"But if Britain voted for and exit and "politics in the EU turned for the worse, the UK MAY be seen as a safe haven from those risks, reversing the euro's appreciation and putting significant downward pressure" on the single curency, said Marvin Barth of Barclays.
"In that environment, Scottish voters COULD be even less inclined to leave the relative safety of the UK for an increasingly uncertain EU, further reversing sterling's appreciation." "
"But if Britain voted for and exit and "politics in the EU turned for the worse, the UK MAY be seen as a safe haven from those risks, reversing the euro's appreciation and putting significant downward pressure" on the single curency, said Marvin Barth of Barclays.
"In that environment, Scottish voters COULD be even less inclined to leave the relative safety of the UK for an increasingly uncertain EU, further reversing sterling's appreciation." "
Who knows what the current odds should be, but if it's looking like sanders vs trump or cruz by March I think he'll jump into the race. That looks like a ~9/1 scenario to me.
Against Sanders/Trump or Cruz, he'd be a ~4/1 shot.
4/1 x 9/1= 50/1
As you say, estimating fair odds is a stab in the dark, but the way I'd look at it is that, whatever the probability, you've already got that chunk of the probability distribution very nicely covered thank you. Conversely, there's a more likely scenario of a Trump win, which you haven't got covered, but which you can cover at no cost except taking a bit out of your hypothetical and unlikely Bloomberg gold-mine.
I appreciate that, in general, you shouldn't back any outcome for which the odds are shorter than your assessment of the probability implies, but in political betting it seems to me that two particular considerations apply. The first is that assessment of the probabilities is highly subjective, and the second is that (unlike the horses or tennis etc) there aren't many liquid markets - we only get a US prez gig every four years. So 'value losers' have a big opportunity cost in political betting, which they don't have in sports betting, where on average your value bets (if they really are value) will win over the course of a few weeks or months.
''But it is what it is. I cant really imagine LEAVE can win though.. The EU may well be letting in migrant rapists from a medieval society, but spin always seems to win over truth''
Seen the Mail's picture of the ''15-year old'' accused of stabbing that Swedish girl???
Jim AcostaVerified account @Acosta 22m22 minutes ago Scoop: Huckabee will be attending the Trump vets event tonight, a Huckabee spokesman tells me.
I told you so (my sources seem reliable so far today). Trump is peeling the smaller candidates into his side.
Interesting, a Trump-Huckabee ticket is with a punt, Huckabee is a southerner and social conservative which would bring balance to his ticket and he is also one of the few GOP contenders Trump has not yet insulted
Jim Acosta @Acosta 7m7 minutes ago Last 2 caucus winners... Santorum and Huckabee to appear with Trump tonight after they appear in first of 2 GOP debates tonight. #mindblown
Santorum too, just as I said.
Now just the Sessions endorsement to come and I'll get 3 out of 3 today. As I humbly mentioned in the past my predictions are close if not at 100% accuracy when it comes to US politics.
Some people would have saved a lot of money if they just listened to me.
Why is it incumbent upon UKIP to make one indisputable case for what Britain will be like outside the UK? .
Unsarcastically, it's so I can do a spreadsheet.
Perhaps surprisingly, I am eminently persuadable to Brexit. If a believable alternate case was presented where the dislocation costs were significantly outweighed[1] by increased growth then I could put those figures into a spreadsheet and work out which could make me richer. I note that Richard Tyndall of this parish is working on such a thing, for which I commend him: I don't think it'll work, but it's the approach I'd adopt.
There have been attempts to create a real alternative: unlike Bootle's[2] stupidity I genuinely enjoyed Mansfield's IEA Brexit winner and Conrad Black's proposed membership of NAFTA was one I would have voted for, were it offered to me. But nobody has really put this together in a package, and now that the debate has become one long anti-migration scream, the economics have become irrelevant: all LEAVE has to do is say "LOOK! FOREIGNERS!" repeatedly and will win. A great pity, IMHO.
[1] Say, the net present value over ten years, or even fifteen [2] Iain Mansfield is a former civil servant and a decent chap. Roger Bootle is an economist and a rude word
-1 Trump -1 Kasich +300 Bush, Rubio +600 Cruz +900 Christie +38,000 Paul Ryan + 6000 everyone else
Iowa GOP;
-45 Trump, Cruz +1000 everyone else (come on Rubio!)
Great build up on the outsiders. Presumably you're hoping for Paul Ryan to be GOP candidate, Sanders to be Dem candidte, and therefore Bloomberg to come through the middle...
"But if Britain voted for and exit and "politics in the EU turned for the worse, the UK MAY be seen as a safe haven from those risks, reversing the euro's appreciation and putting significant downward pressure" on the single curency, said Marvin Barth of Barclays.
"In that environment, Scottish voters COULD be even less inclined to leave the relative safety of the UK for an increasingly uncertain EU, further reversing sterling's appreciation." "
Jim AcostaVerified account @Acosta 22m22 minutes ago Scoop: Huckabee will be attending the Trump vets event tonight, a Huckabee spokesman tells me.
I told you so (my sources seem reliable so far today). Trump is peeling the smaller candidates into his side.
Interesting, a Trump-Huckabee ticket is with a punt, Huckabee is a southerner and social conservative which would bring balance to his ticket and he is also one of the few GOP contenders Trump has not yet insulted
I can't seem to find any odds although I agree at say 30-50/1 it would be worth a punt.
'Without going over all Kipperish, it is in fact historically true that the founding of the original European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the EU) was based on ideas which had been originally proposed under the Nazis. Some of the French and German industrialists and bureaucrats who had been involved in the wartime planning ended up heavily involved in the post-war organisation.'
And you can also find Europhiles in the UK and especially in Germany/France/Italy today using reasoning for the EU which is not that distinct from that which the Nazis used.
They wanted Europe united to fight 'Bolshevism' and the US. Now we get told we need a 'United Europe' to fight China and er...the US. The threat from the outside...always a favourite device of the the authoritarians...
I've just come back from the Moonbase where the Space Nazis live. They said "Congratulations, yes the EU are Space Nazis in disguise, curse you, if it wasn't for you meddling kids we'd've gotten away with it.". Well done for spotting it, well done.
Shirley Williams retiring from House of Lords today. Regular attendee - has been present for good proportion of votes.
Revised State of the Parties will be:
Con 250, Lab 213, LD 110 (Crossbench 178)
Ah Shirley. "Politics is for People". A bit simplistic, positively naïve in places but a gentle read. It had a quote from Kennedy in it that I used in my Jurisprudence exam. The tutor approached me in the library and implied I might have made it up since it was so on point. Produced the book, showed him the quote and got a distinction!
Thanks Shirley. Never the world's sharpest but meant well, really well. Really cared about those with less.
Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".
Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.
There were plenty of ads for tax credits. Get over yourself.
Tax credits - you need to advertise to make sure people claim them Living Wage - you need to advertise it to make sure people know they should be being paid that and not less....
Who knows what the current odds should be, but if it's looking like sanders vs trump or cruz by March I think he'll jump into the race. That looks like a ~9/1 scenario to me.
Against Sanders/Trump or Cruz, he'd be a ~4/1 shot.
4/1 x 9/1= 50/1
As you say, estimating fair odds is a stab in the dark, but the way I'd look at it is that, whatever the probability, you've already got that chunk of the probability distribution very nicely covered thank you. Conversely, there's a more likely scenario of a Trump win, which you haven't got covered, but which you can cover at no cost except taking a bit out of your hypothetical and unlikely Bloomberg gold-mine.
I appreciate that, in general, you shouldn't back any outcome for which the odds are shorter than your assessment of the probability implies, but in political betting it seems to me that two particular considerations apply. The first is that assessment of the probabilities is highly subjective, and the second is that (unlike the horses or tennis etc) there aren't many liquid markets - we only get a US prez gig every four years. So 'value losers' have a big opportunity cost in political betting, which they don't have in sports betting, where on average your value bets (if they really are value) will win over the course of a few weeks or months.
I really want to reply to this post, but I also really want to go and see my best friend who has just given birth to twins.
'Without going over all Kipperish, it is in fact historically true that the founding of the original European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the EU) was based on ideas which had been originally proposed under the Nazis. Some of the French and German industrialists and bureaucrats who had been involved in the wartime planning ended up heavily involved in the post-war organisation.'
And you can also find Europhiles in the UK and especially in Germany/France/Italy today using reasoning for the EU which is not that distinct from that which the Nazis used.
They wanted Europe united to fight 'Bolshevism' and the US. Now we get told we need a 'United Europe' to fight China and er...the US. The threat from the outside...always a favourite device of the the authoritarians...
I've just come back from the Moonbase where the Space Nazis live. They said "Congratulations, yes the EU are Space Nazis in disguise, curse you, if it wasn't for you meddling kids we'd've gotten away with it.". Well done for spotting it, well done.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Who knows what the current odds should be, but if it's looking like sanders vs trump or cruz by March I think he'll jump into the race. That looks like a ~9/1 scenario to me.
Against Sanders/Trump or Cruz, he'd be a ~4/1 shot.
4/1 x 9/1= 50/1
As you say, estimating fair odds is a stab in the dark, but the way I'd look at it is that, whatever the probability, you've already got that chunk of the probability distribution very nicely covered thank you. Conversely, there's a more likely scenario of a Trump win, which you haven't got covered, but which you can cover at no cost except taking a bit out of your hypothetical and unlikely Bloomberg gold-mine.
I appreciate that, in general, you shouldn't back any outcome for which the odds are shorter than your assessment of the probability implies, but in political betting it seems to me that two particular considerations apply. The first is that assessment of the probabilities is highly subjective, and the second is that (unlike the horses or tennis etc) there aren't many liquid markets - we only get a US prez gig every four years. So 'value losers' have a big opportunity cost in political betting, which they don't have in sports betting, where on average your value bets (if they really are value) will win over the course of a few weeks or months.
I really want to reply to this post, but I also really want to go and see my best friend who has just given birth to twins.
Sorry Richard, I'll reply on tomorrows thread!
Will look forward to the continuation of this. I'm very struck by the point about liquid markets.
In a string of clips from old interviews – some of them not even that old – Trump comes out in favour of universal healthcare and higher taxes. He says, “I am pro-choice in every respect,” and: “I hate the concept of guns.” He heaps praise on Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama (“Somebody who knows what he’s doing”), and more or less identifies himself as a Democrat.
I find the ad mesmerising, for all the wrong reasons. In it Trump is transformed into a weirdly plausible figure. Imagine all that bombast, tough talk and misplaced certainty expended in the service of causes including universal healthcare, immigrants’ rights and gun control. If you close your eyes, he sounds a bit like Bernie Sanders.
Whenever Trump’s supporters claim their candidate tells it like it is, they actually mean he tells them what they want to hear. But I was not prepared for how it would feel if he told me what I wanted to hear. Re-imagined as a liberal, Trump suddenly acquires a certain reptilian charm.
Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".
Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.
There were plenty of ads for tax credits. Get over yourself.
Tax credits - you need to advertise to make sure people claim them Living Wage - you need to advertise it to make sure people know they should be being paid that and not less....
OK, and if this ad had ended with "so make sure your employer pays you £7.20 once it comes into force", then that would be different. But it didn't:
It's a technicality to some extent, but usually these government ads atleast try to look like there's a public-information angle, rather than being as brazenly political as this.
Mariana Mazzucato was on C4 News commenting on how bad the economic data for the UK was! She is one of the advisors to Corbyn. She is famous for a book that believes all innovation is built on state investment.
The health scare industry, worried that it might go out of business, is in full shout mode today. ''Three to four million people could be infected with Zika virus in the Americas this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) predicts.''
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
Anecdote alert:
Every one of my Tory friends (admittedly I don't have very many) is either voting Leave or considering it.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
Mariana Mazzucato was on C4 News commenting on how bad the economic data for the UK was! She is one of the advisors to Corbyn. She is famous for a book that believes all innovation is built on state investment.
So why did Communism fail?
Your argument is the equivalent of saying "if eating is good for you, why is it bad to have 8 meals a day?"
No I think Socrates said Cameron would try to influence the referendum by using various political tools at his disposal, he didn't say Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum.
I am not really that interested, I think your continual reference to the "amazing" bet you offered is just pompous and disingenuous point scoring, but whats new?
If you're not interested, why do you keep bringing it up? I don't take kindly to being accused of lying; I only ever mention the bet offer because you keep saying it didn't exist.
As for Socrates, no, he started off by saying Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum. When I pinned him down, he backed off and went down some ridiculous side-alley about a referendum where changes to treaties were agreed in advance.
Of course the reason for all this was that I made the incontrovertible point that, if they wanted a referendum (which they kept saying they did, at once), they should vote Conservative, unless Labour made a similar pledge.
I was right, of course. The Kippers wasted two years before the election messing about trying to get a handful of MPs, rather than building the Brexit case. We are seeing the consequences now; they might be rescued by the migration crisis, but I doubt it.
Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.
And of course you were yourself opposed to Conservative supporters voting UKIP to defeat Labour MPs. The possibility of a Miliband government seemingly being much less of a threat than a few anti-establishment MPs being elected.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
I know a committed Europhile who will now be voting to leave the EU as he is deeply concerned about the migrant crisis and the EU's ability to deal with crises.
So are various PBers still angry about possible pension changes ?
Then have fun reading how the public sector fatcats operate:
' A highly-paid fire chief has been allowed retire for a month and access his £300,000 pension - before being re-hired for his own job.
West Yorkshire Fire Service said Simon Pilling officially retired from his £164,000 a year role at the end of last month - but will be returning to the post of chief fire officer and chief executive on February 1. '
It seems the employer (ie council taxpayer) pension contribution was £33,000 last year. That seems to be a 20% contribution.
Does anyone here receive a 20% pension contribution from their employer or rather from the local council taxpayers ?
But do remember that George Osborne promised a crackdown on public sector fatcats. Well at least he did back in 2009 - anyone seen any sight of it in reality ?
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
No I think Socrates said Cameron would try to influence the referendum by using various political tools at his disposal, he didn't say Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum.
I am not really that interested, I think your continual reference to the "amazing" bet you offered is just pompous and disingenuous point scoring, but whats new?
If you're not interested, why do you keep bringing it up? I don't take kindly to being accused of lying; I only ever mention the bet offer because you keep saying it didn't exist.
As for Socrates, no, he started off by saying Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum. When I pinned him down, he backed off and went down some ridiculous side-alley about a referendum where changes to treaties were agreed in advance.
Of course the reason for all this was that I made the incontrovertible point that, if they wanted a referendum (which they kept saying they did, at once), they should vote Conservative, unless Labour made a similar pledge.
I was right, of course. The Kippers wasted two years before the election messing about trying to get a handful of MPs, rather than building the Brexit case. We are seeing the consequences now; they might be rescued by the migration crisis, but I doubt it.
Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.
And of course you were yourself opposed to Conservative supporters voting UKIP to defeat Labour MPs. The possibility of a Miliband government seemingly being much less of a threat than a few anti-establishment MPs being elected.
Personally, I welcome the option of voting for someone other than Conservatives or Labour. In this country, you get nowhere unless you go down the electoral route.
And, the sight of "eurosceptic" Conservatives boldly turning tail, and proclaiming their devotion to the EU, just demonstrates why a party like UKIP is needed.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
I know a committed Europhile who will now be voting to leave the EU as he is deeply concerned about the migrant crisis and the EU's ability to deal with crises.
My inkling is that this is why suddenly the referendum is June. Left any longer and everyone is scared that events will result in a Leave vote..
Mariana Mazzucato was on C4 News commenting on how bad the economic data for the UK was! She is one of the advisors to Corbyn. She is famous for a book that believes all innovation is built on state investment.
So why did Communism fail?
Your argument is the equivalent of saying "if eating is good for you, why is it bad to have 8 meals a day?"
There were once more than 40 communist states all of whom abandoned communism apart from North Korea.
So are various PBers still angry about possible pension changes ?
Then have fun reading how the public sector fatcats operate:
' A highly-paid fire chief has been allowed retire for a month and access his £300,000 pension - before being re-hired for his own job.
West Yorkshire Fire Service said Simon Pilling officially retired from his £164,000 a year role at the end of last month - but will be returning to the post of chief fire officer and chief executive on February 1. '
It seems the employer (ie council taxpayer) pension contribution was £33,000 last year. That seems to be a 20% contribution.
Does anyone here receive a 20% pension contribution from their employer or rather from the local council taxpayers ?
But do remember that George Osborne promised a crackdown on public sector fatcats. Well at least he did back in 2009 - anyone seen any sight of it in reality ?
We should just thank our lucky stars that he did not retire on a "package" as most senior management in local government and such like services do. Paying people who want to retire anyway to retire a few months early at the cost of 1-2 years salary really should be made illegal and any finance officer who signs off on such a deal should go to jail.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
"How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?"
What since he was re-elected with an overall majority in May 2015? None.
Seriously if you think this is going to help leave (for whom I will almost certainly vote) you need to step up the medication.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
"How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?"
What since he was re-elected with an overall majority in May 2015? None.
Seriously if you think this is going to help leave (for whom I will almost certainly vote) you need to step up the medication.
To be honest, I'm beginning to think that leave don't need a campaign. Events are taking care of if all for them. Which is lucky, because no-one seems capable of organising anything approaching coherence.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
"How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?"
What since he was re-elected with an overall majority in May 2015? None.
Seriously if you think this is going to help leave (for whom I will almost certainly vote) you need to step up the medication.
To be honest, I'm beginning to think that leave don't need a campaign. Events are taking care of if all for them. Which is lucky, because no-one seems capable of organising anything approaching coherence.
Even June might be too late.
You are assuming people are actually paying attention. I am not sure what the basis for that assumption is.
So are various PBers still angry about possible pension changes ?
Then have fun reading how the public sector fatcats operate:
' A highly-paid fire chief has been allowed retire for a month and access his £300,000 pension - before being re-hired for his own job.
West Yorkshire Fire Service said Simon Pilling officially retired from his £164,000 a year role at the end of last month - but will be returning to the post of chief fire officer and chief executive on February 1. '
It seems the employer (ie council taxpayer) pension contribution was £33,000 last year. That seems to be a 20% contribution.
Does anyone here receive a 20% pension contribution from their employer or rather from the local council taxpayers ?
But do remember that George Osborne promised a crackdown on public sector fatcats. Well at least he did back in 2009 - anyone seen any sight of it in reality ?
We should just thank our lucky stars that he did not retire on a "package" as most senior management in local government and such like services do. Paying people who want to retire anyway to retire a few months early at the cost of 1-2 years salary really should be made illegal and any finance officer who signs off on such a deal should go to jail.
That trick more usually happens in local government where the 'redundant' executive is then rehired as a 'consultant' or is given a job at another council.
There's no chance of anything being done about it because the people with the power to do so have a vested interest in the activity being available for themselves to use it.
All we get is Conservative politicians frothing about public sector fatcats whilst in opposition and Labour politicians frothing about private sector fatcats whilst in opposition.
But both tolerating anything whilst in government.
Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.
Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.
Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.
''And, the sight of "eurosceptic" Conservatives boldly turning tail, and proclaiming their devotion to the EU, just demonstrates why a party like UKIP is needed.''
Considering how events are hurtling in their direction, UKIP are making an extremely poor fist of things, Mr SeanF.
Its a great conundrum to me that support for voting OUT is very high in the polls, but support for the main party advocating OUT is cr8p.
''And, the sight of "eurosceptic" Conservatives boldly turning tail, and proclaiming their devotion to the EU, just demonstrates why a party like UKIP is needed.''
Considering how events are hurtling in their direction, UKIP are making an extremely poor fist of things, Mr SeanF.
Its a great conundrum to me that support for voting OUT is very high in the polls, but support for the main party advocating OUT is cr8p.
Go figure.
Toxic Farage, polling as badly as Corbyn is your answer.
Add in the wheels came off his assassination story, his whining and failure to go to the police over 'fraud' in the Oldham West and Royton by election, makes him look like a sore loser
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.
The trick is to get the number of voters you are bribing more than the number of voters you are taxing and more than the number of voters your opponents are trying to bribe.
Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.
As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).
And, the sight of "eurosceptic" Conservatives boldly turning tail, and proclaiming their devotion to the EU, just demonstrates why a party like UKIP is needed.
Alternatively, you could say that if even committed Eurosceptics are now unconvinced that we should leave, then it lays bare how badly the Leave side have done in putting together a plausible alternative.
So are various PBers still angry about possible pension changes ?
Then have fun reading how the public sector fatcats operate:
' A highly-paid fire chief has been allowed retire for a month and access his £300,000 pension - before being re-hired for his own job.
West Yorkshire Fire Service said Simon Pilling officially retired from his £164,000 a year role at the end of last month - but will be returning to the post of chief fire officer and chief executive on February 1. '
It seems the employer (ie council taxpayer) pension contribution was £33,000 last year. That seems to be a 20% contribution.
Does anyone here receive a 20% pension contribution from their employer or rather from the local council taxpayers ?
But do remember that George Osborne promised a crackdown on public sector fatcats. Well at least he did back in 2009 - anyone seen any sight of it in reality ?
We should just thank our lucky stars that he did not retire on a "package" as most senior management in local government and such like services do. Paying people who want to retire anyway to retire a few months early at the cost of 1-2 years salary really should be made illegal and any finance officer who signs off on such a deal should go to jail.
That trick more usually happens in local government where the 'redundant' executive is then rehired as a 'consultant' or is given a job at another council.
There's no chance of anything being done about it because the people with the power to do so have a vested interest in the activity being available for themselves to use it.
All we get is Conservative politicians frothing about public sector fatcats whilst in opposition and Labour politicians frothing about private sector fatcats whilst in opposition.
But both tolerating anything whilst in government.
This is depressingly common. Private Eye's rotten boroughs frequently writes about these.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
"How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?"
What since he was re-elected with an overall majority in May 2015? None.
Seriously if you think this is going to help leave (for whom I will almost certainly vote) you need to step up the medication.
To be honest, I'm beginning to think that leave don't need a campaign. Events are taking care of if all for them. Which is lucky, because no-one seems capable of organising anything approaching coherence.
Even June might be too late.
Both sides seem to be doing their level best to push the undecided into each other's arms, from the dismal efforts seen so far. Hope the campaigning and messaging improves on both sides, if as the polls suggest there's a fair chunk of undecided voters on the substantive issue.
That trick more usually happens in local government where the 'redundant' executive is then rehired as a 'consultant' or is given a job at another council.
There's no chance of anything being done about it because the people with the power to do so have a vested interest in the activity being available for themselves to use it.
Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.
Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.
Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.
I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.
There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.
Partly, Mr TSE, but I think there's more to it than that. Given the popularity of OUT, UKIP should be polling much better, even with a toxic leader. Or OUT should be further behind.
I still don;t think voters will let this golden opportunity to shake up the establishment go quietly. The more worthies who join IN, the more it looks like a cosy fix and the more OUT has a good chance.
I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.
There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.
It's not a failure of imagination, it's a recognition of reality. If we had a PR system, it would be different. But we don't.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
"How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?"
What since he was re-elected with an overall majority in May 2015? None.
Seriously if you think this is going to help leave (for whom I will almost certainly vote) you need to step up the medication.
I'm not talking about the EU I'm talking about government competency of which you think so highly of.
I do hope you're not trying to claim May 2015 as the year zero of this government's borrowing.
You really need the strongest medication if you think people aren't going to be adding up Osborne's borrowing predictions from his first Budget and comparing them to the actual outcome - April 21 is when the final data is published.
Partly, Mr TSE, but I think there's more to it than that. Given the popularity of OUT, UKIP should be polling much better, even with a toxic leader. Or OUT should be further behind.
I still don;t think voters will let this golden opportunity to shake up the establishment go quietly. The more worthies who join IN, the more it looks like a cosy fix and the more OUT has a good chance.
I'd point out that long before UKIP became a thing, there was polling that showed voters wanting to leave the EU.
Off topic, but 30 years ago today was one of those moments in history where almost everyone recalls where they were: https://youtu.be/eDt2LxoeA_g
Distinctly remember the guy calling out the numbers from the computer in front of him, oblivious to what was unfolding on the other screen, before eventually coming up with the engineer's vast understatement "Obviously a major malfunction"
And, the sight of "eurosceptic" Conservatives boldly turning tail, and proclaiming their devotion to the EU, just demonstrates why a party like UKIP is needed.
Alternatively, you could say that if even committed Eurosceptics are now unconvinced that we should leave, then it lays bare how badly the Leave side have done in putting together a plausible alternative.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
Havn't Richard North and Robert Oulds been proposing EEA and EFTA for years now? That is a plausible alternative. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is up to you. But to prattle on about there not being a plausible alternative is plainly wrong.
You really need the strongest medication if you think people aren't going to be adding up Osborne's borrowing predictions from his first Budget and comparing them to the actual outcome - April 21 is when the final data is published.
So what? Predictions are predictions (they weren't Osborne's anyway). Events - largely external - have blown them off course to some extent. Only the terminally naive, or nakedly partisan, ignores the influence of external events when considering how well the economy has been managed.
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
"How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?"
What since he was re-elected with an overall majority in May 2015? None.
Seriously if you think this is going to help leave (for whom I will almost certainly vote) you need to step up the medication.
I'm not talking about the EU I'm talking about government competency of which you think so highly of.
I do hope you're not trying to claim May 2015 as the year zero of this government's borrowing.
You really need the strongest medication if you think people aren't going to be adding up Osborne's borrowing predictions from his first Budget and comparing them to the actual outcome - April 21 is when the final data is published.
Havn't Richard North and Robert Oulds been proposing EEA and EFTA for years now? That is a plausible alternative. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is up to you. But to prattle on about there not being a plausible alternative is plainly wrong.
It's an entirely plausible alternative. If that's what proposed, then, great, at least we know what we're talking about. And what we're talking about in that case is certainly not migration.
Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.
Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.
Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.
How does UKIP gaining seats from Labour help put Labour into government ?
I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.
There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.
It's not a failure of imagination, it's a recognition of reality. If we had a PR system, it would be different. But we don't.
If I live in a safe Labour or Conservative seat (most are) what's the downside to voting UKIP?
You really need the strongest medication if you think people aren't going to be adding up Osborne's borrowing predictions from his first Budget and comparing them to the actual outcome - April 21 is when the final data is published.
So what? Predictions are predictions (they weren't Osborne's anyway). Events - largely external - have blown them off course to some extent. Only the terminally naive, or nakedly partisan, ignores the influence of external events when considering how well the economy has been managed.
ROFL
Osborne spent 2011 telling us all about the Eurozone crisis and then did promptly nothing to shield the UK economy from its effects. 2016 will be the same.
If he's so quick to blame the outside world for the tough times then he can't claim the credit for positive external shocks and the good times.
Only the naive, partisan and total dickheads would believe him.
Partly, Mr TSE, but I think there's more to it than that. Given the popularity of OUT, UKIP should be polling much better, even with a toxic leader. Or OUT should be further behind.
I still don;t think voters will let this golden opportunity to shake up the establishment go quietly. The more worthies who join IN, the more it looks like a cosy fix and the more OUT has a good chance.
UKIP are polling just fine, but not translation it into support in local by-elections.
That trick more usually happens in local government where the 'redundant' executive is then rehired as a 'consultant' or is given a job at another council.
There's no chance of anything being done about it because the people with the power to do so have a vested interest in the activity being available for themselves to use it.
If I live in a safe Labour or Conservative seat (most are) what's the downside to voting UKIP?
Very little, and if all Kippers were as sensible as you there wouldn't have been a problem. (I suppose you could argue that most were, which is largely true, but that was despite UKIP's strategy, not because of it).
Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.
You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
"How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?"
What since he was re-elected with an overall majority in May 2015? None.
Seriously if you think this is going to help leave (for whom I will almost certainly vote) you need to step up the medication.
I'm not talking about the EU I'm talking about government competency of which you think so highly of.
I do hope you're not trying to claim May 2015 as the year zero of this government's borrowing.
You really need the strongest medication if you think people aren't going to be adding up Osborne's borrowing predictions from his first Budget and comparing them to the actual outcome - April 21 is when the final data is published.
Well I hope you and the other guy (and it will be a guy of that there is no doubt) who do the arithmetic are happy together.
Interesting contrast to the eagerness this government has had to bomb one side or another in Syria.
The consultation is necessary to enact the legislation, and in any case you obviously missed this bit:
Following a number of high profile cases where individuals have received large exit payments and then quickly returned to public sector roles, the last government [ie the coalition] passed legislation to prevent that highly paid individuals who return to the public sector within 12 months of exit from retaining their full exit payment. This measure will take effect in 2016 and will ensure that the taxpayer is not unduly compensating an individual for loss of employment only for them to return to the public sector after a short period of time.
By all means criticise the government, but criticising them, in intemperate terms, for not doing something which they actually are doing is just silly, isn't it?
Is it possible for Hillary to pick Bill as her running mate for Veep?
Yup, Shadsy is offering 50/1
Can't see it happening though
Arguably Bill Clinton is ineligible to be vice-president under the Twelfth Amendment.
I read a piece back in 2008 talking about this scenario, it said, Bill Clinton could be Vice President, he could do most of the functions of the job, such as being President of the Senate, but if something happened to Hillary Clinton, she would be succeeded by the second in line succession, the Speaker of the House
I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.
There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.
It's not a failure of imagination, it's a recognition of reality. If we had a PR system, it would be different. But we don't.
If I live in a safe Labour or Conservative seat (most are) what's the downside to voting UKIP?
We wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for UKIP.
You really need the strongest medication if you think people aren't going to be adding up Osborne's borrowing predictions from his first Budget and comparing them to the actual outcome - April 21 is when the final data is published.
So what? Predictions are predictions (they weren't Osborne's anyway). Events - largely external - have blown them off course to some extent. Only the terminally naive, or nakedly partisan, ignores the influence of external events when considering how well the economy has been managed.
I always know when someone is near an inconvenient truth because you start blustering.
If borrowing had been lower than Osborne predicted you would be hailing him a genius.
But because the facts are inconvenient you want them to be ignored.
Unfortunately we can't ignore all the extra taxes we'll be paying for the rest of our lives to pay back the extra hundreds of billions that Osborne has borrowed / is borrowing.
And I always thought that Conservatives believed in taking responsibility - instead we get this pathetic whining about it always being someone else's fault.
It started in America It started in Europe It started in China
' Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. '
"WHO says Zika virus spreads explosively, 4 million cases forecast" "The Zika virus, linked to severe birth defects in thousands of babies in Brazil, is "spreading explosively" and could infect as many as 4 million people in the Americas, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Thursday.
Director-General Margaret Chan told members of the U.N. health agency's executive board the spread of the mosquito-borne disease had gone from a mild threat to one of alarming proportions. The WHO would convene an emergency meeting on Monday to help determine its response, she said.
"The level of alarm is extremely high," Chan told the Geneva gathering. "
It's like Dengue fever, 80% unsymptomatic, it's spread by mosquitoes, it causes birth defects, and there is no cure.
Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.
Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.
To indulge you with an explanation to which you're not in the least entitled, their aim is UK independence. Which factor one attaches most importance to - unravelling a set of written agreements, or unseating a supine political establishment, is a matter for the individual. Personally I tend toward the latter - though naturally if we did leave the EU it would be a great step forward. People and their intentions are always the most important factor. There are plenty more crap foreign entanglements out there for us to leap into for a 50 year stay.
I always know when someone is near an inconvenient truth because you start blustering.
If borrowing had been lower than Osborne predicted you would be hailing him a genius.
I certainly would, if at the same time unemployment had fallen and growth was higher than most of our competitors. If, on the other hand, he had achieved lower borrowing at the cost of huge unemployment and a slump when other countries weren't doing too badly, then, no, I wouldn't have hailed him as a genius, I'd have said he got it wrong.
Interesting contrast to the eagerness this government has had to bomb one side or another in Syria.
The consultation is necessary to enact the legislation, and in any case you obviously missed this bit:
Following a number of high profile cases where individuals have received large exit payments and then quickly returned to public sector roles, the last government [ie the coalition] passed legislation to prevent that highly paid individuals who return to the public sector within 12 months of exit from retaining their full exit payment. This measure will take effect in 2016 and will ensure that the taxpayer is not unduly compensating an individual for loss of employment only for them to return to the public sector after a short period of time.
By all means criticise the government, but criticising them, in intemperate terms, for not doing something which they actually are doing is just silly, isn't it?
This government has been in office since May 2010, it hasn't been high on their priority list.
Still if they do do something now they will have my support - just as they have had my support for other things I agree with.
Alas I fear that this initiative will turn out to be the usual Whitehall washout.
Is it possible for Hillary to pick Bill as her running mate for Veep?
Surely the VP pick must be eligible to be President - which Bill isn't?
He's ineligible to be elected president. If he succeeded following death or resignation, he wouldn't have been elected...
Mmm. You're right that the text of 22nd amendment only mentions being elected president rather than serving as president, and the wiki article on the twelfth amendment suggests there are arguments on both sides but it's never been tested as no two-term President has ever sought the Veep job.
Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.
Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.
Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.
I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.
There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.
I sincerely hope that, in the not-so-distant future, Osborne's political career is terminated with extreme prejudice.
Comments
I appreciate that, in general, you shouldn't back any outcome for which the odds are shorter than your assessment of the probability implies, but in political betting it seems to me that two particular considerations apply. The first is that assessment of the probabilities is highly subjective, and the second is that (unlike the horses or tennis etc) there aren't many liquid markets - we only get a US prez gig every four years. So 'value losers' have a big opportunity cost in political betting, which they don't have in sports betting, where on average your value bets (if they really are value) will win over the course of a few weeks or months.
Revised State of the Parties will be:
Con 250, Lab 213, LD 110 (Crossbench 178)
Last 2 caucus winners... Santorum and Huckabee to appear with Trump tonight after they appear in first of 2 GOP debates tonight. #mindblown
Santorum too, just as I said.
Now just the Sessions endorsement to come and I'll get 3 out of 3 today.
As I humbly mentioned in the past my predictions are close if not at 100% accuracy when it comes to US politics.
Some people would have saved a lot of money if they just listened to me.
Perhaps surprisingly, I am eminently persuadable to Brexit. If a believable alternate case was presented where the dislocation costs were significantly outweighed[1] by increased growth then I could put those figures into a spreadsheet and work out which could make me richer. I note that Richard Tyndall of this parish is working on such a thing, for which I commend him: I don't think it'll work, but it's the approach I'd adopt.
There have been attempts to create a real alternative: unlike Bootle's[2] stupidity I genuinely enjoyed Mansfield's IEA Brexit winner and Conrad Black's proposed membership of NAFTA was one I would have voted for, were it offered to me. But nobody has really put this together in a package, and now that the debate has become one long anti-migration scream, the economics have become irrelevant: all LEAVE has to do is say "LOOK! FOREIGNERS!" repeatedly and will win. A great pity, IMHO.
[1] Say, the net present value over ten years, or even fifteen
[2] Iain Mansfield is a former civil servant and a decent chap. Roger Bootle is an economist and a rude word
Paul Ryan is my long shot too
I entirely understand TSE's penchant for him. I can't see him as Prime Minister though.
Thanks Shirley. Never the world's sharpest but meant well, really well. Really cared about those with less.
Living Wage - you need to advertise it to make sure people know they should be being paid that and not less....
Sorry Richard, I'll reply on tomorrows thread!
Every other scenario. Leave is toast.
It really is that simple isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUqVnrjcH1M
It's a technicality to some extent, but usually these government ads atleast try to look like there's a public-information angle, rather than being as brazenly political as this.
So why did Communism fail?
And just think, they might still be overestimating Labour...
''Three to four million people could be infected with Zika virus in the Americas this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) predicts.''
But then
''Most will not develop symptoms...''
(BBC)
Every one of my Tory friends (admittedly I don't have very many) is either voting Leave or considering it.
Complacency is the enemy of Remain.
And of course you were yourself opposed to Conservative supporters voting UKIP to defeat Labour MPs. The possibility of a Miliband government seemingly being much less of a threat than a few anti-establishment MPs being elected.
Then have fun reading how the public sector fatcats operate:
' A highly-paid fire chief has been allowed retire for a month and access his £300,000 pension - before being re-hired for his own job.
West Yorkshire Fire Service said Simon Pilling officially retired from his £164,000 a year role at the end of last month - but will be returning to the post of chief fire officer and chief executive on February 1. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12121569/Fire-chief-may-access-300000-pension-despite-returning-to-job.html
It seems the employer (ie council taxpayer) pension contribution was £33,000 last year. That seems to be a 20% contribution.
Does anyone here receive a 20% pension contribution from their employer or rather from the local council taxpayers ?
But do remember that George Osborne promised a crackdown on public sector fatcats. Well at least he did back in 2009 - anyone seen any sight of it in reality ?
And, the sight of "eurosceptic" Conservatives boldly turning tail, and proclaiming their devotion to the EU, just demonstrates why a party like UKIP is needed.
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
If so why can't they get on a ferry like anyone else ?
Unless that is they are seeking asylum FROM Britain in the socialist nirvana.
What since he was re-elected with an overall majority in May 2015? None.
Seriously if you think this is going to help leave (for whom I will almost certainly vote) you need to step up the medication.
Even June might be too late.
There's no chance of anything being done about it because the people with the power to do so have a vested interest in the activity being available for themselves to use it.
All we get is Conservative politicians frothing about public sector fatcats whilst in opposition and Labour politicians frothing about private sector fatcats whilst in opposition.
But both tolerating anything whilst in government.
Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.
Considering how events are hurtling in their direction, UKIP are making an extremely poor fist of things, Mr SeanF.
Its a great conundrum to me that support for voting OUT is very high in the polls, but support for the main party advocating OUT is cr8p.
Go figure.
Trump 31%
Cruz 23%
Rubio 14%
Carson 9%
Bush 4%
Huckabee 4%
Paul 4%
80% of Trump supporters committed, 71% of Cruz's, 65% of Rubio's. Trump leads 36% to 24% amongst those firmly decided
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/01/trump-leads-iowa-some-rays-of-hope-for-cruz-rubio.html
Add in the wheels came off his assassination story, his whining and failure to go to the police over 'fraud' in the Oldham West and Royton by election, makes him look like a sore loser
Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.
As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).
Which is what I've been saying all along.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-a-public-sector-exit-payment-cap/consultation-on-a-public-sector-exit-payment-cap
There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.
Partly, Mr TSE, but I think there's more to it than that. Given the popularity of OUT, UKIP should be polling much better, even with a toxic leader. Or OUT should be further behind.
I still don;t think voters will let this golden opportunity to shake up the establishment go quietly. The more worthies who join IN, the more it looks like a cosy fix and the more OUT has a good chance.
I do hope you're not trying to claim May 2015 as the year zero of this government's borrowing.
You really need the strongest medication if you think people aren't going to be adding up Osborne's borrowing predictions from his first Budget and comparing them to the actual outcome - April 21 is when the final data is published.
https://youtu.be/eDt2LxoeA_g
Distinctly remember the guy calling out the numbers from the computer in front of him, oblivious to what was unfolding on the other screen, before eventually coming up with the engineer's vast understatement "Obviously a major malfunction"
RIP.
Can't see it happening though
Osborne spent 2011 telling us all about the Eurozone crisis and then did promptly nothing to shield the UK economy from its effects. 2016 will be the same.
If he's so quick to blame the outside world for the tough times then he can't claim the credit for positive external shocks and the good times.
Only the naive, partisan and total dickheads would believe him.
Interesting contrast to the eagerness this government has had to bomb one side or another in Syria.
How does UKIP gaining seats from Labour - and taking votes from Labour generally - help put Labour in government ?
Following a number of high profile cases where individuals have received large exit payments and then quickly returned to public sector roles, the last government [ie the coalition] passed legislation to prevent that highly paid individuals who return to the public sector within 12 months of exit from retaining their full exit payment. This measure will take effect in 2016 and will ensure that the taxpayer is not unduly compensating an individual for loss of employment only for them to return to the public sector after a short period of time.
By all means criticise the government, but criticising them, in intemperate terms, for not doing something which they actually are doing is just silly, isn't it?
If borrowing had been lower than Osborne predicted you would be hailing him a genius.
But because the facts are inconvenient you want them to be ignored.
Unfortunately we can't ignore all the extra taxes we'll be paying for the rest of our lives to pay back the extra hundreds of billions that Osborne has borrowed / is borrowing.
And I always thought that Conservatives believed in taking responsibility - instead we get this pathetic whining about it always being someone else's fault.
It started in America
It started in Europe
It started in China
' Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. '
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-who-idUSKCN0V61JB
"WHO says Zika virus spreads explosively, 4 million cases forecast"
"The Zika virus, linked to severe birth defects in thousands of babies in Brazil, is "spreading explosively" and could infect as many as 4 million people in the Americas, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Thursday.
Director-General Margaret Chan told members of the U.N. health agency's executive board the spread of the mosquito-borne disease had gone from a mild threat to one of alarming proportions. The WHO would convene an emergency meeting on Monday to help determine its response, she said.
"The level of alarm is extremely high," Chan told the Geneva gathering. "
It's like Dengue fever, 80% unsymptomatic, it's spread by mosquitoes, it causes birth defects, and there is no cure.
You have to look at the whole picture.
Still if they do do something now they will have my support - just as they have had my support for other things I agree with.
Alas I fear that this initiative will turn out to be the usual Whitehall washout.
This article from last year says that Hilary was told it would be unconstitutional - doesn't say by whom though, could have been the AG or could have been a random woman in her yoga class!
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-vice-president/index.html