politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s local by-elections – a CON defence in Theresa May’s constituency and a LD one in Tim Farron’s
Kendal, Strickland and Fell (Lib Dem defence) on Cumbria Result of council at last election (2013): Labour 35, Conservatives 26, Liberal Democrat 16, Independents 7 (No Overall Control, Labour short by 8) Result of ward at last election (2013):
"I'm going to put in some 2008 turnout figures into my spreadsheet and see if there is a correlation and if so what it is between Sanders performance relative to his avg and turnout differential later on."
In 2008 Obama was going to lose Michigan to Hillary, so he had Dean who was the DNC chair at the time to remove all of Michigan's delegates on a technicality before the vote. So Obama declared he wasn't going to participate in Michigan at all since there was no point.
Only Hillary voters came to vote and she got 0 delegates despite winning, her victory was void. Michigan may have made the difference for Obama winning the nomination, at least momentum wise.
@faisalislam: Sky Sources: new Labour fiscal rule 2. Investment spending to be excluded from deficit reduction target, to take advantage of low rates
So, basically, "We won't spend anything, except for everything that we do spend."
Isn't this just Brown (1997-2007) all over again? Maybe Corbyn really is the heir to Blair?
No. The Economist, not noted for its leftism, has argued for this for some time - they feel that Britain suffers from serious underinvestment because in their view profligate spending on non-productive things (e.g. housing and pensions, both important things but not contributors to increasing production) squeeze out the airports, roads etc. that Britain needs, as the two are lumped together by Osborne under "spending restraint". They favour borrowing for investment at the current low rates, although I think they would want to squeeze non-investment spending much more than Labour would.
This policy would never work in reality, because left wing governments will always be looking to expand the definition of 'investment' to cover their pet projects that don't generate a meaningful return. Debt becomes dangerous when the interest bill becomes a large proportion of revenue; with debt at current levels, interest rates don't have to rise by much to crowd out lots of public spending.
There's nothing 'progressive' about running constant deficits and burdening future generations. It just helps the left to pretend that their preferences don't take money out of the electorate's pockets.
Extraordinary how the two councils have gone in opposite directions.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country? I always have a vision of Lib Dems living in a idyllic world where there are no problems. I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
That's how Trump wants tonight's CNN debate to be.
We'll see. Rubio is on life support.
I will live comment it as usual, afteral I hope it's the last GOP debate this year.
What do I expect from the debate? For once it's on CNN, so it's friendlier to Trump than Fox News, however because it's CNN they will also let the candidates mostly free from control.
In the last debate they threw the kitchen sink on Trump so there is not much left that they haven't tried last time. Rubio and Cruz will attack him as usual on not being conservative enough and on his business, Kasich will try and stay out of the fray, the big unknown as always is how Trump behaves.
Labour "investment" in the NHS during the 0's was that capital investment or investment in higher salaries? I presume the latter given a lot of capital investment was actually via PFI which we are still paying for.
So what does Labour mean by infrastructure? Only projects which have a BCR above a set value?
@JeremyCliffe: Of three state elections on 13/3, senior government source tells me: CDU win three = triumph, two = good, one = wobbly, none = catastrophic.
@JeremyCliffe: Of three state elections on 13/3, senior government source tells me: CDU win three = triumph, two = good, one = wobbly, none = catastrophic.
total crap
if they lose Baden Wuerttemberg to the Greens it's a catastophe. Like the Tories losing Surrey to Caroline Lucas. Currently that;s what the polls say.
@paulwaugh: Unnamed Labour MP on Livingstone:"Dan Jarvis risked his life serving his country + fighting terrorists. Ken spent his life serving himself"
Extraordinary how the two councils have gone in opposite directions.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country? I always have a vision of Lib Dems living in a idyllic world where there are no problems. I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
I am already sick and tired of the REMAIN and LEAVE camps slagging each other off.. I expect the rest of the UK is similarly unimpressed.. Result= Status Quo IMHO
My first chance to post after a few very busy days at home and at work.
The Mayoral poll in Tuesday's London Evening Standard made for interesting reading and although Sadiq Khan leads Zac Goldsmith by 5% on first preferences and 10% overall, this is far from being cut and dry.
Khan holds a big lead in Inner London as you might expect but in Outer London it's a tie which is surprising as you'd expect Goldsmith to be ahead. It's also significant that among those of us NOT supporting either Khan or Goldsmith on first preference, the second preferences are currently breaking 2-1 for Khan which would be fatal for Goldsmith if the first preferences are close.
Khan is in the pole (or poll) position but he's far from having clinched the deal with Londoners though stories about his aides won't have much resonance. We know the Standard will back Goldsmith though they're nowhere as enthusiastic about him as they were Boris.
It's also likely most Londoners won't engage with us until after Easter so there's all to play for just as there is with the EU referendum. For all that 20 or 30 regulars on here might argue the nuance of every tweet, article or pronouncement on a daily basis, the truth is the overwhelming majority haven't given it much thought yet. 14 weeks is an eternity for most people so there's no point either side thinking it's "game over" by any means.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country?
Not only would it be unfair, it would also be inaccurate. Cumbria - lot of rural, some farming, some market towns, big local MOD employer (Barrow) - would be similar to, say, Devon (Plymouth) or, at a push, Hampshire (Portsmouth). The people there would have the same problems as everybody else, albeit with some differences (house prices being the biggie)
Come to think of it, Devon would be a good analogy: most of the commuting is done by car and it doesn't have the dependence of traintravel that the South East does.
I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
I stayed there 1999-2000 when I was contracting. It's a southern English market town, so it's pretty nice. It's continually being redeveloped (they were building the "new" cinema when I was there, and this decade they've redeveloped 'round Market Street), so it's constantly changing. It's quiet, prosperous, good transport links to London, tho - a perennial bugbear - Reading to the West has faster trains t London. The housing stock is pretty decent and doesn't have the disadvantages of some Southern towns I could name (high ceilings plus poor heating, disharmonious architecture, a seeming reluctance to paint their fronts or tidy their gardens). I genuinely liked it and wish I'd bought back then when a flat cost about £100K: they're *way* higher than that now. It's where you live in Berkshire if you're too wealthy for Reading, too poor for Windsor. and need a shorter commuting time than, say, Twyford or Henley. I genuinely like it and if your parents think it's a "bit of a dive" then please never visit Bognor, Grimsby, Middlesbrough, Bradford, Newport, Dundee, Stevenage...
Spending more on investment is a good idea, but it needs to be done in place of current spending, not on top of it. This is not the way Labour regain fiscal credibility.
Extraordinary how the two councils have gone in opposite directions.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country? I always have a vision of Lib Dems living in a idyllic world where there are no problems. I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
Labour "investment" in the NHS during the 0's was that capital investment or investment in higher salaries? I presume the latter given a lot of capital investment was actually via PFI which we are still paying for.
So what does Labour mean by infrastructure? Only projects which have a BCR above a set value?
Also training, learning, supporting infrastructure (datasets, evidence, etc).
Hard to find A&E statistics by hospital before 2007 for example, but it's unthinkable now that this would not be available.
@faisalislam: Sky Sources: new Labour fiscal rule 2. Investment spending to be excluded from deficit reduction target, to take advantage of low rates
So, basically, "We won't spend anything, except for everything that we do spend."
Isn't this just Brown (1997-2007) all over again? Maybe Corbyn really is the heir to Blair?
No. The Economist, not noted for its leftism, has argued for this for some time - they feel that Britain suffers from serious underinvestment because in their view profligate spending on non-productive things (e.g. housing and pensions, both important things but not contributors to increasing production) squeeze out the airports, roads etc. that Britain needs, as the two are lumped together by Osborne under "spending restraint". They favour borrowing for investment at the current low rates, although I think they would want to squeeze non-investment spending much more than Labour would.
This policy would never work in reality, because left wing governments will always be looking to expand the definition of 'investment' to cover their pet projects that don't generate a meaningful return. Debt becomes dangerous when the interest bill becomes a large proportion of revenue; with debt at current levels, interest rates don't have to rise by much to crowd out lots of public spending.
There's nothing 'progressive' about running constant deficits and burdening future generations. It just helps the left to pretend that their preferences don't take money out of the electorate's pockets.
Actually, the UK government has done an incredible job (largely thanks to Danny Alexander) in lengthening debt maturity during this period of low interest rates.
The average maturity of US debt is five years. It's six with Canada, Germany and Italy. And it's seven with France.
For the UK it's 15 years.
This means that even if interest rates went up to 8%, it would take several years before it even made a tiny impact on the overall UK interest bill.
Discussion on the news channels as to whether Rubio should withdraw before the Florida primary, where he is 25 behind Trump, and save the embarrassment.
Discussion on the news channels as to whether Rubio should withdraw before the Florida primary, where he is 25 behind Trump, and save the embarrassment.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country?
Not only would it be unfair, it would also be inaccurate. Cumbria - lot of rural, some farming, some market towns, big local MOD employer (Barrow) - would be similar to, say, Devon (Plymouth) or, at a push, Hampshire (Portsmouth). The people there would have the same problems as everybody else, albeit with some differences (house prices being the biggie)
Come to think of it, Devon would be a good analogy: most of the commuting is done by car and it doesn't have the dependence of traintravel that the South East does.
I agree with this - but the Lib Dems (okay, I'm thinking Farron's seat) seem to be in the nice touristy bits. I haven't looked at the stats but I'd imagine that Westmorland and Lonsdale has a fair number of retirees.
I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
I genuinely like it and if your parents think it's a "bit of a dive" then please never visit Bognor, Grimsby, Middlesbrough, Bradford, Newport, Dundee, Stevenage...
I guess it's expectation management. Maidenhead sounds like it should be quite nice but my parents didn't think so.
Extraordinary how the two councils have gone in opposite directions.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country? I always have a vision of Lib Dems living in a idyllic world where there are no problems. I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
Yes. And The Home Counties are not exactly Basra
Not even Hounslow?
I know. Zone 6. Positively medieval. Some places even get Meridian Tonight...
Discussion on the news channels as to whether Rubio should withdraw before the Florida primary, where he is 25 behind Trump, and save the embarrassment.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country?
Not only would it be unfair, it would also be inaccurate. Cumbria - lot of rural, some farming, some market towns, big local MOD employer (Barrow) - would be similar to, say, Devon (Plymouth) or, at a push, Hampshire (Portsmouth). The people there would have the same problems as everybody else, albeit with some differences (house prices being the biggie)
Come to think of it, Devon would be a good analogy: most of the commuting is done by car and it doesn't have the dependence of traintravel that the South East does.
I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
I stayed there 1999-2000 when I was contracting. It's a southern English market town, so it's pretty nice. It's continually being redeveloped (they were building the "new" cinema when I was there, and this decade they've redeveloped 'round Market Street), so it's constantly changing. It's quiet, prosperous, good transport links to London, tho - a perennial bugbear - Reading to the West has faster trains t London. The housing stock is pretty decent and doesn't have the disadvantages of some Southern towns I could name (high ceilings plus poor heating, disharmonious architecture, a seeming reluctance to paint their fronts or tidy their gardens). I genuinely liked it and wish I'd bought back then when a flat cost about £100K: they're *way* higher than that now. It's where you live in Berkshire if you're too wealthy for Reading, too poor for Windsor. and need a shorter commuting time than, say, Twyford or Henley. I genuinely like it and if your parents think it's a "bit of a dive" then please never visit Bognor, Grimsby, Middlesbrough, Bradford, Newport, Dundee, Stevenage...
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country?
Not only would it be unfair, it would also be inaccurate. Cumbria - lot of rural, some farming, some market towns, big local MOD employer (Barrow) - would be similar to, say, Devon (Plymouth) or, at a push, Hampshire (Portsmouth). The people there would have the same problems as everybody else, albeit with some differences (house prices being the biggie)
Come to think of it, Devon would be a good analogy: most of the commuting is done by car and it doesn't have the dependence of traintravel that the South East does.
I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
I stayed there 1999-2000 when I was contracting. It's a southern English market town, so it's pretty nice. It's continually being redeveloped (they were building the "new" cinema when I was there, and this decade they've redeveloped 'round Market Street), so it's constantly changing. It's quiet, prosperous, good transport links to London, tho - a perennial bugbear - Reading to the West has faster trains t London. The housing stock is pretty decent and doesn't have the disadvantages of some Southern towns I could name (high ceilings plus poor heating, disharmonious architecture, a seeming reluctance to paint their fronts or tidy their gardens). I genuinely liked it and wish I'd bought back then when a flat cost about £100K: they're *way* higher than that now. It's where you live in Berkshire if you're too wealthy for Reading, too poor for Windsor. and need a shorter commuting time than, say, Twyford or Henley. I genuinely like it and if your parents think it's a "bit of a dive" then please never visit Bognor, Grimsby, Middlesbrough, Bradford, Newport, Dundee, Stevenage...
I am already sick and tired of the REMAIN and LEAVE camps slagging each other off.. I expect the rest of the UK is similarly unimpressed.. Result= Status Quo IMHO
Do you think? Wouldn't the result of that be lots of staying at home with your feet up instead of voting? In which case we come down to turnout - Leave's disgruntled hordes vs. Remain's Mr & Mrs Worried of No. 42. Low turnout would give Leave a fighting chance.
I am already sick and tired of the REMAIN and LEAVE camps slagging each other off.. I expect the rest of the UK is similarly unimpressed.. Result= Status Quo IMHO
Do you think? Wouldn't the result of that be lots of staying at home with your feet up instead of voting? In which case we come down to turnout - Leave's disgruntled hordes vs. Remain's Mr & Mrs Worried of No. 42. Low turnout would give Leave a fighting chance.
You are right. Bringing the tone of the debate down, will lower turnout, favouring Leave.
Which I should therefore support. But somehow it doesn't feel right to wish for low turnout.
Actually, the UK government has done an incredible job (largely thanks to Danny Alexander) in lengthening debt maturity during this period of low interest rates.
The average maturity of US debt is five years. It's six with Canada, Germany and Italy. And it's seven with France.
For the UK it's 15 years.
This means that even if interest rates went up to 8%, it would take several years before it even made a tiny impact on the overall UK interest bill.
Indeed, it's been a wonderful time to borrow money and I know a number of local authorities have taken the opportunity of cheap borrowing to fund investment property portfolios whose income will offset the decline in RSG and other Government funding in the coming years ?
It does run counter-intuitive to the meme of reducing borrowing but the opportunity to borrow cheaply on terms like this hasn't existed in two generations,
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
Wow, Obama's attack on Cameron! Is Cameron going to get knifed out of the way before the referendum? Or even before the local elections in May?
Imagine a US president blaming a British PM for the fragmentation of Libya!
Probably trying to demonstrate that without the EU the UK is just a minor player which is of course true.
If that's the aim, they've miscalculated. If Cameron falls before the referendum, Remain is toast.
The aim is probably more about providing political cover for Hillary as her record in the Libya intervention will be a big weak spot in the campaign versus Trump.
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
The max he can win is half the delegates, even if he had 100% of the votes...
The GOP slugfest is more fun than the Wacky Races.
If it's someone other than Marco might give a clue about the incoming fix.
American Samoa is the best one to gauge who an incoming fix might be for though, 9 delegates decided in a tiny restaurant, no vote totals released and a closed caucus for the RNC island leader and his mates. Turnout was 70 last time.
I am already sick and tired of the REMAIN and LEAVE camps slagging each other off.. I expect the rest of the UK is similarly unimpressed.. Result= Status Quo IMHO
Do you think? Wouldn't the result of that be lots of staying at home with your feet up instead of voting? In which case we come down to turnout - Leave's disgruntled hordes vs. Remain's Mr & Mrs Worried of No. 42. Low turnout would give Leave a fighting chance.
You are right. Bringing the tone of the debate down, will lower turnout, favouring Leave.
Which I should therefore support. But somehow it doesn't feel right to wish for low turnout.
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
I think we need to have the referendum on what relationship we like simultaneous with the Brexit referendum...
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
I think we need to have the referendum on what relationship we like simultaneous with the Brexit referendum...
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
Project Fear ...
On the contrary, I think we should try and ensure that the decision to leave is simultaneous with the decision about what we want afterwards.
Otherwise we'll spend the next three to five years arguing about what it is we want, and we'll end up with people pissed off.
Extraordinary how the two councils have gone in opposite directions.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country? I always have a vision of Lib Dems living in a idyllic world where there are no problems. I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
Yes. It would. The Lake District is not just some Beatrix Potter idyll.
Extraordinary how the two councils have gone in opposite directions.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country? I always have a vision of Lib Dems living in a idyllic world where there are no problems. I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
Yes. It would. The Lake District is not just some Beatrix Potter idyll.
If anywhere is a Beatrix Potter idyll, it's probably Hampstead...
@Kevin_Maguire: Now this is embarrassing for Dave: Cameron's mum's job axed as Tory cuts close children's centre she volunteers in https://t.co/0YdBcwm3Yl
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
Project Fear ...
On the contrary, I think we should try and ensure that the decision to leave is simultaneous with the decision about what we want afterwards.
Otherwise we'll spend the next three to five years arguing about what it is we want, and we'll end up with people pissed off.
Did you think Devomax should have been an option in the Scottish referendum?
The problem with having a third option is that too many people will simply vote for the half-way house on the assumption that it must be a sensible compromise regardless of the merits of the argument. Of course if one were looking to rig the result so that EEA membership would win, that's exactly how the ballot would look.
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
Wow, Obama's attack on Cameron! Is Cameron going to get knifed out of the way before the referendum? Or even before the local elections in May?
Imagine a US president blaming a British PM for the fragmentation of Libya!
Probably trying to demonstrate that without the EU the UK is just a minor player which is of course true.
If that's the aim, they've miscalculated. If Cameron falls before the referendum, Remain is toast.
I would doubt that. 'Remain' is likely to be overwhelmed by very credible supporters. 'Leave' on the other hand seems determined to represent themselves as reactionary oddballs. Farage and Johnson might be fine as extras in 'One Foot in the Grave' but they hardly fit the bill as Moses leading us into the Promised Land
The max he can win is half the delegates, even if he had 100% of the votes...
The GOP slugfest is more fun than the Wacky Races.
If it's someone other than Marco might give a clue about the incoming fix.
American Samoa is the best one to gauge who an incoming fix might be for though, 9 delegates decided in a tiny restaurant, no vote totals released and a closed caucus for the RNC island leader and his mates. Turnout was 70 last time.
It's probably a smoke-free restaurant, so nothing to worry about...
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
Well exactly - EEA would invoke the wrath of Farage and pals, but not of Boris, who just wants to be popular and doesn't care about silly things like policies - but as the deal would be negotiated by the new Prime Minister, it would depend on the political attitudes of the (surely) Conservative negotiator - which other than Boris would probably mean no free movement
@Kevin_Maguire: Now this is embarrassing for Dave: Cameron's mum's job axed as Tory cuts close children's centre she volunteers in https://t.co/0YdBcwm3Yl
Extraordinary how the two councils have gone in opposite directions.
Would it be unfair to suggest that the people of the Lake District are disconnected from the realities of the problems facing the country? I always have a vision of Lib Dems living in a idyllic world where there are no problems. I haven't been to Maidenhead myself, but my parents tell me it's a bit of a dive.
Yes. It would. The Lake District is not just some Beatrix Potter idyll.
If anywhere is a Beatrix Potter idyll, it's probably Hampstead...
Well, quite.
(Though it was better before all those bankers moved in........)
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
Project Fear ...
On the contrary, I think we should try and ensure that the decision to leave is simultaneous with the decision about what we want afterwards.
Otherwise we'll spend the next three to five years arguing about what it is we want, and we'll end up with people pissed off.
A lot of people are going to be pissed off regardless of what happens, we may as well get used to it.
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
They can negotiate any deal they see fit as long as it doesn't actually involve staying in the EU. They will still be the Government and will have the right and duty to negotiate what they see as the best deal for the country which they will then put to Parliament for approval.
If, as you seem to think, people are angry enough about the decision they will have a chance to vote for parties that want to change it at the next election.
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
They can negotiate any deal they see fit as long as it doesn't actually involve staying in the EU. They will still be the Government and will have the right and duty to negotiate what they see as the best deal for the country which they will then put to Parliament for approval.
If, as you seem to think, people are angry enough about the decision they will have a chance to vote for parties that want to change it at the next election.
So leave must make this clear otherwise there will be no democratic mandate
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
If we joined EFTA immediately we would not have left the EEA unless we actually declare as such.
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
They can negotiate any deal they see fit as long as it doesn't actually involve staying in the EU. They will still be the Government and will have the right and duty to negotiate what they see as the best deal for the country which they will then put to Parliament for approval.
If, as you seem to think, people are angry enough about the decision they will have a chance to vote for parties that want to change it at the next election.
Another point - what if Parliament doesn't approve it - this is getting very messy
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
They can negotiate any deal they see fit as long as it doesn't actually involve staying in the EU. They will still be the Government and will have the right and duty to negotiate what they see as the best deal for the country which they will then put to Parliament for approval.
If, as you seem to think, people are angry enough about the decision they will have a chance to vote for parties that want to change it at the next election.
The last thing we want - though - is a situation where the UK government spends so much time talking about what it wants post-EU, that we enter the 2020 General Election without having actually concluded our talks. We could then end up with a pro-EU government, that "while respecting the wishes of the people" continues to string out the negotiaitions... Perhaps causing us to leave the EU in name only.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that putting a question about what we want post-EU on the ballot, we minimise the risk of that happening.
The politicians most certainly WILL say, in the unlikely event of LEAVE, that the people have not given a clear instruction about what to do (never mind that the politicians didn't ask for one) - but regardless no hardline PM is going to negotiate free movement, surely?!
The politicians most certainly WILL say, in the unlikely event of LEAVE, that the people have not given a clear instruction about what to do (never mind that the politicians didn't ask for one) - but regardless no hardline PM is going to negotiate free movement, surely?!
The problem is that I regard free movement of labour as the sole thing the EU has done that I approve of.
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
They can negotiate any deal they see fit as long as it doesn't actually involve staying in the EU. They will still be the Government and will have the right and duty to negotiate what they see as the best deal for the country which they will then put to Parliament for approval.
If, as you seem to think, people are angry enough about the decision they will have a chance to vote for parties that want to change it at the next election.
Another point - what if Parliament doesn't approve it - this is getting very messy
I don't for a second think they won't pass it by a very large majority.
Enda Kenny has resigned. Might mean something for people's Irish books ! Not playing in this one myself.
I believe most of the markets are pretty vague, talking about a permanent government or some such. Of course he has resigned in order to remain as Taoiseach in a caretaker/shadow/phantom capacity but I doubt that will trigger anything
The politicians most certainly WILL say, in the unlikely event of LEAVE, that the people have not given a clear instruction about what to do (never mind that the politicians didn't ask for one) - but regardless no hardline PM is going to negotiate free movement, surely?!
The problem is that I regard free movement of labour as the sole thing the EU has done that I approve of.
And that's the problem. I agree with you but if you listen to anyone from leave they keep saying they will control immigration and as it is such an emotive subject voters for leave will demand the abolition of free movement. I hope that once the debates start the ambiguity of the various leave positions will become apparent and that the vote in some way for leave makes clear that free movement of labour may well continue
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
They can negotiate any deal they see fit as long as it doesn't actually involve staying in the EU. They will still be the Government and will have the right and duty to negotiate what they see as the best deal for the country which they will then put to Parliament for approval.
If, as you seem to think, people are angry enough about the decision they will have a chance to vote for parties that want to change it at the next election.
The last thing we want - though - is a situation where the UK government spends so much time talking about what it wants post-EU, that we enter the 2020 General Election without having actually concluded our talks. We could then end up with a pro-EU government, that "while respecting the wishes of the people" continues to string out the negotiaitions... Perhaps causing us to leave the EU in name only.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that putting a question about what we want post-EU on the ballot, we minimise the risk of that happening.
Well that is a decision that lies entirely with Cameron at the moment. But apparently he has decided to do no planning at all for a possible Brexit result.
I used to think that - in the case of Brexit - it would be the negotiating process with the EU that would be the hold-up. Two years of exit negotiations as we argued over what we'd accept in return for access to the single market.
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
I can see that the only way to decide between EEA/EFTA and complete separation would be by a referendum. Plenty of time for buyers remorse...
Would we not just join EFTA immediately and then decide whether or not to progress to EEA?
An interesting point that hasn't occurred to me before, if leave win do they have freedom to negotiate any deal, or do they have to negotiate a deal that stops free movement of labour as that will be the reason they win
They can negotiate any deal they see fit as long as it doesn't actually involve staying in the EU. They will still be the Government and will have the right and duty to negotiate what they see as the best deal for the country which they will then put to Parliament for approval.
If, as you seem to think, people are angry enough about the decision they will have a chance to vote for parties that want to change it at the next election.
Another point - what if Parliament doesn't approve it - this is getting very messy
I don't for a second think they won't pass it by a very large majority.
@faisalislam: Sky Sources: new Labour fiscal rule 2. Investment spending to be excluded from deficit reduction target, to take advantage of low rates
So, basically, "We won't spend anything, except for everything that we do spend."
Isn't this just Brown (1997-2007) all over again? Maybe Corbyn really is the heir to Blair?
No. The Economist, not noted for its leftism, has argued for this for some time - they feel that Britain suffers from serious underinvestment because in their view profligate spending on non-productive things (e.g. housing and pensions, both important things but not contributors to increasing production) squeeze out the airports, roads etc. that Britain needs, as the two are lumped together by Osborne under "spending restraint". They favour borrowing for investment at the current low rates, although I think they would want to squeeze non-investment spending much more than Labour would.
This policy would never work in reality, because left wing governments will always be looking to expand the definition of 'investment' to cover their pet projects that don't generate a meaningful return. Debt becomes dangerous when the interest bill becomes a large proportion of revenue; with debt at current levels, interest rates don't have to rise by much to crowd out lots of public spending.
There's nothing 'progressive' about running constant deficits and burdening future generations. It just helps the left to pretend that their preferences don't take money out of the electorate's pockets.
Actually, the UK government has done an incredible job (largely thanks to Danny Alexander) in lengthening debt maturity during this period of low interest rates.
The average maturity of US debt is five years. It's six with Canada, Germany and Italy. And it's seven with France.
For the UK it's 15 years.
This means that even if interest rates went up to 8%, it would take several years before it even made a tiny impact on the overall UK interest bill.
I know all about the UK's unusually long weighted average maturity, but don't say it too loudly, it only encourages the borrow-and-spenders...
Was it really Danny Alexander? I thought the UK had always been a maturity outlier. The consols have been outstanding since the 1930s, no? I know Mr Osbourne bought most of it back.
I'm sorry to say that if you support LEAVE and EEA then you should be cheering for Boris Johnson, because Priti Patel is not going to give you what you want... Oh sorry, there's also Michael Gove, PM Michael Gove. Titter
@faisalislam: Sky Sources: new Labour fiscal rule 2. Investment spending to be excluded from deficit reduction target, to take advantage of low rates
So, basically, "We won't spend anything, except for everything that we do spend."
Isn't this just Brown (1997-2007) all over again? Maybe Corbyn really is the heir to Blair?
No. The Economist, not noted for its leftism, has argued for this for some time - they feel that Britain suffers from serious underinvestment because in their view profligate spending on non-productive things (e.g. housing and pensions, both important things but not contributors to increasing production) squeeze out the airports, roads etc. that Britain needs, as the two are lumped together by Osborne under "spending restraint". They favour borrowing for investment at the current low rates, although I think they would want to squeeze non-investment spending much more than Labour would.
This policy would never work in reality, because left wing governments will always be looking to expand the definition of 'investment' to cover their pet projects that don't generate a meaningful return. Debt becomes dangerous when the interest bill becomes a large proportion of revenue; with debt at current levels, interest rates don't have to rise by much to crowd out lots of public spending.
There's nothing 'progressive' about running constant deficits and burdening future generations. It just helps the left to pretend that their preferences don't take money out of the electorate's pockets.
Actually, the UK government has done an incredible job (largely thanks to Danny Alexander) in lengthening debt maturity during this period of low interest rates.
The average maturity of US debt is five years. It's six with Canada, Germany and Italy. And it's seven with France.
For the UK it's 15 years.
This means that even if interest rates went up to 8%, it would take several years before it even made a tiny impact on the overall UK interest bill.
It wasn't Danny Alexander. The average UK debt maturity was already 14 years in 2010. He may have maintained what was already there. It may have been Ed Balls and Gordon Brown or their predecessors.
Stephanie Flanders, writing in February 2010:
According to the Debt Management Office, the average maturity of UK sovereign debt is 14 years. In the US, it's about four years. In France and Germany it's six or seven. Greek debt has an average maturity of just under 8 years. As I mentioned yesterday, they have about 10% of their debt coming due in the next few months.
@faisalislam: Sky Sources: new Labour fiscal rule 2. Investment spending to be excluded from deficit reduction target, to take advantage of low rates
So, basically, "We won't spend anything, except for everything that we do spend."
Isn't this just Brown (1997-2007) all over again? Maybe Corbyn really is the heir to Blair?
No. The Economist, not noted for its leftism, has argued for this for some time - they feel that Britain suffers from serious underinvestment because in their view profligate spending on non-productive things (e.g. housing and pensions, both important things but not contributors to increasing production) squeeze out the airports, roads etc. that Britain needs, as the two are lumped together by Osborne under "spending restraint". They favour borrowing for investment at the current low rates, although I think they would want to squeeze non-investment spending much more than Labour would.
This policy would never work in reality, because left wing governments will always be looking to expand the definition of 'investment' to cover their pet projects that don't generate a meaningful return. Debt becomes dangerous when the interest bill becomes a large proportion of revenue; with debt at current levels, interest rates don't have to rise by much to crowd out lots of public spending.
There's nothing 'progressive' about running constant deficits and burdening future generations. It just helps the left to pretend that their preferences don't take money out of the electorate's pockets.
Actually, the UK government has done an incredible job (largely thanks to Danny Alexander) in lengthening debt maturity during this period of low interest rates.
The average maturity of US debt is five years. It's six with Canada, Germany and Italy. And it's seven with France.
For the UK it's 15 years.
This means that even if interest rates went up to 8%, it would take several years before it even made a tiny impact on the overall UK interest bill.
I know all about the UK's unusually long weighted average maturity, but don't say it too loudly, it only encourages the borrow-and-spenders...
Was it really Danny Alexander? I thought the UK had always been a maturity outlier. The consols have been outstanding since the 1930s, no? I know Mr Osbourne bought most of it back.
They have: but in almost a third of UK gilts matured between 2010 and 2012. The weighted average for the refinancing was 18.2 years, which shifted us from 12 to 16 years.
Comments
"I'm going to put in some 2008 turnout figures into my spreadsheet and see if there is a correlation and if so what it is between Sanders performance relative to his avg and turnout differential later on."
In 2008 Obama was going to lose Michigan to Hillary, so he had Dean who was the DNC chair at the time to remove all of Michigan's delegates on a technicality before the vote.
So Obama declared he wasn't going to participate in Michigan at all since there was no point.
Only Hillary voters came to vote and she got 0 delegates despite winning, her victory was void.
Michigan may have made the difference for Obama winning the nomination, at least momentum wise.
That's how Trump wants tonight's CNN debate to be.
We'll see. Rubio is on life support.
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 28
There's nothing 'progressive' about running constant deficits and burdening future generations. It just helps the left to pretend that their preferences don't take money out of the electorate's pockets.
What do I expect from the debate?
For once it's on CNN, so it's friendlier to Trump than Fox News, however because it's CNN they will also let the candidates mostly free from control.
In the last debate they threw the kitchen sink on Trump so there is not much left that they haven't tried last time.
Rubio and Cruz will attack him as usual on not being conservative enough and on his business, Kasich will try and stay out of the fray, the big unknown as always is how Trump behaves.
So what does Labour mean by infrastructure? Only projects which have a BCR above a set value?
if they lose Baden Wuerttemberg to the Greens it's a catastophe. Like the Tories losing Surrey to Caroline Lucas. Currently that;s what the polls say.
Looks like his traditional debate drift has begun early tonight.
And The Home Counties are not exactly Basra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH_eCaClgEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owvA_XbL3nM&feature=youtu.be
My first chance to post after a few very busy days at home and at work.
The Mayoral poll in Tuesday's London Evening Standard made for interesting reading and although Sadiq Khan leads Zac Goldsmith by 5% on first preferences and 10% overall, this is far from being cut and dry.
Khan holds a big lead in Inner London as you might expect but in Outer London it's a tie which is surprising as you'd expect Goldsmith to be ahead. It's also significant that among those of us NOT supporting either Khan or Goldsmith on first preference, the second preferences are currently breaking 2-1 for Khan which would be fatal for Goldsmith if the first preferences are close.
Khan is in the pole (or poll) position but he's far from having clinched the deal with Londoners though stories about his aides won't have much resonance. We know the Standard will back Goldsmith though they're nowhere as enthusiastic about him as they were Boris.
It's also likely most Londoners won't engage with us until after Easter so there's all to play for just as there is with the EU referendum. For all that 20 or 30 regulars on here might argue the nuance of every tweet, article or pronouncement on a daily basis, the truth is the overwhelming majority haven't given it much thought yet. 14 weeks is an eternity for most people so there's no point either side thinking it's "game over" by any means.
Come to think of it, Devon would be a good analogy: most of the commuting is done by car and it doesn't have the dependence of traintravel that the South East does. I stayed there 1999-2000 when I was contracting. It's a southern English market town, so it's pretty nice. It's continually being redeveloped (they were building the "new" cinema when I was there, and this decade they've redeveloped 'round Market Street), so it's constantly changing. It's quiet, prosperous, good transport links to London, tho - a perennial bugbear - Reading to the West has faster trains t London. The housing stock is pretty decent and doesn't have the disadvantages of some Southern towns I could name (high ceilings plus poor heating, disharmonious architecture, a seeming reluctance to paint their fronts or tidy their gardens). I genuinely liked it and wish I'd bought back then when a flat cost about £100K: they're *way* higher than that now. It's where you live in Berkshire if you're too wealthy for Reading, too poor for Windsor. and need a shorter commuting time than, say, Twyford or Henley. I genuinely like it and if your parents think it's a "bit of a dive" then please never visit Bognor, Grimsby, Middlesbrough, Bradford, Newport, Dundee, Stevenage...
Hard to find A&E statistics by hospital before 2007 for example, but it's unthinkable now that this would not be available.
Big win for Marco incoming !!
The average maturity of US debt is five years. It's six with Canada, Germany and Italy. And it's seven with France.
For the UK it's 15 years.
This means that even if interest rates went up to 8%, it would take several years before it even made a tiny impact on the overall UK interest bill.
Looks about right to me. Perhaps a little bit closer to evens.
He should be banned for the rest of the season.
Imagine a US president blaming a British PM for the fragmentation of Libya!
Mind you, Obama is a compatriot of Boris Johnson. Has Sky News received any intercepts of traffic in the US Embassy in London recently?
The GOP slugfest is more fun than the Wacky Races.
Which I should therefore support. But somehow it doesn't feel right to wish for low turnout.
It does run counter-intuitive to the meme of reducing borrowing but the opportunity to borrow cheaply on terms like this hasn't existed in two generations,
Now I worry that post a Brexit vote, we'll invoke Article 50, and the EU negotiating team will arrive, and we'll say "OK, guys, what relationship with the EU would you like", and we'll say "I'll get back to you on that one..."
American Samoa is the best one to gauge who an incoming fix might be for though, 9 delegates decided in a tiny restaurant, no vote totals released and a closed caucus for the RNC island leader and his mates. Turnout was 70 last time.
Otherwise we'll spend the next three to five years arguing about what it is we want, and we'll end up with people pissed off.
The problem with having a third option is that too many people will simply vote for the half-way house on the assumption that it must be a sensible compromise regardless of the merits of the argument. Of course if one were looking to rig the result so that EEA membership would win, that's exactly how the ballot would look.
EEA would invoke the wrath of Farage and pals, but not of Boris, who just wants to be popular and doesn't care about silly things like policies -
but as the deal would be negotiated by the new Prime Minister, it would depend on the political attitudes of the (surely) Conservative negotiator - which other than Boris would probably mean no free movement
(Though it was better before all those bankers moved in........)
If, as you seem to think, people are angry enough about the decision they will have a chance to vote for parties that want to change it at the next election.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that putting a question about what we want post-EU on the ballot, we minimise the risk of that happening.
but regardless no hardline PM is going to negotiate free movement, surely?!
'Probably trying to demonstrate that without the EU the UK is just a minor player which is of course true.'
Must really hurt coming from a President that's achieved diddly squat in 8 years.
Counting underway at @UniofBath in the referendum on elected mayor for @bathnes. Turnout expected low, tho 13K ex 21K postal votes returned.
This tweet sums it all up.
https://twitter.com/BobConstantine/status/708058845860511744
Was it really Danny Alexander? I thought the UK had always been a maturity outlier. The consols have been outstanding since the 1930s, no? I know Mr Osbourne bought most of it back.
Oh sorry, there's also Michael Gove, PM Michael Gove. Titter
Stephanie Flanders, writing in February 2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/02/greek_britain.html