Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest PB/Polling Matters Podcast on Polling Matters –
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest PB/Polling Matters Podcast on Polling Matters – Tax Credits, Lords reform and George Osborne
Polling Matters returns. Keiran, Rob and James discuss the implications of the tax credits row for the House of Lords. What do the public think about welfare? What do they think about the House of Lords and has George Osborne damaged his chances of becoming Prime Minister this week?
0
Comments
Shame I can't make it
(As in I'm sorry I can't make it either, although no doubt it's also a shame that TSE can't be there).
Nick, you are right, the Weekly Standard is the NeoCon flagship publication (Bill Kristol).
I agree with the top four, although I am still firmly of a belief that neither Carson nor Trump is going to be the one and should be in the top four only because of their current polling. Rubio has to be the front runner after this performance, with Christie his first Establishment candidate reserve and Kasich as his far distant reserve reserve (there is a lot of time for disaster to strike more than one campaign still). Totally unconvinced Fiorina should be in the top group. Cruz clearly is the right wingers' candidate, so will be there until the end but will not win.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicans-2016-oct-28-debate/
Particularly worth reading for anyone thinking of lumping heavily on Rubio.
Pulpstar said:
» show previous quotes
http://tinyurl.com/SuperStable
Free entry for me, but you can pay a fiver for the chance at some ticketed goodies.
Pulpstar , Cheers I am on
Saphir Du Rheu, Sivinaico Conti , DodgingBullets
L'Ami Serge, Faugheen, Douvan
O'Faolains Boy, Top Notch, Mr Mole
Volnay de Thaix, Aux Ptits Soins, Many Clouds
Open Hearted, Lord Wishes , Southfield Royale
Was struggling in pot 5 I must say.
While the tax credits row is the focus of attention, the grinding wheels of Government will today get round to exacting their revenge for a previous defeat – namely on Conservative MPs who rebelled against the proposal to restrict the purdah period in the EU referendum.
ConservativeHome can reveal that today three of the rebels – Cheryl Gillan, Sir Edward Leigh and Chris Chope – will be sacked from their posts on the Council of Europe. Their roles as members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly are decided by the Prime Minister, so it appears to be a personal punishment for their disloyalty.
http://bit.ly/1jTV3rc
@MalcolmG Have to say I hadn't really heard of any of the stable 5 horses either.
I am sure they expected this however. They will be well aware how petty minded and vindictive Cameron can be.
http://bit.ly/1kVyYIV
"The sacking will no doubt further raise concern among anti-EU MPs and ministers that the Prime Minister intends to take a zero tolerance approach to those colleagues who differ from him on matters concerning the EU referendum question – concern which will do nothing to help cohesion on an already sensitive topic. All three are respected and well-connected – and Gillan is a Vice-Chairman of the 1922 Committee. If the move is somehow intended to enforce discipline, it therefore seems likely to prove counter-productive."
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/615426/Douglas-Carswell-Ukip-EU
After his untruth about Norway's payments to the EU, this is not a good day for his integrity.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/no-milk-and-honey-alternative-to-eu-membership-warns-david-cameron/
For the privilege of trading with the EU, Norway has to comply with EU regulations over which she has no say.
http://tinyurl.com/o5rrt3m
The truth is that the actual calculation is not as straightforward as the article you quoted. As with all these things, it depends exactly what you include (both in the UK and the Norwegian case), so there's no single answer. The generally-accepted view is that we'd save some money if we went for the EEA option, but not a decisive amount.
Oh and the VoteLeave is not uniting around a non-EEA position. That has been there stated position since they launched. I think they are wrong and it will cost them dear in the campaign but it is nothing new.
The differences between the two positions is marginal. And this really is the point... just what is all this fuss over?
The issues revolve around the closer fiscal and thus political union of the eurozone and how we relate to it.
"Exports to the EU now make up just 36 per cent of the UK’s overseas trade, barely more than we sell to the Commonwealth.
Analysis of Government statistics released in October shows the true size of the EU export market is far less than the 44 per cent official total.
That figure includes goods which go via ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, which are counted as exports to the EU despite them being merely in transit and immediately shipped off to other non-EU countries."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/545174/Myth-importance-EU-trade-blown-apart-not-vital-to-Britain-economy
If the Netherlands put a tariff on goods from the UK, then the fact they were only going via the Netherlands would still be relevant. On the other hands, fewer goods would go via that route - so for comparison purposes the truth is probably between the two.
Of the two, 'Brexit Minor' is reasonably well-defined: it might not be exactly the Norway position, but we'd be starting from that as the basis and negotiating UK-specific variants. However, anyone who votes to leave because they don't like EU workers being free to come here would be pretty dischuffed to discover nothing changed in that respect.
'Brexit Major' is obviously much harder to pin down. If, as seems to be the case, Vote Leave are concentrating on that option, then it will be interesting to see how they develop the case.
I have been to so many hospitals as a patient that I could practically do a Good Hospital Guide all by myself....
Have fun all! Don't fight over the EU too much. She isn't worth it...............
OK point taken then.
But surely the Netherlands does apply some policies to goods travelling via their ports even if they don't clear customs.
The CBI provide these numbers for Norway's and the UK's contributions for the EU:
Norway: €100 per capita
UK: €180 per capita
http://www.cbi.org.uk/global-future/case_study06_norway.html
It seems very clear that Cameron's claim was simply untrue.
All the intangible costs - of which of course there are many - are excluded from these numbers but if included they also weigh heavily against EU membership.
Trying to pretend this is a debatable point is idiotic given the figures are available in black and white.
Methinks they're not really undecided but want to appear open minded and superior (as well as being able to point back and have it both ways whatever the result)
Hope all goes well
Yes, I do argue with the BOOers, because they are vague and inconsistent, and can't stop flinging around idiotic accusations of dishonesty. If we had anyone here making silly claims about the dangers of leaving (such as 'three million jobs would be lost'), or making silly claims that Dan Hannan is dishonest, I'd argue against them.
Mr. Eagles, wasn't the lion called Cecil?
Like Dave!
I'm closed minded about it, so be it!
http://openeurope.org.uk/blog/what-would-a-norway-style-relationship-with-the-eu-entail/
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that that figure is correct and the CBI one isn't.
Cameron should know that what he says about Norway's influence is false. he has a whole department to help him with those basic facts and the truth is there for all to see in the available documents. Yet he still makes patently and obviously false statements because it supports his chosen desired outcome. That is dishonest.
I would probably say the same about Voteleave. They should also have all this information available but of course if they chose the EEA option it kills the argument on controlling migration and they see that (incorrectly I believe) as a crucial deciding factor. So they chose to reject that option and play up the false problems with it.
Actually Voteleave are being pretty opaque a lot a lot of their positions. If you read what they send out each day they keep emphasising that they will not be forced to adopt an 'off the shelf' position like the EEA but think the UK should negotiate its own arrangements after an Out vote. My reading of this is that they probably will lump for an EEA arrangement but can't bring themselves to admit it because of fear of alienating the Farangista element in the debate - those who have been suckered into the belief that only immigration is the key factor that will win or lose the referendum.
So that again is a dishonest position.
Couple the teaching the situation with the increasing proportion of fatherless households, and I do wonder how many kids lack any kind of male role model.
Edited extra bit: changed 'me' to 'men'...
The UK and Iceland are to discuss the creation of an undersea electricity pipeline between the two countries to supply power to British homes.
...
The interconnector would take between seven and ten years to be constructed and would involve some 1200km of undersea caballing.
https://www.politicshome.com/energy-and-environment/articles/story/uk-and-iceland-consider-setting-undersea-electricity-pipeline#sthash.auCs1Oml.dpuf
To be fair to both EU campaigns, it's hard for them to be both clear and truthful, since (a) we don't actually know what we're voting on yet and (b) both of them are coalitions of people who disagree with each other.
With regard to (a), I think Cameron has successfully lowered expectations of the renegotiation (to put it kindly), but presumably there will be something - solemn statements of this, promises not to do that, etc. Waverers will want to see what these are before deciding, and the campaigns can't embrace/deride them at this stage.
With regard to (b), the truthful answer from Leave is "We have different views: some of us want the EEA, some don't. If we withdraw, that will be the next question." But they can't say that, because it means "pig in a poke". But nor can they either endorse or reject the EEA, without a vote-losing loss of support when the implications sink in.
Conversely, the Remain people have to satisfy everyone from zealous europhiles (yes we still exist) to "sceptical but I suppose we need to stay" people like Cameron himself.
In both cases, it's MUCH easier just to attack the other side. Which is why the next two years are going to be a depressing for fans of positive politics.
"Norwegian politicians refer to their status as being a 'fax democracy'. " The intended implication seems to be that the Norwegian political establishment have this view.
The literal statement is true, but... the Norwegian politicians who led the last IN campaign came up with that term. It's as valid as saying "British politicians note that Scotland subsidises the rest of the Union," without pointing out that the British politicians in question were the leaders of the OUT side in the Scottish referendum. Both statements are highly contentious. So the statement is true, but the implication is not.
"Norway has to comply with EU regulations." The intended implication, and the one that some who've heard this then claim (erroneously) to be the case, is that Norway has to comply with ALL EU regulation. They don't. EEA members have to comply with Single-Market-relevant legislation. I spent quite a while looking for what proportion that is of the whole. It seems to be about 8% of EU legislation; Norway also voluntarily applies EU legislation that it isn't necessarily forced to do so, simply because it agrees with it (and the EU has done a chunk of administrative work in drafting it). Again, the statement is literally true, but the implication often drawn is not.
"Norway has no vote on the legislation it has to comply with." The intended implication seems to be that Norway has no say in the legislation.
It is true that Norway has no vote in the European Parliament. It is not true that they have no say in the legislation. There are a number of EEA joint institutions that are involved in advising and helping draft the legislation in question - they simply don't get to be involved in the final vote. The EEA Agreement is very interesting in this respect and there are details at http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-institutions
"The decision-making process in the EEA Agreement is characterised by its two-pillar structure. Substantive decisions relating to the EEA Agreement and its operation are a joint venture with the EU and in the hands of common bodies.
The EEA EFTA States have not transferred any legislative competencies to the EEA institutions and they are unable, constitutionally, to accept direct decisions by the Commission or the European Court of Justice. To cater for this situation, the EEA Agreement established EEA EFTA bodies to match those on the EU side. The EEA EFTA States take all decisions by concensus as opposed to the EU side where decisions related to EEA legislation are normally taken by majority vote."
These institutions include the EEA Council, the EEA Joint Committee, the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee and the EEA Consultative Committee.
Malapropism or not, that's brilliant news.
Apologies for not answering earlier re: FPT - Season 5 of Game of Thrones.
I consider it a noticeable step down in quality from the previous series. The episodes seemed to meander more than before, and both and and my wife were left dissatisfied by many episodes. An entire plot arc was pointless and silly (and universally criticised as such). Character development that had been achieved was reversed or ignored.
With that said, episode 8 was unexpectedly one of the best, if not the best episode of the entire story so far. Then it took a sharp turn for the negative in Episode 9.
I can't really recommend either way. It was still fairly enjoyable on the whole, if not up to previous standards. For me, the silliness of the said plot arc, other illogical plot developments, character development reversal and the negative impact of Episode 9 were a major detraction.
Leave/Remain at 40% each.
The German government's approval rating reaches -51%.
I may skip a year, so if season 6 gets well-received, and then buy 5 a year later than usual (for a lower cost, hopefully) or abandon the DVD-collecting altogether.
They are desperate to cover up the fact that via EEA membership you essentially get all most Britons want out of 'Europe' at a lower cost and also avoiding dreadful things like the CAP, CFP, and of course the EU's slow motion takeover of our judicial and legal system.
Essentially, an honest appraisal of the EEA versus the EU position shows what a dreadful deal we have got over the years and what a relatively good one these small and supposedly powerless countries have got.
As I said before, this is all about our senior politicians and FO wanting to appear like big cheeses, hob-nobbing with the other major European leaders and looking important. It has zip to do with Britain's interests. The EU is the 'big game in town' and they want to be seen to be in the game even it means losing money hand over fist.
The is, however, one very significant issue - free movement of labour remains a Single Market requirement. The statement that those who want to control migration from the EU would be disappointed is completely true.
The EU collects import duties on certain (but not all) types of product imported to Switzerland that pass through the EU by way of agreement. The Swiss then charge no import duty on the products that they would have been entitled to otherwise.
The amount collected is offset against Switzerland's EU fees. However, it often exceeds the amount the Swiss are supposed to pay to the EU. And nobody says anything because this way is a very politically acceptable way of Switzerland paying for access to the single market while allowing Swiss politicians to pretend that it's practically free.
Is that clear?
Mr. 1000, did you enjoy The Witcher 3?