision by the Greek PM.
Given that 60% of Greeks voted against the bailout, and the Energy Minister - alongside Tsipras - led the campaign, I though Popular Unity was a cert for 20% in the election. Especially as it was the third largest grouping in the Greek parliament before the election.
Go look at my posts: I said I expected it to be level pegging between SYRIZA, ND and Popular Unity.
There was a credible anti-EU party. It was the third largest grouping in the Greek parliament.
And it flopped utterly. Flopped to the level of getting fewer than half the votes of PASOK.
The Labour leader told the New Statesman his party opposed government plans to lower the overall household cap, introduced in the last Parliament.
And his spokesman confirmed he was "very much in favour" of getting rid of it altogether."
If this becomes official Labour policy it will be an absolute gift for the Conservatives.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34341360
But as I said, it only works if you actually believe the pollsters, after what happened in May it will be very difficult to replicate it in Britain in 2020, or in fact in Greece at their next election now that pollster credibility is shattered.
It's all about bribes, of course another power can bribe the Greek government to leave the eurozone, but where can they find a bigger sucker than the EU and the IMF.
Bobby Jindal is polling 0% forever now, he won't get any debates again, but he still refuses to go.
Santorum has been there before in 2012, so he wont drop out.
Graham is running only to show his face in S.Carolina, so he won't drop out before then.
I don't even know why Pataki is running, so I don't know if he's running simply to include it in his CV or not.
Paul might drop out if he's not included in a debate, because he has his Senate race to focus on.
Huckabee and Kasich would probably stay even if they are excluded because they are waiting for either Cruz, Carson or Bush, Rubio, Fiorina to crash and burn to take their place.
And with that, goodnight.
He reckons that his voter recognition *in his district* is less than 50%
To neither of these perceptions is Corbyn the answer...
Conservative Way Forward can be rather an unpleasant organisation. I was an informal member for six months, before quitting.
I met some quite nasty people in it.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-interview-leader-strikes-back