When you look at what the Tories are doing to themselves over Europe and also at the budget, the absolute uselessness of labour really strikes home. Part of Nick Palmer's explanation for supporting Corbyn is that Labour is probably going to lose in 2020 whatever so it doesn't really matter than much who the leader is and we may as well have Corbyn because he is nice and polite and left-wing, like most Labour members. But given the last year the inevitability of Labour defeat in 2020 with a decent leader and coherent policies is far from certain. Storm clouds are gathering for the Tories. Even if there is no major fall-out from the referendum, the economy is not doing what it is supposed to and Osborne is already breaking rules set in stone just months ago. A credible opposition could be making hay.
I cannot believe the deal the EU (Merkel, Juncker, Tusk et al) are going to do with Turkey over the refugees. Its absolute madness, highly impractical and possibly illegal. I read in the Telegraph that Merkel has come up with some hair brained scheme to process all refugees on the Greek Islands, by turning the current recepetion centres into detention centres complete with courts. Greek judges are going to be given the sole power to decide who gets refugee status and is therefore allowed to travel on to mainland Europe, in "rapid tribunals" and the rest are going to be deported immediately to Turkey. How on earth are they going to deport thousands of men, women and children without riots breaking out?
Also, the EU is going to be in a situation where Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis (ie genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution) are going to be deported en masse but in the next few weeks when the weather improves in the Mediterranean, thousands of Sub Saharan Africans are going to set sail from Libya for Italy. They are not refugees but economic migrants. But they wont be deported back to Libya as the Country is in chaos so they will presumably be free to roam Europe??
Much of that is sadly true.
However: what would your proposed solution to the problem be? How do you deal with the refugees and migrants already in the EU, yet alone those who want to enter?
Andrew Neil Deep in Treasury Red Book: Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15 Oil revs close to zero 2015/16 Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)
Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.
As for Nicola .......
Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
Used by Labour and Tories to turn London into the world capital, hardly pissed away.
They did allow a few quid to be hosed on benefits for wee scunners like Malky and his fellow neds.
I pay north of £30K a year to keep tossers like you on JSA and housing.
30,000 bottle tops, more like.
Still, tax rises ahead for Scotland must bring a wee smile to your face.
Although voting intention shows an even split between the campaigns, when asked what they expect the actual referendum result to be, people still believe that the UK is more likely to remain part of the European Union than to leave - Remain 41% (+3), Leave 28 (=), Don’t know 31 (-3)
Commenting on the findings, Luke Taylor, Head of Social and Political Attitudes at TNS UK said: “Although the two sides of the campaign are now level pegging, we are yet to see a decisive move on either side. The major problem for the ‘Remain’ campaign at present is that their support draws significantly on younger people who are traditionally less likely to turn out in elections.”
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.
No idea at this point !
Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.
Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.
For me, as someone who doesn't really admire political stunts/tactical wizardry, the sugar tax was what stood out
(a) because I don't really understand the rest of the budget (b) because it seems such an obvious big state tactic from a Conservative govt... and worse than that it is done to generate money rather than as a moral crusade, such as banning sugary drinks over a certain level, which would be big state, but acceptable to me
Trinity Mirror has rapidly reversed its decision to freeze the price of its new national newspaper the New Day, doubling the cover price to 50p despite sales falling to less than 90,000.
The New Day has seen its sales fall from a high of about 150,000 copies set in the days after the title launched on 29 February.
Did they hire an Apple "Genius", thinking they were a real genius? How long before they put it out of its misery?
It was obvious to absolutely everyone outside the Mirror Group that this was never a starter. I am surprised it has lasted this long, to be honest. It's a product built on focus group feedback: people saying that they don't buy newspapers anymore because they are so miserable, biased and so on; when anyone with half a brain knows that is not the case.
On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.
No idea at this point !
Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.
Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.
LISA is a nice name for a Trojan horse. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. But it's going to be a good idea for many under 40 to look at using LISA.
Do we know if LISA is going to be available to under-18s?
With a bit of imagination, there seems to be potential to create a multi-purpose tax free savings vehicle that allows people to fund their university / training, house purchasing / rent deposit, out of work social security, business start up lump sum, and pension.
As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.
I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.
It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.
An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.
With Corbyn as leader of Labour the Tories can tear themselves apart and they will still win the election in 2020. That is the major difference between then and now. They have a free ticket to do exactly as they wish. Of course, there is a chance that Labour might decide it is serious about wanting to win elections again at some stage, but you wouldn't bet on it.
I remain of the view that there is a substantial chance of a split in one or both main parties, precisely because each can see that the other is feuding madly.
Labour could well split after 2020 as there is nowhere for moderate Labour MPs or supporters to go. They'll need a new party. The Tories won't split because they have UKIP.
One wonders about the size of the mistake made by the Lib Dems. In theory they ought to benefit from this but they show no sign of doing so. A Labour split might be tempting but who would be funding it? Unless you have a very charismatic figure they are unlikely to get lots of small donations from scratch and if it's primarily sponsored by a few people in the city who are disgruntled with the Tories, the whole thing is dead on arrival.
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
I agree with that.
I'm laying Kasich cheerfully and slightly regret taking insurance on Ryan and Romney.
I think it's a key point that Cruz has no interest in aiding a stitch-up that doesn't make him the nominee.
'A clear majority of voters - 62% - now believe it is inevitable that Britain will join the euro, according to the results of the December Guardian/ICM monthly opinion poll.'
'A clear majority of voters - 62% - now believe it is inevitable that Britain will join the euro, according to the results of the December Guardian/ICM monthly opinion poll.'
Andrew Neil Deep in Treasury Red Book: Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15 Oil revs close to zero 2015/16 Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)
Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.
As for Nicola .......
Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
Surely the weakness of the SNP case is that they "wouldn't start from here". If Scotland had been independent since the 1980s, it may well have had a sovereign wealth fund to rival Norway's; likewise if British governments had not pished away the revenues. But they didn't and they did.
As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.
I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.
It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.
With Corbyn as leader of Labour the Tories can tear themselves apart and they will still win the election in 2020. That is the major difference between then and now. They have a free ticket to do exactly as they wish. Of course, there is a chance that Labour might decide it is serious about wanting to win elections again at some stage, but you wouldn't bet on it.
I remain of the view that there is a substantial chance of a split in one or both main parties, precisely because each can see that the other is feuding madly.
Labour could well split after 2020 as there is nowhere for moderate Labour MPs or supporters to go. They'll need a new party. The Tories won't split because they have UKIP.
One wonders about the size of the mistake made by the Lib Dems. In theory they ought to benefit from this but they show no sign of doing so. A Labour split might be tempting but who would be funding it? Unless you have a very charismatic figure they are unlikely to get lots of small donations from scratch and if it's primarily sponsored by a few people in the city who are disgruntled with the Tories, the whole thing is dead on arrival.
It will certainly be a long process, but if Labour cements itself as a real left wing party, then it will never win an election, so what will be the point of remaining within it? You might as well start again. One advantage is that there will be sitting MPs and there will be people experienced in building and running constituency operations. It will be a horribly hard slog, but at least there will be a level of hope.
@FrankBooth - It will certainly be a long process, but if Labour cements itself as a real left wing party, then it will never win an election, so what will be the point of remaining within it? You might as well start again. One advantage is that there will be sitting MPs and there will be people experienced in building and running constituency operations. It will be a horribly hard slog, but at least there will be a level of hope.
On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.
No idea at this point !
Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.
Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.
Whether you think Trump is too long depends on GOP wiliness to take the nomination away from with 1000+ delegates and give it to a man (probably) with none.
What do you think about Cruz's odds? This morning I'm thinking that if the establishment had the slightest appetite for Cruz as an alternative to Trump they would already have adopted him. Ergo, they won't do it.
Well, I don't think Trump is exactly free money. If his popularity seems to be on the wane and if he falls short by a hundred delegates then I think it would be game on.
ICM’s final “wisdom of crowds index” – respondents’ averaged best guess of how each party will score – continues to put the Tories ahead on 35%, compared to 32% Labour. Voters also envisage the Lib Dems on 14%, ahead of Ukip on 10%, all figures that are unchanged from the provisional data.
ICM’s final “wisdom of crowds index” – respondents’ averaged best guess of how each party will score – continues to put the Tories ahead on 35%, compared to 32% Labour. Voters also envisage the Lib Dems on 14%, ahead of Ukip on 10%, all figures that are unchanged from the provisional data.
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
I agree with that.
I'm laying Kasich cheerfully and slightly regret taking insurance on Ryan and Romney.
I think it's a key point that Cruz has no interest in aiding a stitch-up that doesn't make him the nominee.
Maybe Trump and Cruz could do a deal that Cruz becomes Trump's VP candidate
On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.
No idea at this point !
Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.
Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.
Whether you think Trump is too long depends on GOP wiliness to take the nomination away from with 1000+ delegates and give it to a man (probably) with none.
What do you think about Cruz's odds? This morning I'm thinking that if the establishment had the slightest appetite for Cruz as an alternative to Trump they would already have adopted him. Ergo, they won't do it.
Well, I don't think Trump is exactly free money. If his popularity seems to be on the wane and if he falls short by a hundred delegates then I think it would be game on.
Interesting piece here on the candidates' preparations for convention:
ICM’s final “wisdom of crowds index” – respondents’ averaged best guess of how each party will score – continues to put the Tories ahead on 35%, compared to 32% Labour. Voters also envisage the Lib Dems on 14%, ahead of Ukip on 10%, all figures that are unchanged from the provisional data.
I cannot believe the deal the EU (Merkel, Juncker, Tusk et al) are going to do with Turkey over the refugees. Its absolute madness, highly impractical and possibly illegal. I read in the Telegraph that Merkel has come up with some hair brained scheme to process all refugees on the Greek Islands, by turning the current recepetion centres into detention centres complete with courts. Greek judges are going to be given the sole power to decide who gets refugee status and is therefore allowed to travel on to mainland Europe, in "rapid tribunals" and the rest are going to be deported immediately to Turkey. How on earth are they going to deport thousands of men, women and children without riots breaking out?
Also, the EU is going to be in a situation where Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis (ie genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution) are going to be deported en masse but in the next few weeks when the weather improves in the Mediterranean, thousands of Sub Saharan Africans are going to set sail from Libya for Italy. They are not refugees but economic migrants. But they wont be deported back to Libya as the Country is in chaos so they will presumably be free to roam Europe??
Much of that is sadly true.
However: what would your proposed solution to the problem be? How do you deal with the refugees and migrants already in the EU, yet alone those who want to enter?
I feel for the locals on Lesbos. Must all be very worrying for them and can't help their tourism industry
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Very good. Amazing showmanship and of course misdirection.
Off to the big top hat in the sky. RIP.
I'd not seen that one before, and watched most of his stuff as a keen magic fan in the late '80s and early '90s. Laughed when I didn't cry.
There's a very good reason most magicians don't work with animals other than the odd rabbit or bird. A chimp can be trained much like a dog, but there would have been an awful lot of ad lib and several ways that trick could have gone horribly wrong!!
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
EDIT: should have added that Trump being taken down is not an automatic win for Cruz - would be a time for the party to reassess, rally around a unity candidate - Cruz would not be that person.
I cannot believe the deal the EU (Merkel, Juncker, Tusk et al) are going to do with Turkey over the refugees. Its absolute madness, highly impractical and possibly illegal. I read in the Telegraph that Merkel has come up with some hair brained scheme to process all refugees on the Greek Islands, by turning the current recepetion centres into detention centres complete with courts. Greek judges are going to be given the sole power to decide who gets refugee status and is therefore allowed to travel on to mainland Europe, in "rapid tribunals" and the rest are going to be deported immediately to Turkey. How on earth are they going to deport thousands of men, women and children without riots breaking out?
Also, the EU is going to be in a situation where Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis (ie genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution) are going to be deported en masse but in the next few weeks when the weather improves in the Mediterranean, thousands of Sub Saharan Africans are going to set sail from Libya for Italy. They are not refugees but economic migrants. But they wont be deported back to Libya as the Country is in chaos so they will presumably be free to roam Europe??
Much of that is sadly true.
However: what would your proposed solution to the problem be? How do you deal with the refugees and migrants already in the EU, yet alone those who want to enter?
I feel for the locals on Lesbos. Must all be very worrying for them and can't help their tourism industry
Fresh from the unbelievable Sprinter Sacre digging me out of a hole yesterday and Annie Power washing my face Tuesday, today's selections are:
14:50 JOSSES HILL. If Vautour is right, he wins. But pulling him out of the gold cup (Ruining my ante post !) suggests he may not be 100%; as such there may be a smidgen of value in the rags. Josses Hill looks to be in a bit of form, and is at a nice price. I'm using a £5 free bet on this one, £5 free bet on the nose (Coral)
15:30 THISTLECRACK (NAP) £10 win William Hills, try and get on with a bookie that gives free bet if second.
How many of the don't knows won't vote because they don't know? Although a definite Remain voter myself I have to say I am far from confident of victory despite the slight movement towards us in the last 2 polls. I thought the strain was telling on Cameron's face in the background behind Osborne yesterday. Those on the left and centre left enraged by Osborne's giveaway to the already very wealthy via his CGT cuts while disability benefits are cut will have to hold their nose and swallow hard before effectively voting to save his skin.
How many of the don't knows won't vote because they don't know? Although a definite Remain voter myself I have to say I am far from confident of victory despite the slight movement towards us in the last 2 polls. I thought the strain was telling on Cameron's face in the background behind Osborne yesterday. Those on the left and centre left enraged by Osborne's giveaway to the already very wealthy via his CGT cuts while disability benefits are cut will have to hold their nose and swallow hard before effectively voting to save his skin.
As a general rule in the past, DKs, seldom turn out to vote.
But I'm waiting to see what the Ipsos Mori and ComRes phone polls show.
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Andrew Neil Deep in Treasury Red Book: Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15 Oil revs close to zero 2015/16 Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)
Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.
As for Nicola .......
Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
Surely the weakness of the SNP case is that they "wouldn't start from here". If Scotland had been independent since the 1980s, it may well have had a sovereign wealth fund to rival Norway's; likewise if British governments had not pished away the revenues. But they didn't and they did.
You could argue that the best Sovereign Wealth Fund strategy is to invest in a country with its own printing press rather than in companies which no matter how blue chip, are susceptible to failing. Under that thought process, Scotland invested in UK plc in the 80s and 90s and is now reaping the benefit.
ICM’s final “wisdom of crowds index” – respondents’ averaged best guess of how each party will score – continues to put the Tories ahead on 35%, compared to 32% Labour. Voters also envisage the Lib Dems on 14%, ahead of Ukip on 10%, all figures that are unchanged from the provisional data.
GE result
Con 37 Lab 30 Lib 8 UKIP 14
Not obviously a very good predictor?
Nothing is perfect. Except maybe David Cameron.
Pretty good compared to the actual polls. Interesting.
@FrankBooth - It will certainly be a long process, but if Labour cements itself as a real left wing party, then it will never win an election, so what will be the point of remaining within it? You might as well start again. One advantage is that there will be sitting MPs and there will be people experienced in building and running constituency operations. It will be a horribly hard slog, but at least there will be a level of hope.
The LDs are essentially in a similar position.
History is not irrelevant though. These are political movements that have a long and rich tradition behind them. What would be the founding principles of a new centre left movement? The thing is if one takes the two exemplars of Labour 'modernisation' Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, the first appeared to have no real fondness for the Party and it's heritage, whilst for the latter he'll often declare his love for his party but it's not clear what he's so attached to other than the sentiment of his Grandfather being Herbert Morrison. What exactly does Mandelson love about the Labour Party?
If it's core principles are equality and (primarily) working class solidarity, where are it's enterprising leaders going to come from in such an individualistic era?
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Trump has some serious security around him, as was shown when one protestor got close to the stage last week - there were about a dozen of them, they've certainly been described in the media as Secret Service.
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
ICM’s final “wisdom of crowds index” – respondents’ averaged best guess of how each party will score – continues to put the Tories ahead on 35%, compared to 32% Labour. Voters also envisage the Lib Dems on 14%, ahead of Ukip on 10%, all figures that are unchanged from the provisional data.
GE result
Con 37 Lab 30 Lib 8 UKIP 14
Not obviously a very good predictor?
Nothing is perfect. Except maybe David Cameron.
Pretty good compared to the actual polls. Interesting.
We have TNS level-pegging. ICM level-pegging, 1% Lead for Leave, 2% lead for Remain Yougov, about 3% lead for remain. BMG 2% lead for Remain ORB 4% lead for Leave (online) and 2% lead for Leave (phone) Survation (phone) 15% lead for Remain.
@FrankBooth - It will certainly be a long process, but if Labour cements itself as a real left wing party, then it will never win an election, so what will be the point of remaining within it? You might as well start again. One advantage is that there will be sitting MPs and there will be people experienced in building and running constituency operations. It will be a horribly hard slog, but at least there will be a level of hope.
The LDs are essentially in a similar position.
History is not irrelevant though. These are political movements that have a long and rich tradition behind them. What would be the founding principles of a new centre left movement? The thing is if one takes the two exemplars of Labour 'modernisation' Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, the first appeared to have no real fondness for the Party and it's heritage, whilst for the latter he'll often declare his love for his party but it's not clear what he's so attached to other than the sentiment of his Grandfather being Herbert Morrison. What exactly does Mandelson love about the Labour Party?
If it's core principles are equality and (primarily) working class solidarity, where are it's enterprising leaders going to come from in such an individualistic era?
I'd imagine that equality of opportunity and community would be at the heart of a new centre-left party; but - crucially - so would pragmatism, a degree of patriotism and less interest in international solidarity. You may find that overall it reflects left of centre working class views a lot more accurately than Labour does now. Labour could be such a party, but it is pretty clear that currently around 60% of members don't want it to be. If that does not change, Labour is finished.
These days, political parties can't be seen as football clubs to be supported through thick and thin. They are vehicles through which you can get things done. I suspect that was (is) the Mandelson and Blair view.
I rather suspect that yesterday will in retrospect turn out to be the day that the electorate began to form the view that they were duped by the Tories in 2015.
On the question of the Labour leadership,is the Labour party of a nature to sack the manager of a Premier League club after just 8 matches and would Labour really be doing any better under Kendall,Cooper or Burnham? The long-term decline of Labour in Scotland cannot be blamed on either Dugdale or Corbyn and it's very likely to continue in 2020 unless Scotland gets fed up with one one-party state replacing another. Ukip will fizzle out in Wales if local results repeat themselves as long as Labour puts resources into the kind of strategy Ian Warren describes. The English elections will assess the trend that merits most scrutiny.It's worth remembering trends are only guides.A 5yr old was never going to win the Cheltenham Champion Hurdle,until 1 did.
I rather suspect that yesterday will in retrospect turn out to be the day that the electorate began to form the view that they were duped by the Tories in 2015.
You are always so positive on the outlook for the Tories chances....
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Trump has some serious security around him, as was shown when one protestor got close to the stage last week - there were about a dozen of them, they've certainly been described in the media as Secret Service.
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
Who would you think most likely to target him. Women - unlikely. One of the minorities he's upset? The Republican establishment?
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Trump has some serious security around him, as was shown when one protestor got close to the stage last week - there were about a dozen of them, they've certainly been described in the media as Secret Service.
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
Who would you think most likely to target him. Women - unlikely. One of the minorities he's upset? The Republican establishment?
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Trump has some serious security around him, as was shown when one protestor got close to the stage last week - there were about a dozen of them, they've certainly been described in the media as Secret Service.
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
Who would you think most likely to target him. Women - unlikely. One of the minorities he's upset? The Republican establishment?
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Trump has some serious security around him, as was shown when one protestor got close to the stage last week - there were about a dozen of them, they've certainly been described in the media as Secret Service.
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
Who would you think most likely to target him. Women - unlikely. One of the minorities he's upset? The Republican establishment?
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Trump has some serious security around him, as was shown when one protestor got close to the stage last week - there were about a dozen of them, they've certainly been described in the media as Secret Service.
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
Who would you think most likely to target him. Women - unlikely. One of the minorities he's upset? The Republican establishment?
Fraser Nelson Osborne's right - the jobs miracle is real, and amazing. Employment rate at highest in UK history. https://t.co/BcKr5qjHDJ
Isn't it amazing to see what can happen when taxes are cut and benefits made more difficult to live on for years on end..? Well done!
Loose monetary and fiscal policy with a short-termist low saving consumer mindset might seem more plausible. And the fact that the current government took over at the bottom of the hole. We've simply reverted to previous levels.
There is something to be said for our job creating abilities in Britain. But that's largely down to a workforce that's prepared to be flexible and accept insecurity. Hardly something for politicians to crow about or a great selling point for a nation. Witness it not featuring in the Scottish referendum.
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Trump has some serious security around him, as was shown when one protestor got close to the stage last week - there were about a dozen of them, they've certainly been described in the media as Secret Service.
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
Who would you think most likely to target him. Women - unlikely. One of the minorities he's upset? The Republican establishment?
'I suspect that there is an element here of people thinking the whole thing is loaded in favour of one side of the argument.'
Yes, perhaps - or just a general fatalism about these things. You get this on other topics too with people often saying 'nothing can/will be done' about topics they are unhappy about.
Again, note the link I put up which showed 60%+ thinking UK euro membership was inevitable in 2001. I remember at the time euro supporters putting a lot of weight (and hope) on those kinds of findings. But in the end they just couldn't make the case, despite lots of scaremongering.
You may also note from that link Sparrow from ICM predicting there would be a big shift in the polls towards euro support over the next year. Didn't happen.
These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.
If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.
What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).
I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.
So it will be one or other of these two.
Trump still has to survive to the convention. America is a country with a lot of armed nutters and I guess that party candidates don't get quite the Secret Service coverage that the Presidential candidates would? Someone taking a shot at Trump is probably not a high risk, but I would assess that it is a material risk.
Trump has some serious security around him, as was shown when one protestor got close to the stage last week - there were about a dozen of them, they've certainly been described in the media as Secret Service.
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
Who would you think most likely to target him. Women - unlikely. One of the minorities he's upset? The Republican establishment?
I've not given the idea a whole lot of thought, but Mr Trump is certainly not short of enemies across the political spectrum - whether it be one lone nutcase or something much more organised.
Two interesting races in Utah (Caucus) and Arizona (WTA primary).
In Utah Trump could outperform; the risk in Arizona is that Cruz gets it. Then Trump would definitely need to make up delegates elsewhere.
Arizona is a very comfortable Trump win. Utah is Trump's weakest state, not sure of they have a 50% rule or not but he should get past the 15% threshold, even in a caucus.
Nitwit Bernie supporters full of self righteousness zeal.
seems like USA political assasinations are more often right wing in origin
Yeah. The brother of Ronald Reagan's would be assassin had dinner with Vice President George Bush's son on the day before the assassination, and was a donor too.
Other areas covered by the EU’s barmy VAT rules include digital services like Netflix, now charged at the place of purchase. Not only this, British digital businesses selling products in EU member states are subject to local VAT rates, for example Croatian, Danish, and Swedish VAT rates of 25%, or even sky-high Hungarian VAT at 27%.
Staines has got this wrong...this has been in force since start of last year and actually it is about fairness. It doesn't disadvantage British business, it makes it a fair level playing field, so that no matter where you try and base yourself you have to pay the same VAT that a company in that country would have to pay to sell that digital service.
There are issues with the rules, like the VAT free threshold for companies wishing to sell across EU is zero and the rules put the emphasis on the business to be the VAT inspector, rather than applying the different thresholds for each country or say having a 100k threshold so that it doesn't burden small start-ups. However, it stops the likes of Amazon or Netflix says no no we don't have to pay any UK VAT on streaming services, because we are in Luxembourg.
'A bit like LDs being impervious to ballot box reality?'
That 'wisdom of crowds' oracle didn't call that too well, either, did it? It predicted a vote share for the Lib Dems of almost double what they actually got.
Fraser Nelson Osborne's right - the jobs miracle is real, and amazing. Employment rate at highest in UK history. https://t.co/BcKr5qjHDJ
Isn't it amazing to see what can happen when taxes are cut and benefits made more difficult to live on for years on end..? Well done!
Loose monetary and fiscal policy with a short-termist low saving consumer mindset might seem more plausible. And the fact that the current government took over at the bottom of the hole. We've simply reverted to previous levels.
There is something to be said for our job creating abilities in Britain. But that's largely down to a workforce that's prepared to be flexible and accept insecurity. Hardly something for politicians to crow about or a great selling point for a nation. Witness it not featuring in the Scottish referendum.
A flexible and effective benefit system will help people who have insecure jobs, it is these people the benefit system is supposed to help not those who treat it as a lifestyle choice. And the first thing you should do when you have a zero hours job is to continue looking for a full time permanent one. If employers found that people pissed off after 2-3 months it would impose a cost and they may review their employment policies.
Andrew Neil really is a class act. The two numpties put up today are not faring well.
Why do the parties continually fail to prepare for interviews with Neill? They do realise he has spent most of the last 24 hours (and 30 years of experience!) preparing for those 20 minutes, don't they?
We have TNS level-pegging. ICM level-pegging, 1% Lead for Leave, 2% lead for Remain Yougov, about 3% lead for remain. BMG 2% lead for Remain ORB 4% lead for Leave (online) and 2% lead for Leave (phone) Survation (phone) 15% lead for Remain.
I'm about 80% certain that Remain will win.
No one likes the EU but I don't think the voters will have the courage to do what their Government will not.
I am also hearing 'better the devil you know' and a few of Project Fear's straplines repeated a lot socially.
It is not enough for Leave to rely on turnout and events.
I expect Trump will pile up enough votes in SE (Milwaukee) and NE Wisconsin, like Romney, to win that too. The neighbouring counties in Illinois and Michigan went pretty solid for Trump. Bit of a concern as it is an open primary that there is anti Trump tactical voting by Dems. Minnesota was a caucus so not too relevant, I don't see Rubio winning it.
As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.
I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.
I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.
It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.
I've got a very interesting tip coming up as next Tory leader this weekend.
I know PBers will laugh at it, but I reckon it might have value.
Look forward to that.
FWIW I find a lot of the 2015 intake v.impressive and I like Jesse Norman as an interesting longshot.
I'm on so many in this market (been so many different long shots accruing since 2013 when it looked like Cameron wouldn't last beyond 2015) - but still only down c.£50 if Osborne/May/Javid/Bojo win.
Norman, Greg Clark (my new fave longshot - connects with people far better than any Tory I've seen, well, since Cameron) and Theresa Villiers would be the best from my book's POV!
Nitwit Bernie supporters full of self righteousness zeal.
seems like USA political assasinations are more often right wing in origin
Yeah. The brother of Ronald Reagan's would be assassin had dinner with Vice President George Bush's son on the day before the assassination, and was a donor too.
wow that is a crazy story, I guess i was only 10, so I missed the details, though I remember the event
Andrew Neil really is a class act. The two numpties put up today are not faring well.
Why do the parties continually fail to prepare for interviews with Neill? They do realise he has spent most of the last 24 hours (and 30 years of experience!) preparing for those 20 minutes, don't they?
What is really worse is he is basically the only one who does this. What infuriates me so much about a lot of the other high profile political interviewers is how poorly prepped they are and instead rely on interruption and disparaging remarks, and basically even if they make the interviewee look foolish I am none the wiser about the actual situation they are supposed to be discussing.
Andrew Neil really is a class act. The two numpties put up today are not faring well.
Why do the parties continually fail to prepare for interviews with Neill? They do realise he has spent most of the last 24 hours (and 30 years of experience!) preparing for those 20 minutes, don't they?
TBF they're sent on to defend the indefensible by their leaders. I sometimes think that the parties would be better off getting empty chaired than to look so hopeless.
Nitwit Bernie supporters full of self righteousness zeal.
seems like USA political assasinations are more often right wing in origin
Yeah. The brother of Ronald Reagan's would be assassin had dinner with Vice President George Bush's son on the day before the assassination, and was a donor too.
wow that is a crazy story, I guess i was only 10, so I missed the details, though I remember the event
(1) Things stay as they are. Differential turnout and events help a little bit but, ultimately, voting don't knows break for Remain, and people bottle it in the polling both, as they are so scared. This is my base assumption 58/42 to Remain. (2) Vote Leave get official status in mid-April, and sort their shit out. A thorough, professional well-planned, well-resourced media-grid based campaign is launched with sensible moderate cross party figures making set piece speeches and winning debates. Reassurance is offered on Brexit outcomes and a future vision for the UK outwith, plus a reverse Project Fear is launched on the real risks of Remain. This is my optimistic assumption for Leave - 52/48 to Remain. A narrow miss.
I assess a 65% probability of the first and 35% of the second.
Nitwit Bernie supporters full of self righteousness zeal.
seems like USA political assasinations are more often right wing in origin
Yeah. The brother of Ronald Reagan's would be assassin had dinner with Vice President George Bush's son on the day before the assassination, and was a donor too.
Comments
I laughed at so much of it, and don't like chimps.
However: what would your proposed solution to the problem be? How do you deal with the refugees and migrants already in the EU, yet alone those who want to enter?
http://www.tnsglobal.co.uk/press-release/tns-poll-campaign-enters-its-final-hundred-days-both-sides-are-yet-see-breakthrough
Still, tax rises ahead for Scotland must bring a wee smile to your face.
Commenting on the findings, Luke Taylor, Head of Social and Political Attitudes at TNS UK said: “Although the two sides of the campaign are now level pegging, we are yet to see a decisive move on either side. The major problem for the ‘Remain’ campaign at present is that their support draws significantly on younger people who are traditionally less likely to turn out in elections.”
(a) because I don't really understand the rest of the budget
(b) because it seems such an obvious big state tactic from a Conservative govt... and worse than that it is done to generate money rather than as a moral crusade, such as banning sugary drinks over a certain level, which would be big state, but acceptable to me
Just bollox.
Just ask Bill Clinton
Do we know if LISA is going to be available to under-18s?
With a bit of imagination, there seems to be potential to create a multi-purpose tax free savings vehicle that allows people to fund their university / training, house purchasing / rent deposit, out of work social security, business start up lump sum, and pension.
I'm laying Kasich cheerfully and slightly regret taking insurance on Ryan and Romney.
I think it's a key point that Cruz has no interest in aiding a stitch-up that doesn't make him the nominee.
'A clear majority of voters - 62% - now believe it is inevitable that Britain will join the euro, according to the results of the December Guardian/ICM monthly opinion poll.'
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/18/euro.polls
https://goo.gl/4DBrlJ
The LDs are essentially in a similar position.
GE result
Con 37
Lab
Lib
UKIP
GE result
Con 37
Lab 30
Lib 8
UKIP 14
Not obviously a very good predictor?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/republicans-enter-a-shadow-campaign-to-sew-up-delegates.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&_r=0
There's a very good reason most magicians don't work with animals other than the odd rabbit or bird. A chimp can be trained much like a dog, but there would have been an awful lot of ad lib and several ways that trick could have gone horribly wrong!!
Chris Bryant: "I'm delighted that finally the chancellor has realised the dangers of coke."
Grimtastic for the residents whatever yardstick one uses.
Fresh from the unbelievable Sprinter Sacre digging me out of a hole yesterday and Annie Power washing my face Tuesday, today's selections are:
14:50 JOSSES HILL. If Vautour is right, he wins. But pulling him out of the gold cup (Ruining my ante post !) suggests he may not be 100%; as such there may be a smidgen of value in the rags. Josses Hill looks to be in a bit of form, and is at a nice price.
I'm using a £5 free bet on this one, £5 free bet on the nose (Coral)
15:30 THISTLECRACK (NAP) £10 win William Hills, try and get on with a bookie that gives free bet if second.
The rest look like Granny's pin races.
But I'm waiting to see what the Ipsos Mori and ComRes phone polls show.
Hopefully we might get them today/tomorrow.
You could argue that the best Sovereign Wealth Fund strategy is to invest in a country with its own printing press rather than in companies which no matter how blue chip, are susceptible to failing. Under that thought process, Scotland invested in UK plc in the 80s and 90s and is now reaping the benefit.
If it's core principles are equality and (primarily) working class solidarity, where are it's enterprising leaders going to come from in such an individualistic era?
Several people have now mentioned unprompted the idea that someone might decide that 'taking out' Trump sometime between now and the Convention might be the easiest way of dealing with him - I would imagine his security team now have to deal with credible threats on a daily basis.
In Utah Trump could outperform; the risk in Arizona is that Cruz gets it. Then Trump would definitely need to make up delegates elsewhere.
Polls, polls and more polls please
Fraser Nelson
Osborne's right - the jobs miracle is real, and amazing. Employment rate at highest in UK history. https://t.co/BcKr5qjHDJ
We have TNS level-pegging.
ICM level-pegging, 1% Lead for Leave, 2% lead for Remain
Yougov, about 3% lead for remain.
BMG 2% lead for Remain
ORB 4% lead for Leave (online) and 2% lead for Leave (phone)
Survation (phone) 15% lead for Remain.
Arizona, among those who had voted early:
Trump 41%
Cruz 24
Rubio 16
Kasich 13
These days, political parties can't be seen as football clubs to be supported through thick and thin. They are vehicles through which you can get things done. I suspect that was (is) the Mandelson and Blair view.
The long-term decline of Labour in Scotland cannot be blamed on either Dugdale or Corbyn and it's very likely to continue in 2020 unless Scotland gets fed up with one one-party state replacing another.
Ukip will fizzle out in Wales if local results repeat themselves as long as Labour puts resources into the kind of strategy Ian Warren describes.
The English elections will assess the trend that merits most scrutiny.It's worth remembering trends are only guides.A 5yr old was never going to win the Cheltenham Champion Hurdle,until 1 did.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/
The two numpties put up today are not faring well.
http://capx.co/the-scottish-moral-superiority-complex-about-to-be-tested-with-higher-taxes/
That lost many money.
https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/699706718419345408
There is something to be said for our job creating abilities in Britain. But that's largely down to a workforce that's prepared to be flexible and accept insecurity. Hardly something for politicians to crow about or a great selling point for a nation. Witness it not featuring in the Scottish referendum.
Yes, perhaps - or just a general fatalism about these things. You get this on other topics too with people often saying 'nothing can/will be done' about topics they are unhappy about.
Again, note the link I put up which showed 60%+ thinking UK euro membership was inevitable in 2001. I remember at the time euro supporters putting a lot of weight (and hope) on those kinds of findings. But in the end they just couldn't make the case, despite lots of scaremongering.
You may also note from that link Sparrow from ICM predicting there would be a big shift in the polls towards euro support over the next year. Didn't happen.
Unless you're on solid ground who would volunteer to go and get slapped around the studio like that?
Malky and Co will blame the Tories.
http://order-order.com/2016/03/17/tory-fury-at-budgets-eu-stealth-vat/
Staines has got this wrong...this has been in force since start of last year and actually it is about fairness. It doesn't disadvantage British business, it makes it a fair level playing field, so that no matter where you try and base yourself you have to pay the same VAT that a company in that country would have to pay to sell that digital service.
There are issues with the rules, like the VAT free threshold for companies wishing to sell across EU is zero and the rules put the emphasis on the business to be the VAT inspector, rather than applying the different thresholds for each country or say having a 100k threshold so that it doesn't burden small start-ups. However, it stops the likes of Amazon or Netflix says no no we don't have to pay any UK VAT on streaming services, because we are in Luxembourg.
That 'wisdom of crowds' oracle didn't call that too well, either, did it? It predicted a vote share for the Lib Dems of almost double what they actually got.
Ben
Osborne cares this much. https://t.co/KF2HimztY2
http://capx.co/meet-stephen-crabb-the-next-tory-leader/
No one likes the EU but I don't think the voters will have the courage to do what their Government will not.
I am also hearing 'better the devil you know' and a few of Project Fear's straplines repeated a lot socially.
It is not enough for Leave to rely on turnout and events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5FT3IGXtAk
Norman, Greg Clark (my new fave longshot - connects with people far better than any Tory I've seen, well, since Cameron) and Theresa Villiers would be the best from my book's POV!
DYOR.
I sometimes think that the parties would be better off getting empty chaired than to look so hopeless.
http://www.hereinreality.com/hinckley.html#.VuqmBpobjCQ
(1) Things stay as they are. Differential turnout and events help a little bit but, ultimately, voting don't knows break for Remain, and people bottle it in the polling both, as they are so scared. This is my base assumption 58/42 to Remain.
(2) Vote Leave get official status in mid-April, and sort their shit out. A thorough, professional well-planned, well-resourced media-grid based campaign is launched with sensible moderate cross party figures making set piece speeches and winning debates. Reassurance is offered on Brexit outcomes and a future vision for the UK outwith, plus a reverse Project Fear is launched on the real risks of Remain. This is my optimistic assumption for Leave - 52/48 to Remain. A narrow miss.
I assess a 65% probability of the first and 35% of the second.
All other options are out IMHO.