...don't seem to realise that sterling has already significantly depreciated during the last two years...
GBP fell from about $2/€1.5 immediately before the 2008/9 recession to about $1.35/€1.08 in very short order, then stayed pretty low for some time, then when Draghi announced the whole Europrinty thing it began to go back up and peaked at about $1.74/€1.45 about two years ago, then the US recovery began to move ahead of UK/EU and US interest rates rose last year, causing GBP/USD to drift downwards to about £1.44/€1.30. Brexit fears are now beginning to further depress it and it now stands at about $1.40/€1.27
I realise quite a bit. Me read. Someday me tie my own shoelaces...
perhaps they could remind us how much UK interest rates have risen during that period [last two years]?...Further back the fall in the sterling exchange rate of both 2008 and 1992 was followed by interest rate cuts not rises:
Are you genuinely implying that a drop of GDP to $1.20 will be met by an interest rate cut?
If there is a continued risk of deflation; yes.
If the pound dropped to $1.20, the chance of deflation would be about the same as me having a sex change operation.
Live on politicalbetting.
Might boost ad revenue on the site .... best not give OGH ideas ....
Well, the site still seems to be kept going by the sponsor of its 2015 GE coverage!
Trust Mike to post three Remain adverts in one thread header!
I see Leave.EU are still making Galloway their special guest.
Honestly, I truly hope they are deserted by the sensible.
Unbelievable. I'm beginning to think Aaron is working for the EU.
I think he's just an egotistical prick.
I think like many, Nigel included (and perhaps even the sainted Douglas Carswell), he is probably extremely driven by his own vision and ideology, and sometimes lacks to knack of seeing affairs through others' eyes.
Worrying about moves that small will make you go mad - I know, I did it for Indyref. Sent me barmy.
I'm not worrying about it - I've been out all day and was just curious.
It's not a massive move but not trivial either. There has been a lot of new news re EU ref up until yesterday - but from a quick scan it doesn't appear that anything at all has happened today.
Were you talking about your flat sale the other day (being a good reason to remain, if I remember correctly)? Hope it has gone well!
I was. It isn't, and may collapse. When Osborne announced the differential VAT for BTL kicking in in April, all the BTLers piled in and prices pulsed up. This was initially good because my flat got offered about 10K more than I was expecting, but - inevitably - the prices in the next rung up went up by ofuckketyfuck £30-£40K and I can't easily bridge the gap. Ouch. However, thank you for asking: it was kind of you and I appreciate it.
Were you talking about your flat sale the other day (being a good reason to remain, if I remember correctly)? Hope it has gone well!
I was. It isn't, and may collapse. When Osborne announced the differential VAT for BTL kicking in in April, all the BTLers piled in and prices pulsed up. This was initially good because my flat got offered about 10K more than I was expecting, but - inevitably - the prices in the next rung up went up by ofuckketyfuck £30-£40K and I can't easily bridge the gap. Ouch. However, thank you for asking: it was kind of you and I appreciate it.
Prices rose as a result of Osborne tinkering? Hardly a surprise. Rents will go up next.
Were you talking about your flat sale the other day (being a good reason to remain, if I remember correctly)? Hope it has gone well!
I was. It isn't, and may collapse. When Osborne announced the differential VAT for BTL kicking in in April, all the BTLers piled in and prices pulsed up. This was initially good because my flat got offered about 10K more than I was expecting, but - inevitably - the prices in the next rung up went up by ofuckketyfuck £30-£40K and I can't easily bridge the gap. Ouch. However, thank you for asking: it was kind of you and I appreciate it.
I was just looking at that. There's no obvious explanation I'm aware of. Perhaps a sense that, whatever problems it has, Remain is still better organised and has Cameron with the bully-pulpit?
I'm debating whether to take any more Leave at 3.25 or wait and see if it drifts further. We could see a period in which Remain steadily tightens until something breaks the spell - a Leave lead in a phone poll, for example.
Were you talking about your flat sale the other day (being a good reason to remain, if I remember correctly)? Hope it has gone well!
I was. It isn't, and may collapse. When Osborne announced the differential VAT for BTL kicking in in April, all the BTLers piled in and prices pulsed up. This was initially good because my flat got offered about 10K more than I was expecting, but - inevitably - the prices in the next rung up went up by ofuckketyfuck £30-£40K and I can't easily bridge the gap. Ouch. However, thank you for asking: it was kind of you and I appreciate it.
I was just looking at that. There's no obvious explanation I'm aware of. Perhaps a sense that, whatever problems it has, Remain is still better organised and has Cameron with the bully-pulpit?
I'm debating whether to take any more Leave at 3.25 or wait and see if it drifts further. We could see a period in which Remain steadily tightens until something breaks the spell - a Leave lead in a phone poll, for example.
Take the 4/1 with Ladbrokes that Cameron goes as PM this year as proxy.
Perhaps viewcode could tell us what were so unusual about the interest rates of mid 1980s compared to those to the early and late 1980s ?
Much as I would love to attempt to answer your question, since it's a digression you'll forgive me if I return to the actual point, namely...You can't legitimately dismiss £1=$1.20 as a "market correction" or part of normal market volatility, it's an exceptional event that should be given its full measure.
Actually you can. You've already identified a 60 cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit. The possibility of a further 20 cent change (less than one third of the recent change) when combined with the Fed continuing to imply they're going to raise rates faster than the ECB are implying is well within normal market volatility.
Given that the "60 [per]cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit." was caused by the global crash, that's a bit like saying that the Korean War is OK because WWII was much bigger.
Perhaps viewcode could tell us what were so unusual about the interest rates of mid 1980s compared to those to the early and late 1980s ?
Much as I would love to attempt to answer your question, since it's a digression you'll forgive me if I return to the actual point, namely...You can't legitimately dismiss £1=$1.20 as a "market correction" or part of normal market volatility, it's an exceptional event that should be given its full measure.
Actually you can. You've already identified a 60 cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit. The possibility of a further 20 cent change (less than one third of the recent change) when combined with the Fed continuing to imply they're going to raise rates faster than the ECB are implying is well within normal market volatility.
Given that the "60 [per]cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit." was caused by the global crash, that's a bit like saying that the Korean War is OK because WWII was much bigger.
You are financially illiterate aren't you? It is a 60 cent change, not a 60 percent change. A 60% change would be from $2.00 to $0.80 (a fall of $1.20 which is 60% of $2). 60 cents out of 2 dollars is a 30% change.
Secondly it was not caused by the global crash, since the global crash affected America too. There is zero swing caused by absolute global issues, changes are based on relative changes not global ones.
Were you talking about your flat sale the other day (being a good reason to remain, if I remember correctly)? Hope it has gone well!
I was. It isn't, and may collapse. When Osborne announced the differential VAT for BTL kicking in in April, all the BTLers piled in and prices pulsed up. This was initially good because my flat got offered about 10K more than I was expecting, but - inevitably - the prices in the next rung up went up by ofuckketyfuck £30-£40K and I can't easily bridge the gap. Ouch. However, thank you for asking: it was kind of you and I appreciate it.
Prices rose as a result of Osborne tinkering? Hardly a surprise. Rents will go up next.
It's made particularly piquant by precedent. You may recall Lawson announced the end of MIRAS in what, 1987? 1986? with about six months' notice, and - surprise! - prices went zoom. So we have been here before.
It's pretty awful but give her her due again she does carry on to the end and get the point across. Though surely 'Waterloo' would be a better choice of Ukip Abba anthem?
Perhaps viewcode could tell us what were so unusual about the interest rates of mid 1980s compared to those to the early and late 1980s ?
Much as I would love to attempt to answer your question, since it's a digression you'll forgive me if I return to the actual point, namely...You can't legitimately dismiss £1=$1.20 as a "market correction" or part of normal market volatility, it's an exceptional event that should be given its full measure.
Actually you can. You've already identified a 60 cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit. The possibility of a further 20 cent change (less than one third of the recent change) when combined with the Fed continuing to imply they're going to raise rates faster than the ECB are implying is well within normal market volatility.
Given that the "60 [per]cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit." was caused by the global crash, that's a bit like saying that the Korean War is OK because WWII was much bigger.
You are financially illiterate aren't you? It is a 60 cent change, not a 60 percent change...
No, I thought you'd made a typo. I wasn't checking your math. I can if you like.
Were you talking about your flat sale the other day (being a good reason to remain, if I remember correctly)? Hope it has gone well!
I was. It isn't, and may collapse. When Osborne announced the differential VAT for BTL kicking in in April, all the BTLers piled in and prices pulsed up. This was initially good because my flat got offered about 10K more than I was expecting, but - inevitably - the prices in the next rung up went up by ofuckketyfuck £30-£40K and I can't easily bridge the gap. Ouch. However, thank you for asking: it was kind of you and I appreciate it.
Prices rose as a result of Osborne tinkering? Hardly a surprise. Rents will go up next.
It's made particularly piquant by precedent. You may recall Lawson announced the end of MIRAS in what, 1987? 1986? with about six months' notice, and - surprise! - prices went zoom. So we have been here before.
The difference is that this time Osborne had done everything possible to kick BTLers in the balls prior to this latest punishment so if they still rushed in to beat the deadline after that they must have a death tax wish.
Perhaps viewcode could tell us what were so unusual about the interest rates of mid 1980s compared to those to the early and late 1980s ?
Much as I would love to attempt to answer your question, since it's a digression you'll forgive me if I return to the actual point, namely...You can't legitimately dismiss £1=$1.20 as a "market correction" or part of normal market volatility, it's an exceptional event that should be given its full measure.
Actually you can. You've already identified a 60 cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit. The possibility of a further 20 cent change (less than one third of the recent change) when combined with the Fed continuing to imply they're going to raise rates faster than the ECB are implying is well within normal market volatility.
Given that the "60 [per]cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit." was caused by the global crash, that's a bit like saying that the Korean War is OK because WWII was much bigger.
You are financially illiterate aren't you? It is a 60 cent change, not a 60 percent change...
No, I thought you'd made a typo. I wasn't checking your math. I can if you like.
If you need to check that 60 cents out of two dollars is 60 cents and not 60 percent go ahead. I'll wait while you fetch a calculator.
It's pretty awful but give her her due again she does carry on to the end and get the point across. Though surely 'Waterloo' would be a better choice of Ukip Abba anthem?
Isn't Andrea Jenkyns an outer? She's a very good singer and could maybe be persuaded...
Were you talking about your flat sale the other day (being a good reason to remain, if I remember correctly)? Hope it has gone well!
I was. It isn't, and may collapse. When Osborne announced the differential VAT for BTL kicking in in April, all the BTLers piled in and prices pulsed up. This was initially good because my flat got offered about 10K more than I was expecting, but - inevitably - the prices in the next rung up went up by ofuckketyfuck £30-£40K and I can't easily bridge the gap. Ouch. However, thank you for asking: it was kind of you and I appreciate it.
Prices rose as a result of Osborne tinkering? Hardly a surprise. Rents will go up next.
It's made particularly piquant by precedent. You may recall Lawson announced the end of MIRAS in what, 1987? 1986? with about six months' notice, and - surprise! - prices went zoom. So we have been here before.
The difference is that this time Osborne had done everything possible to kick BTLers in the balls prior to this latest punishment so if they still rushed in to beat the deadline after that they must have a death tax wish.
Squeaky George is still hoping than an adoring electorate will sweep him to power in 2020, even after his rumoured pension changes.
Were you talking about your flat sale the other day (being a good reason to remain, if I remember correctly)? Hope it has gone well!
I was. It isn't, and may collapse. When Osborne announced the differential VAT for BTL kicking in in April, all the BTLers piled in and prices pulsed up. This was initially good because my flat got offered about 10K more than I was expecting, but - inevitably - the prices in the next rung up went up by ofuckketyfuck £30-£40K and I can't easily bridge the gap. Ouch. However, thank you for asking: it was kind of you and I appreciate it.
Prices rose as a result of Osborne tinkering? Hardly a surprise. Rents will go up next.
It's made particularly piquant by precedent. You may recall Lawson announced the end of MIRAS in what, 1987? 1986? with about six months' notice, and - surprise! - prices went zoom. So we have been here before.
The difference is that this time Osborne had done everything possible to kick BTLers in the balls prior to this latest punishment so if they still rushed in to beat the deadline after that they must have a death tax wish.
People herd...and sometimes stampede. Many years ago I did a simulation exercise regarding seating in a cinema. Everybody has a favorite first seat, favorite second choice for a seat, and so on, and the way they interact is fascinating as people compete for spaces even when there is a superfluity. In this current housing market, in order to save themselves approx £5K in BTL stamp duty (not VAT, my bad), the BTLers piled bid prices up about £40K more than what they would have done otherwise.
Perhaps viewcode could tell us what were so unusual about the interest rates of mid 1980s compared to those to the early and late 1980s ?
Much as I would love to attempt to answer your question, since it's a digression you'll forgive me if I return to the actual point, namely...You can't legitimately dismiss £1=$1.20 as a "market correction" or part of normal market volatility, it's an exceptional event that should be given its full measure.
Actually you can. You've already identified a 60 cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit. The possibility of a further 20 cent change (less than one third of the recent change) when combined with the Fed continuing to imply they're going to raise rates faster than the ECB are implying is well within normal market volatility.
Given that the "60 [per]cent change from $2 to $1.40 that had nothing to do with Brexit." was caused by the global crash, that's a bit like saying that the Korean War is OK because WWII was much bigger.
You are financially illiterate aren't you? It is a 60 cent change, not a 60 percent change...
No, I thought you'd made a typo. I wasn't checking your math. I can if you like.
If you need to check that 60 cents out of two dollars is 60 cents and not 60 percent go ahead. I'll wait while you fetch a calculator.
Thank you, but there's no need. I took my socks off.
Maybe one day I can do really big sums and go all the way up to twenty, oh my, such a big world...
It's pretty awful but give her her due again she does carry on to the end and get the point across. Though surely 'Waterloo' would be a better choice of Ukip Abba anthem?
Isn't Andrea Jenkyns an outer? She's a very good singer and could maybe be persuaded...
Yes, she tweeted today that she's in favour of out. She said nothing about singing.
Well from the above advertisements I see that if we leave the EU we will have terrible pop music, Boris will be throwing bricks, and the pound will become pack-man.
Incidentally, it's not much better, but Smithson Senior didn't post the full picture:
I'm not convinced that contrasting two general election winners with 5 victories between them (4 of them outright majorities) with George Galloway gives the message that Leave should want to give.
...don't seem to realise that sterling has already significantly depreciated during the last two years...
GBP fell from about $2/€1.5 immediately before the 2008/9 recession to about $1.35/€1.08 in very short order, then stayed pretty low for some time, then when Draghi announced the whole Europrinty thing it began to go back up and peaked at about $1.74/€1.45 about two years ago, then the US recovery began to move ahead of UK/EU and US interest rates rose last year, causing GBP/USD to drift downwards to about £1.44/€1.30. Brexit fears are now beginning to further depress it and it now stands at about $1.40/€1.27
I realise quite a bit. Me read. Someday me tie my own shoelaces...
perhaps they could remind us how much UK interest rates have risen during that period [last two years]?...Further back the fall in the sterling exchange rate of both 2008 and 1992 was followed by interest rate cuts not rises:
Are you genuinely implying that a drop of GDP to $1.20 will be met by an interest rate cut?
Sterling peaked against Euro at 1.4362 only on 5th August and then had another rally peaking at 19th November - 1.429. Thereafter, it has fallen quite rapidly and has lost over 10% in the last 3 months.
Tomorrow at 5 AM at best. In 2012 they needed 3 days to count the votes with a 1.9% turnout.
They caucus at night, they last 2-4 hours, they also have different ending times, the earliest ends at 3 AM London time, the latest is at 5 AM London time.
No idea if there are any entrance polls or when they are published.
Tomorrow at 5 AM at best. In 2012 they needed 3 days to count the votes with a 1.9% turnout.
They caucus at night, they last 2-4 hours, they also have different ending times, the earliest ends at 3 AM London time, the latest is at 5 AM London time.
No idea if there are any entrance polls or when they are published.
Andrea Jenkyns should be next Tory leader. She got rid of Ed Balls, was a big factor in Corbyn's election, has a fantastic natural and warm style and is a great advocate for Leave:
Incidentally there is going to be a Tory membership election this Parliament, guaranteed and unlike in the Labour Party where the selectorate can consist of people signing up during the campaign it is only open to members before the campaign.
If every UKIP member instead joined the Tory party you could guarantee a Leave supporting Prime Minister before the end of this Parliament.
I was just looking at that. There's no obvious explanation I'm aware of. Perhaps a sense that, whatever problems it has, Remain is still better organised and has Cameron with the bully-pulpit?
I'm debating whether to take any more Leave at 3.25 or wait and see if it drifts further. We could see a period in which Remain steadily tightens until something breaks the spell - a Leave lead in a phone poll, for example.
Take the 4/1 with Ladbrokes that Cameron goes as PM this year as proxy.
Thanks. I'm on that too. If one thinks of it as a true proxy then it's golden.
Does anyone know the counting areas on 23rd June - is it as I would assume going to be done on the lines of EU regions (and sub-division counting areas within the overall regions)? Or along Westminster constituency lines?
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
Well said. About 140 Leave Tory MPs in Parliament versus 1 Leave UKIP MP in Parliament.
Tories are the only party of Leave.
Tory Leave is fine. UKIP Leave is terrifying.
Fortunately, only one of the Kippers is an MP, their leader will lose his job in the event of Leave, and none of them will be involved in any exit negotiations.
Does anyone know the counting areas on 23rd June - is it as I would assume going to be done on the lines of EU regions (and sub-division counting areas within the overall regions)? Or along Westminster constituency lines?
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
Well said. About 140 Leave Tory MPs in Parliament versus 1 Leave UKIP MP in Parliament.
Tories are the only party of Leave.
Tory Leave is fine. UKIP Leave is terrifying.
Fortunately, only one of the Kippers is an MP, their leader will lose his job in the event of Leave, and none of them will be involved in any exit negotiations.
I heard Farage last night and whispered a prayer of thanks that he would not be anywhere near Brexit negotiations.
Another fascinating day in the financial markets. GBPUSD critical test of the 1.39 area coming up ominously quickly......and as I thought at the end of last week today may mark the start of the next leg down in this ongoing stockmarket correction, but nothing confirmed yet.
Its going to be fascinating to see how much the remain campaign run with the weaker sterling memo if we leave the EU - nothing could be further from the truth, the smart money has seen through the lie that the UK economy is strong enough to merit any interest rate rises and taxes are going up on prime residential properties in London so this capital flow is beginning to reverse that was supporting sterling into last year.
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
The questions I'd like to ask Carswell are what he thinks the future direction of UKIP should be and what he thinks it will be under Farage's leadership.
Does anyone know the counting areas on 23rd June - is it as I would assume going to be done on the lines of EU regions (and sub-division counting areas within the overall regions)? Or along Westminster constituency lines?
Does anyone know the counting areas on 23rd June - is it as I would assume going to be done on the lines of EU regions (and sub-division counting areas within the overall regions)? Or along Westminster constituency lines?
What is stupid by the leavers is that they are saying 'so what?', they are brazening it that it might or would not happen. Can they tell us the names of all the companies which would fall over themselves to leave the EU to come here or who would flock to here to be outside the EU and not inside? Leave are trying to make out that leaving is a shot to nothing a free hit. It is the opposite. And the safeguard of leave the EU and all the politics stuff behind and join the EEA, which is at least plausible? Why surprise surprise - so what? It makes no difference we still have free movement of labour which is the mast the leavers have tied themselves to. The rancid wing of the Leavers do not want the EEA, their demands will only just start if leave were to win.
EFTA countries: Liechtenstein GDP per capita $134,617.38 Norway GDP per capita $100,818.50 Switzerland GDP per capita $84,815.41 already, we've been growing faster than them for years and when figures get updated we will have overtaken them. Again doing worse than the comparables. Ireland - Been competing with low corporation taxes despite not because of the EU. Stagnating for years. Still worse than all comparables bar Iceland and New Zealand. Netherlands, Austria, Belgium - Stagnating for years. Still worse than all comparables bar Iceland and New Zealand. Luxembourg - Microstate.
Sweden, Denmark and Finland - The Scandinavians are actually doing well. Nowhere near as well as Norway but they are doing well and actually growing.
So other than the Scandinavians and Luxembourg it's not really an advert for success.
You wouldn't hear many Finns saying right now that their economy is doing well right now with the demise of Nokia, and depressed commodity prices notably wood pulp. Their economy in per capita terms is well below the 2007 level 9 years later:
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
Funny isn't it. When Carswell left the Tory party he said it was because it had become clear at the 1922 committee meeting that Cameron would go for the absolute minimum in the renegotiation to ensure he could get a win for In in the referendum.
At the time this was revealed it was shouted down by the usual Europhile Cameroons on PB.com. Now it turns out Carswell was almost completely right. The only thing he got wrong was the overestimating the extent to which the public and the party would be fooled by Cameron's dishonest behaviour.
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
Whether you agree with Carswell or not I don't think you can accuse him of being disloyal.
He didn't think his beliefs were compatible with those of the Conservative party and chose to leave in a manner which allowed his constituents to pass a verdict on him.
Unless that is membership of the Conservative party involves some sacred 'till death us do part' oath.
When you see the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave do you regret your disloyalty to the party that delivered the referendum?
Well said. About 140 Leave Tory MPs in Parliament versus 1 Leave UKIP MP in Parliament.
Tories are the only party of Leave.
I think the number of Tory MPs supporting Leave could reach as high as 150.
But that's an absolute maximum. 140-145 is more likely, IMHO.
>300 would support Leave if that was Cameron's position, no?
I think you'd 90% of the Tories with Cameron, 5% against, and 5% abstentions.
So 297 Tories + 8 DUP + 1 UUP + 1 UKIP + 11 Labour = 318 for Leave
I think Remain would be able to (in theory) muster around 315 MPs but, in reality, there'd be quite a few abstentions and absentees so Leave carried the House.
These old timers keep wrecking the English co-efficient in Europe. Time to give someone new a chance.
Same old same old.
I agree - Spurs continue to have progressed further in the Champs League than their oh so consistent North London rivals in recent years... and we've only been in the bloody once!!!
Does anyone know the counting areas on 23rd June - is it as I would assume going to be done on the lines of EU regions (and sub-division counting areas within the overall regions)? Or along Westminster constituency lines?
It's already been counted hunchman, it's 54:46
Perfectly possible the referendum campaign changes very little at all.
I think (at present) it's 55:45 to Remain +/- 4% (depending upon Events)
The staging site doesn't have any content yet but the slogan seems to be, "In Europe. For Britain."
The use of "Europe" instead of "European Union" is clearly deliberate. Hopefully someone can call Dave out on it as it is rediculous.
Is it clearly deliberate? No one in their right mind would think voting leave would mean we would leave the European continent.
Yes, it is deliberate. An email from Laura Sandys to members of European Movement asked them to use Europe instead of the EU. I believe there is also polling which suggests voters react more positively to the word 'Europe' over 'the EU'.
I got very bad news for those wishing to find out the Nevada caucus results:
Jon Ralston @RalstonReports 21m21 minutes ago BREAKING: Huge news for NV caucus. GOP official confirms that 37,000 have pre-registered. That's bigger than overall turnout in 2012!
Jon Ralston @RalstonReports 14m14 minutes ago Overall turnout could now be as high as 75K, one GOP insider believes. That's the good news. Bad news: Even longer to count?
In 2012 it took them 3 days to count 33K votes. So we might not get a result before Super Tuesday next week. Which raises a question, when do bookies pay of ?
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
The staging site doesn't have any content yet but the slogan seems to be, "In Europe. For Britain."
The use of "Europe" instead of "European Union" is clearly deliberate. Hopefully someone can call Dave out on it as it is rediculous.
That would be stupid, as Leavers and Remainers both use Europe to mean European Union sometimes, for their own purposes or just as shorthand. Attack Cameron too much for it, and you can bet there's footage of a prominent Leaver making the same error/mislead.
I got very bad news for those wishing to find out the Nevada caucus results:
Jon Ralston @RalstonReports 21m21 minutes ago BREAKING: Huge news for NV caucus. GOP official confirms that 37,000 have pre-registered. That's bigger than overall turnout in 2012!
Jon Ralston @RalstonReports 14m14 minutes ago Overall turnout could now be as high as 75K, one GOP insider believes. That's the good news. Bad news: Even longer to count?
In 2012 it took them 3 days to count 33K votes. So we might not get a result before Super Tuesday next week. Which raises a question, when do bookies pay of ?
The gossip is that Nevada was such a shambles last time for the Republicans that they are considering filling that early Western/diverse state slot with Arizona.
Comments
It's not a massive move but not trivial either. There has been a lot of new news re EU ref up until yesterday - but from a quick scan it doesn't appear that anything at all has happened today.
I don't want the appeal of the Leave case ruined by these morons.
(and, no, I won't "infight" them; I shall just ignore them)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1165094/UKIP-candidate-Mandy-Boylett-takes-aim-PM-Abba-song.html
I'm debating whether to take any more Leave at 3.25 or wait and see if it drifts further. We could see a period in which Remain steadily tightens until something breaks the spell - a Leave lead in a phone poll, for example.
Secondly it was not caused by the global crash, since the global crash affected America too. There is zero swing caused by absolute global issues, changes are based on relative changes not global ones.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701269540844527616
There's probably a moral in there somewhere...
Maybe one day I can do really big sums and go all the way up to twenty, oh my, such a big world...
Great job from the campaigns.
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/702129878813044736
https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/702212915600949249
Edit to add: Boris with the blue background looks like a secret Remain supporter.
Good for my company.
In 2012 they needed 3 days to count the votes with a 1.9% turnout.
They caucus at night, they last 2-4 hours, they also have different ending times, the earliest ends at 3 AM London time, the latest is at 5 AM London time.
No idea if there are any entrance polls or when they are published.
Tories are the only party of Leave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uvJZkTOvl4
If every UKIP member instead joined the Tory party you could guarantee a Leave supporting Prime Minister before the end of this Parliament.
Does anyone know the counting areas on 23rd June - is it as I would assume going to be done on the lines of EU regions (and sub-division counting areas within the overall regions)? Or along Westminster constituency lines?
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/702233646997106688
BTW sterling's fall in value against the dollar early in 1985 was such a catastrophe that the economy only grew by 4.1% that year:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=IHYP&dataset=pgdp&table-id=PREL
Its going to be fascinating to see how much the remain campaign run with the weaker sterling memo if we leave the EU - nothing could be further from the truth, the smart money has seen through the lie that the UK economy is strong enough to merit any interest rate rises and taxes are going up on prime residential properties in London so this capital flow is beginning to reverse that was supporting sterling into last year.
But that's an absolute maximum. 140-145 is more likely, IMHO.
At the time this was revealed it was shouted down by the usual Europhile Cameroons on PB.com. Now it turns out Carswell was almost completely right. The only thing he got wrong was the overestimating the extent to which the public and the party would be fooled by Cameron's dishonest behaviour.
He didn't think his beliefs were compatible with those of the Conservative party and chose to leave in a manner which allowed his constituents to pass a verdict on him.
Unless that is membership of the Conservative party involves some sacred 'till death us do part' oath.
So 297 Tories + 8 DUP + 1 UUP + 1 UKIP + 11 Labour = 318 for Leave
I think Remain would be able to (in theory) muster around 315 MPs but, in reality, there'd be quite a few abstentions and absentees so Leave carried the House.
Same old same old.
Janan Ganesh Retweeted
Sam @samuelJayC 2 mins2 minutes ago
It's 2016 & Flamini is coming on for Arsenal against Barcelona.
In Europe. In Control.
I don't know if the equivalent usage exists elsewhere.
I think (at present) it's 55:45 to Remain +/- 4% (depending upon Events)
I'd like the popcorn with a 51:49 Remain result.
Jon Ralston @RalstonReports 21m21 minutes ago
BREAKING: Huge news for NV caucus. GOP official confirms that 37,000 have pre-registered. That's bigger than overall turnout in 2012!
Jon Ralston @RalstonReports 14m14 minutes ago
Overall turnout could now be as high as 75K, one GOP insider believes. That's the good news. Bad news: Even longer to count?
In 2012 it took them 3 days to count 33K votes.
So we might not get a result before Super Tuesday next week.
Which raises a question, when do bookies pay of ?
1964: Republicans bitterly split between the conservative Goldwater factor and the moderate-liberal faction, with many non-Conservative Republicans voting for Johnson in a landslide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964
1912: Republicans and Democrats both split, although the Republicans far worse between the progressives under Theodore Roosevelt and the rump of the Republicans under William Taft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912
1860: Don't need to say much about the prelude to the Civil War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
1808: The Madison-Clinton-Munroe split: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1808
This 3rd party cycle is simply re-asserting itself now in 2016 - the bitter division between non-establishment and establishment Republicans and the same sort of split on the Democratic side with Sanders and Clinton, plus the possibility of Bloomberg standing under certain conditions........so an abudance of 3rd party activity there! No surprise if you know your history!
New Deal, New Danger.
Edit: Or even the 1979 one: An image of rioting Greeks with the slogan, "Europe isn't working"