Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump and Clinton have double digit leads in first post deb
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump and Clinton have double digit leads in first post debates South Carolina polling
After Iowa and New Hampshire the next in line comes the full primary on Saturday in South Carolina – a state with a very different demographic make up than the first two contests.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In truth, the divide between the respective government positions is vastly narrower than generally assumed. That £3bn figure of which the Scottish government complains? What they don’t want you to know is that it’s £3bn (and probably actually less than that) over ten years. It’s less than one percent of the Scottish government’s current budget. It is about the same as a prudent annual underspend. It is about what the Scottish government currently spends subsidising flights from Scottish airports and ferries to the Scottish islands. It is, in the grand scheme of things, chickenfeed.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-cameron-is-going-to-have-to-give-the-snp-what-they-want/
If so, I demand my 17 smiling Trumps!
Perhaps you are right, that many Trumps and Clintons may be somewhat nauseating.
It's not as if the SNP are behaving with any decency in Westminster so what does Cameron have to lose? The SNP are routinely being obstructionist just for the sake of it. Even going as far as twice voting against (or saying they would) English only law changes that would have brought English law into line with Scottish law.
If the SNP want to behave like that why should Cameron give them more than one single penny more than they're owed and they're not owed this. The SNP got and lost their desired referendum, so now they can live with the consequences of that. If the SNP want to throw childish tantrums even on matters of bringing English law into line with Scottish law then there's no need or reason to bribe them. If they want to behave like grown ups then treat them as such but there needs to be a quid pro quo.
Why pick a fight over that when there are bigger fish to fry.
I would say 'OK, you get this, but any underspend goes back to the UK Treasury' - which will probably be a wash.....
But more than that it's the principle of the matter. If the SNP want to be nothing but obstructionist and refuse to co-operate or even abstain on matters that have nothing to do with them, why should the UK government co-operate with the SNP? If you want to be an honest broker then don't be perfidious in the rest of your dealings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12158954/George-Osborne-to-reap-21bn-windfall-from-UKs-safe-haven-status.html
Let's hope he uses it to pay down the deficit, rather than to lessen the impact of some cut, as the previous bounty was used for.
If the "no more money left" brigade were still in power we would not be viewed as a safe haven today.
If the deal really falls apart because "Westminster want to cut the Scottish subsidy" then the SNP will not call another referendum to get even less money from London.
The seats in Scotland don't matter electorally.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12158626/German-bail-in-plan-for-government-bonds-risks-blowing-up-the-euro.html
Meanwhile, as long as the SNP commands a virtual monopoly of parliamentary seats in Scotland, it is structurally near-impossible for Labour to defeat the Tories in a UK-wide election. And the harder it is for Labour to win, the more the party favours a life of ideological indulgence by way of consolation. Its members chose the ageing socialist Jeremy Corbyn as leader last autumn not as a way back to credibility but as a source of pleasure while impotent. The Tories can rest on historically lavish poll leads because Labour has given up, and Labour has given up because the SNP is so strong....
No, the status quo suits both parties too much to disrupt, even if they knew how to go about such a thing. They are two columns propping up a political structure that shelters their interests. The anguish is all Labour’s. The party can only get around its systemic exclusion from power by reclaiming lost territory in Scotland. If Mr Corbyn flunks that challenge — and polls ahead of May’s Scottish elections suggest he will have a hard enough time keeping the Tories in third — it should explode the idea, born of the 1980s, that Scots are wildly leftwing.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b594caf4-d1a1-11e5-92a1-c5e23ef99c77.html#ixzz40JEHYA2c.
If he doesn't bribe the SNP what are they going to do?
Become obstructionist? Oh wait already doing that.
Call a repeat of the referendum they've already lost at a time oil is worthless? No they'd lose again.
If the SNP had acted with credibility in Westminster they could threaten to be obstructionist if their demands weren't met. But if they're going to be anyway why cave?
THAT is politics.
And the more they crank up the grievance agenda while being unable to call another vote, the more disillusioned the Zoomers will get.
The EU one is turning to ashes before his eyes - a successful devolution settlement (at the extortionate cost of 0.04% of spending) might prove too tempting to resist.....I expect we'll find out in a few days.....
So you're agreeing by your silence I suppose there is nothing the SNP can do that they've not already done if he doesn't agree to bribe them?
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
If no agreement is reached because the SNP want Westminster to subsidise Scotland more, that completely undermines their (fabricated) economic case
And I hope they will be.
Because DC represents Britain, and Britain has had enough of Scots whinging.
You believe that.
But will SNP voters believe that?
What a legacy...
She can spin out grievance governance for another 5 years and collect her fat (UK) pension
Yes I know.... and when it all starts to fall apart as described are they going to sit on their hands, or are they going to start making a whole host of new rules and regulations that will also apply to the City ?
Bubbt @RichardNabavi says it's fine and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about things we don't understand
http://uproxx.com/life/donald-trump-orders-steak-well-done/
Who could vote for him after this?
http://www.cityam.com/234652/david-camerons-eu-deal-is-in-legal-terms-not-worth-the-paper-its-printed-on
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Or something.
WE STOOD UP FOR SCOTLAND TO STOP WESTMINSTER TORIES SCREWING WEE BAIRNS
may be nearer the mark.....
BY TAKING AWAY THE MAHOOSSIVE SUBSIDIES... Oh, wait.
The SNP have wittingly or otherwise buried conclusively the prospects for another referendum.
The Zoomers on Twitter and elsewhere are working themselves into another frenzy about Indyref2. Going to be fun to watch when Nicola says "Naw"
Sounds like something out of a Hannah More broadside ballad!
Nevertheless, it is alarming. I have been reluctant to take @Hunchman's predictions of sovereign insolvency seriously but a move like that would be very dangerous because no one would want to be left holding the baby when the bail in occurs.
Germany is desperately looking for an alternative to pooled risks which are unacceptable when there is still insufficient control on the fiscal policies of EZ members. But even putting the usual AEP hyperbole aside this is playing with fire.
Germany is desperately looking for an alternative to pooled risks which are unacceptable when there is still insufficient control on the fiscal policies of EZ members. But even putting the usual AEP hyperbole aside this is playing with fire.
Almost as if separate currencies might be a good idea....
Germany is desperately looking for an alternative to pooled risks which are unacceptable when there is still insufficient control on the fiscal policies of EZ members. But even putting the usual AEP hyperbole aside this is playing with fire.
All a bail in mechanism does is make it explicit what happens when there is a sovereign default. The alternative is the Russian roulette that we saw when Greece defaulted.
#Balancedthebookupatouchingoodtime
Thanks for the latest %s.
There are echoes of the SNP dispute. What is required (from a German perspective) is that people are held responsible for their own actions and that they learn that choices have consequences. So if the Greeks are stupid enough to elect a government like Syrzia the consequences for them are adverse.
Similarly, in this country, once this lesson is learned people will not vote for a Labour government promising more spending and borrowing because they know that doesn't work. 2015 was encouraging in the belief that that message is getting through, at least outside Scotland.
The problem the Germans have got is that when you share the same currency the risks are not yours alone because the actions of one affect the others. This is why fiscal discipline is essential for the EZ creating a superstate that will dominate the EU.
You don't think that might cause bond holders to reappraise the risk of holding sovereign debt, and as a result sell out, causing a run on that bond and making it a self fulfilling prophecy ? If people believe that might happen, they won't want to be the last one holding the baby bond.
I don't agree for once. What it does is say that their central bank, the ECB, does not stand behind their gilts and is not willing or able to prevent a default if the sovereign runs into trouble. It puts the risk of the sovereign running into trouble on the bondholder and sets up an express mechanism explaining how that is going to happen making it more likely.
When AEP witters about countries getting their own currencies back what he really means is getting their own central banks back with the capacity to act in a crisis. Unless the ECB fulfils that role there may be few alternatives. Large scale sovereign bond markets need an active central bank and the last crisis only really went away when the ECB recognised that.
If a sovereign is going to default, they are going to default.
This doesn't make it more likely Spain or Italy defaults, it merely makes the consequences, and how they are shared, explicit.
As an aside, the markets don't share your gloomy prognosis, as Spanish, Italian and Portuguese bonds are all rallying today.
Trouble with setting rules in stone is that banks may have to those rules immediately. That means a crisis that may never occur is created for no good reason..
SNP Manifesto Nailed on, I expect......
Given Sanders' performances previously, even if he loses in South Carolina surely that's a mere flesh wound rather than losing an arm? How's he set for Super Tuesday?
He made quite a good fist for Remain, he's not concise enough - but it's the best showing I've seen by a political bod.
He will fold in the end because for sure the SNP and th Scottish people will accept nothing other than a FAIR deal.
You are through the bottom of the barrel using that dunderheid and shows the desperation of unionists. Why are you so scared after having supposedly won.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
@MrMalky: The Yoons want you to split your vote so that SNP do not get a majority and cannot call a referendum
#BothVotesSNP https://t.co/pwR95TGiiI
EDIT: What is it with Zoomers named Malky...?
"When challenged, they run, hide and denounce from the “safe space” of their laptops."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12158352/The-intolerant-student-Left-has-even-turned-on-me-a-lifelong-civil-rights-campaigner.html
I'm convinced that it is really a Chris Morris spoof.
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbUroFaXEAAmAXJ.jpg
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/everything_that_irritates_us_about_others_can/8704.html
Without treaty change, any agreement is fundamentally non-binding, and it is deeply misleading to suggest otherwise.
However, my understanding (such that it is), is that it is possible to do a codicil to existing treaties without requiring a full renegotiation and referendum. Are there any constitutional lawyers on here who can help?
http://www.cityam.com/234652/david-camerons-eu-deal-is-in-legal-terms-not-worth-the-paper-its-printed-on
Its a big week for Osborne - inflation figures today, employment and earnings tomorrow, and then public sector borrowing on Friday.
That gives Sanders a slight advantage in that if the last Nevada poll is right, he'll at the least run Hillary close there and might even win; the momentum will still be with him. By contrast, were SC first - where Hillary does seem to hold a decent lead - that might tip the vote against him in Nevada.
As for ST, it ought to go Hillary's way but again, it's a damage limitation exercise for him. Two more 3-state rounds follow within a week, both of which Sanders might hope to win 2-1, though several of the states don't appear to be polled so I'm 'finger in the air'ing there.
Nevada is turning into a pretty critical contest. I'd say that if Sanders wins, then we're in for a long fight. If he loses but is within ten points then it becomes hard for him but he'll keep the contest live well into March. If he loses by more than ten points, then we're probably just counting down to the Hillary coronation.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.