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.
Quite. What happens when the 65-year-old Mr Neil decides to hang up his jacket, who is the next big beast of the press prepared to put in the work at the level required to continually hold those we elected to account?
But there is a bigger bargain, though you will have to be quick. Hardly anyone has yet heard of Stephen Crabb, the Welsh Secretary, and the second youngest member of the Cabinet, but he is a fascinating fellow.
After having to leave his father, who was violent, his mother brought up three sons in a council house. Stephen went to Bristol University and then to the London Business School, on a scholarship. Since graduating, he has done a lot of charitable work.
This is a man who does not just talk about the Big Society, equality of opportunity and ‘we’re all in this together’. He exemplifies them. He is hugely popular among Tory MPs.
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
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.
I learn something new every day on PB
Reagan's attempted assassination conspiracy is bigger than JFK's assassination.
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.
Nicky Campbell was interviewing Anna Soubry this morning about the budget. He talked over her, he repeated the same stupid questions (tax cuts for hedge funds, bash the disabled) trying to get her to give him a soundbite, ignored her replies, and he plainly didn't have a bloody clue about the details of the budget.
It was one of the worst interviews I have ever heard.
And then the vox pops about the budget were so stupid I switched the radio off.
Listening, I was amazed: how could he enlist the independent OBR on either side of the UK referendum debate?
But the document itself (Box 3.4, pdf) tells a very different story. Rather than take sides the OBR explicitly says “it is not for us to judge” – and quotes a study by Open Europe, a think tank, which modelled a scenario in which the UK leaves the EU in 2018 and found that GDP could be 2.2 per cent lower or 1.6 per cent higher by 2030, depending on the arrangements for trade and regulation that follow ‘Brexit’.
But the point the OBR wanted to make was that any Brexit effects – good or bad – would take years. We ought to dismiss the panic scenario is being painted. So leaving the EU would have almost no economic effect in the short term.
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 Neil? 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.
Ha ha. There will always be a junior minister willing to make a name for themselves doing the tricky interviews, but so often they go on completely unprepared.
If I were going to be in that hot seat the day after the Budget, I would have risen at 5am with a copy of all the papers and and extensive briefing packs, then made a nuisance of myself at the Treasury all morning to clarify anything that I wasn't 100% sure of answering!!
The larger departments should all have people dedicated to the key media slots of the day (8:10 R4, Neil, main TV news bulletins), yet they all fail continually.
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 think this is much closer than the phone polls present.
A brief glance at their outcomes in the months running up to the election shows a combined 'right-wing' position of around 45-46% (Tory/UKIP). On the day of the vote it was 51%.
The combined left wing position was overstated.
Anything close to a 10 point lead for Remain on the phones is game on.
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.
I learn something new every day on PB
Reagan's attempted assassination conspiracy is bigger than JFK's assassination.
For virtually the whole period of Obama's term in office I've been secretly worried I'm about to witness a live headshot.
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.
Nicky Campbell was interviewing Anna Soubry this morning about the budget. He talked over her, he repeated the same stupid questions (tax cuts for hedge funds, bash the disabled) trying to get her to give him a soundbite, ignored her replies, and he plainly didn't have a bloody clue about the details of the budget.
It was one of the worst interviews I have ever heard.
And then the vox pops about the budget were so stupid I switched the radio off.
Game show Campbell is one of the worst for this. He reckons on himself being extremely bright, knowledgeable and widely read, but normally only has very shallow understanding of the topic he is discussing. When that gets exposed he just resorts to the same routine over and over again.
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.
I learn something new every day on PB
Reagan's attempted assassination conspiracy is bigger than JFK's assassination.
For virtually the whole period of Obama's term in office I've been secretly worried I'm about to witness a live headshot.
did we ever learn whether jodie foster was impressed?
And the OBR's view is supported by the serious studies on this topic.
Generally these find that static gains/losses from UK EU exit are not very significant with positives and negatives often cancelling out.
Such negative effects as you do get are normally the result of longer-term dynamic factors such as lower productivity growth.
But frankly the methodologies used in some of these studies (e.g. those that show big declines in the stock of FDI) are a bit flaky, close to finger-in-the air at times. You can get any result you want if you tweak the parameters a bit.
" So leaving the EU would have almost no economic effect in the short term."
Fraser is talking through his hat. There aren't many certainties in economic forecasting, but that there would be substantial short-term (1 to 2 years) economic damage as a result of the uncertainty which would follow a Leave result is one of them.
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.
I learn something new every day on PB
Reagan's attempted assassination conspiracy is bigger than JFK's assassination.
For virtually the whole period of Obama's term in office I've been secretly worried I'm about to witness a live headshot.
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.
I learn something new every day on PB
Reagan's attempted assassination conspiracy is bigger than JFK's assassination.
For virtually the whole period of Obama's term in office I've been secretly worried I'm about to witness a live headshot.
Me too. That said watching that recent KKK documentary he's got nothing to worry about from the Klan.
Game show Campbell is one of the worst for this. He reckons on himself being extremely bright, knowledgeable and widely read, but normally only has very shallow understanding of the topic he is discussing. When that gets exposed he just resorts to the same routine over and over again.
The 5 Live breakfast show is at its best when he is away.
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.
Nicky Campbell was interviewing Anna Soubry this morning about the budget. He talked over her, he repeated the same stupid questions (tax cuts for hedge funds, bash the disabled) trying to get her to give him a soundbite, ignored her replies, and he plainly didn't have a bloody clue about the details of the budget.
It was one of the worst interviews I have ever heard.
And then the vox pops about the budget were so stupid I switched the radio off.
Game show Campbell is one of the worst for this. He reckons on himself being extremely bright, knowledgeable and widely read, but normally only has very shallow understanding of the topic he is discussing. When that gets exposed he just resorts to the same routine over and over again.
Mr. Urquhart, the VAT nonsense has stopped people like authors selling e-books or stay-at-home mums (or grandmothers) selling knitting patterns from doing so directly. What this means is that they've largely either stopped, or moved to Amazon.
It's completely counter-productive and bloody stupid.
Not sure I buy that the gets out on Fixed Term parliament law would work out that well for the Tories.
It can be repealed
I think he's reading too much into it.
Osborne has kicked the can down the road, whilst maintaining a credible (just) roadmap for getting to a surplus by GE2020 whilst giving away a few goodies this year/next to try and ease the Government through the EU ref.
I expect a tougher clearer Autumn Statement if Remain clearly wins.
(PS. On the long-term strategy, the D'Ancona article I posted to earlier explains what Osborne is up to)
Not sure I buy that the gets out on Fixed Term parliament law would work out that well for the Tories.
It can be repealed
Wouldn't that look terrible to the voters?
If the new PM wanted to call an election it would be surprisingly easy to engineer, if a little unconventional for a government to no-confidence itself.
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.
I learn something new every day on PB
Reagan's attempted assassination conspiracy is bigger than JFK's assassination.
For virtually the whole period of Obama's term in office I've been secretly worried I'm about to witness a live headshot.
Me too. That said watching that recent KKK documentary he's got nothing to worry about from the Klan.
Yes, I think counterterrorist and personal security is better, and military training/organisational competence and extremist views far more fringe, than was the case 30-40 years ago.
Mr. Urquhart, the VAT nonsense has stopped people like authors selling e-books or stay-at-home mums (or grandmothers) selling knitting patterns from doing so directly. What this means is that they've largely either stopped, or moved to Amazon.
It's completely counter-productive and bloody stupid.
It is nonsense because of the zero threshold. If they had set it at a sensible say 100k euro, that would have taken all these kind of people out of it, while still making sure the big boys aren't playing one VAT system off against another.
One thing I would also say is that there are a couple of very low cost services now that do all the processing for you, with simple plugin to your website. And the system pumps out all the paperwork and all you have to do is send it off.
I have a couple of online businesses that sell a fair bit to EU and I thought the initial reports would be very bad, but actually not been an issue (other than the fact I have to tell customers in places like Greece that it will cost them quite a bit extra because of the very high VAT).
I noted that the government made a sensible decision yesterday in relation to AirBnB style renting. If you earn less than £1k a year out of it, it is tax free. Again this seems very sensible, people can earn an extra bit of cash, while not being hampered by the same red tape as being a "proper" business. Also from government / tax office point of view, saves a load of time going after really small fry for not paying 72p tax on one night room rental.
The official homicide rate peaked in 2002, thanks to Dr Harold Shipman, and has since fallen by half — from 944 then to 517 last year. Adjusting for population, murder is now at the same level it was in the last years of Queen Victoria — and, in spite of what Arthur Conan Doyle led readers to believe, the streets were pretty safe then.
The murder rate started to rise in the 1960s and soared in the 1990s, which caused widespread panic. Family breakdown, collapsing morals and a feral underclass were all blamed for an apparently inexorable increase in violent crime.
Mr. Urquhart, thankfully (after panicking) it didn't affect me personally, and I agree with you on the threshold, but for people just doing a little bit of work for extra cash, most will just stop rather than jumping through hoops.
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.
I learn something new every day on PB
Reagan's attempted assassination conspiracy is bigger than JFK's assassination.
For virtually the whole period of Obama's term in office I've been secretly worried I'm about to witness a live headshot.
Me too. That said watching that recent KKK documentary he's got nothing to worry about from the Klan.
Yes, I think counterterrorist and personal security is better, and military training/organisational competence and extremist views far more fringe, than was the case 30-40 years ago.
The Klan post on public Internet forums what their plans are. it came as a shock to them that the FBI/Homeland Security/Secret Service monitors these forums.
The best bit was being told by the Klan, that Obama, a secret Muslim who wants to convert the USA to Islam, is controlled by the Jews and their money.
But there is a bigger bargain, though you will have to be quick. Hardly anyone has yet heard of Stephen Crabb, the Welsh Secretary, and the second youngest member of the Cabinet, but he is a fascinating fellow.
After having to leave his father, who was violent, his mother brought up three sons in a council house. Stephen went to Bristol University and then to the London Business School, on a scholarship. Since graduating, he has done a lot of charitable work.
This is a man who does not just talk about the Big Society, equality of opportunity and ‘we’re all in this together’. He exemplifies them. He is hugely popular among Tory MPs.
VAT on home insulation is the most stupid thing. Home insulation is by far and away the best lever to reduce energy usage in the UK, due to the long term savings and the amountof energy to be saved. But sadly behavioural reasons mean Joe Public don't value long term savings enough, so we need to incentivise it more. So what does EU do? INCREASE short term cost. Absolute madness.
Mr. Urquhart, thankfully (after panicking) it didn't affect me personally, and I agree with you on the threshold, but for people just doing a little bit of work for extra cash, most will just stop rather than jumping through hoops.
This actually a good example of how good and bad the EU can be in the same rule.
They basically admitted their focus was on stopping the big boys playing the VAT system (which in this case I think is fair enough) and I would think it is actually providing more VAT to the UK coffers i.e. Europe acting together to stop a loophole being exploited.
But they dropped the ball and didn't properly think through the fact different EU thresholds are wildly different and instead went for the lowest threshold of all EU countries, which is zero.
If this had just been a UK thing, I think it would have been adjusted by now. Instead it will either never be adjusted or take years before finally they make the sensible adjustment.
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.
The Tories run two risks:
(1) People get used to Corbyn and McDonnell and vote Labour in anyway. The Tories, and you, think the chance of this to be zero. It's not.
(2) The Tories gaily pile up enemies and disasters and splits, thinking themselves invulnerable, and then in 2019 Labour changes to a popular leader.
" So leaving the EU would have almost no economic effect in the short term."
Fraser is talking through his hat. There aren't many certainties in economic forecasting, but that there would be substantial short-term (1 to 2 years) economic damage as a result of the uncertainty which would follow a Leave result is one of them.
The OBR doesn't agree with you. This is what they have to say:
"whatever the long-term pros or cons of the UK’s membership of the European Union, a vote to leave in the forthcoming referendum could usher in an extended period of uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This could have negative implications for activity via business and consumer confidence and might result in greater volatility in financial and other asset markets (see Box 3.4)."
VAT on home insulation is the most stupid thing. Home insulation is by far and away the best lever to reduce energy usage in the UK, due to the long term savings and the amountof energy to be saved. But sadly behavioural reasons mean Joe Public don't value long term savings enough, so we need to incentivise it more. So what does EU do? INCREASE short term cost. Absolute madness.
I wonder if issues like this (and the 'Tampon Tax') will manage to cut through before the referendum? It's a clear demonstration of a loss of sovereignty that the elected government can't prevent tax being imposed on things. One might also argue the same in relation to the Sugar Tax - we can't impose standards for eg the maximum amount of sugar allowed in a can of drink, because that is decided at the EU level.
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.
The Tories run two risks:
(1) People get used to Corbyn and McDonnell and vote Labour in anyway. The Tories, and you, think the chance of this to be zero. It's not.
(2) The Tories gaily pile up enemies and disasters and splits, thinking themselves invulnerable, and then in 2019 Labour changes to a popular leader.
Dan Jarvis v George Osborne. Might not be the walkover Squeaky's complacent cheerleaders expect.
" So leaving the EU would have almost no economic effect in the short term."
Fraser is talking through his hat. There aren't many certainties in economic forecasting, but that there would be substantial short-term (1 to 2 years) economic damage as a result of the uncertainty which would follow a Leave result is one of them.
The OBR doesn't agree with you. This is what they have to say:
"whatever the long-term pros or cons of the UK’s membership of the European Union, a vote to leave in the forthcoming referendum could usher in an extended period of uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This could have negative implications for activity via business and consumer confidence and might result in greater volatility in financial and other asset markets (see Box 3.4)."
So, 'could' and 'might', not 'certainties'.
From Box 3.4
"Leaving aside the debate over the long-term impact of ‘Brexit’, there appears to be a greater consensus that a vote to leave would result in a period of potentially disruptive uncertainty"
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
The official homicide rate peaked in 2002, thanks to Dr Harold Shipman, and has since fallen by half — from 944 then to 517 last year. Adjusting for population, murder is now at the same level it was in the last years of Queen Victoria — and, in spite of what Arthur Conan Doyle led readers to believe, the streets were pretty safe then.
The murder rate started to rise in the 1960s and soared in the 1990s, which caused widespread panic. Family breakdown, collapsing morals and a feral underclass were all blamed for an apparently inexorable increase in violent crime.
But then that rise stopped...
Not sure about the Harold Shipman inference for a start - he was actually convicted of 15 in 2000, against a 400+ drop. Suppose it depends whether, firstly, the enquiry figure of 250 has been written across to the crime stats and, secondly, whether they would have been attributed to the different years across which they were committed.
Reading the VAT on 20% for home insulation make me realise its even worse than that. VAT will also go up from 5% to 20% on biomass boilers, solar panels, wind turbines, hot water system regulators and plenty else. I.e. everything that helps save energy.
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.
The Tories run two risks:
(1) People get used to Corbyn and McDonnell and vote Labour in anyway. The Tories, and you, think the chance of this to be zero. It's not.
(2) The Tories gaily pile up enemies and disasters and splits, thinking themselves invulnerable, and then in 2019 Labour changes to a popular leader.
Probably the biggest risk is Tories conflating Corbyn's (probable) unelectability with left wing politics in general and becoming complacent as long as any successor will have to be elected by the same fairly left wing party membership - i.e. seeing any leader that they will elect as by-definition as bad as Corbyn. It's probable that at least a few percent of his negative ratings comes from his relatively poor presentation, ability to be dismissed as an 80s dinosaur with no new ideas, and his lack of grip on day-to-day party strategy. If Labour could find a leader equally left wing but without that baggage then the membership would be happy, and the electorate a bit happier.
(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.
A weighted average of your two possible outcomes produces 56% REMAIN and 44% LEAVE. As such, you are very close to the current betting market where Sporting has mid-market spreads of 53.7% REMAIN and 46.3% LEAVE.
I wonder if I'm alone in having decided to vote LEAVE, principally as a protest against the way in which the Government in general and Cameron in particular are rushing the referendum through, whilst trying to pretend that the so-called renegotiated terms actually amount to something meaningful, whereas in truth they assuredly do not. Secretly my head is nevertheless hoping for a REMAIN outcome, fearful of the consequences of the alternative.
President of the Board of Deputies Jonathan Arkush said the party’s growing anti-Semitism scandal is poisoning relations and now damaging Sadiq Khan’s hopes of winning support from London’s 180,000 Jews in his fight to be Mayor.
Mr Arkush went on to demand Labour expel a local official who tweeted that Jews had “big noses” and “slaughter the oppressed” and pointed a finger squarely at Mr Corbyn, saying he is “greatly concerned” by the leader’s own links to extremist groups Hizbollah and Hamas.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
I have absolutely no idea , but I do not believe that such a development is a prerequisite of my prediction. How often in the past has a Shadow Chancellor been more favoured than the incumbent?
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
I have absolutely no idea , but I do not believe that such a development is a prerequisite of my prediction. How often in the past has a Shadow Chancellor been more favoured than the incumbent?
" So leaving the EU would have almost no economic effect in the short term."
Fraser is talking through his hat. There aren't many certainties in economic forecasting, but that there would be substantial short-term (1 to 2 years) economic damage as a result of the uncertainty which would follow a Leave result is one of them.
I don't think he's talking through his hat. You are at cross purposes. The OBR like any economic forecaster can only discuss and compare the new equilibrium state of the economy, and these effects, it points, will take years to materialise – the IMF suggests around 10 years. Your point is about the transition – the "period of uncertainty". Of course there will be upheavals and impacts on various plans and investments people and companies have made on assumptions that turned out to be false. This is the "economic damage" you refer to. Other people and companies will benefit from the new opportunities which open up, but it is not easy to say now who exactly will benefit. That will only be clear with hindsight. It's swings and roundabouts. The OBR quoting Open Europe is not concerned with just one side of the argument. Your point relates only to those with vested interests in the current arrangements.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
I have absolutely no idea , but I do not believe that such a development is a prerequisite of my prediction. How often in the past has a Shadow Chancellor been more favoured than the incumbent?
Ed Balls managed it in the last Parliament.
How long did that last? I don't recall Geoffrey Howe being ahead of Denis Healey pre-1979.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
Let's start with the Shadow Chancellor being more popular among Labour supporters.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
I have absolutely no idea , but I do not believe that such a development is a prerequisite of my prediction. How often in the past has a Shadow Chancellor been more favoured than the incumbent?
Plus, I'd point out your metric isn't a good one.
From November 2014
Brown 'was a better chancellor than Osborne'
Six months later the Tories and their economic message won a majority
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
I have absolutely no idea , but I do not believe that such a development is a prerequisite of my prediction. How often in the past has a Shadow Chancellor been more favoured than the incumbent?
Ed Balls managed it in the last Parliament.
How long did that last? I don't recall Geoffrey Howe being ahead of Denis Healey pre-1979.
Off the top of my head, six months, after the Omnishambles budget.
I don't have the data for 1979, I'm not sure it was asked.
Casino: "I might believe him, were it not for the eye contact between those two and the cheeky girly look that Theresa is giving him as he 'appreciates' her."
Frankly, I thought Mrs May looked awful ..... the words mutton, dressed and lamb sprang to mind.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
Let's start with the Shadow Chancellor being more popular among Labour supporters.
Good news, I'm not going to Old Trafford tonight, bloody sciatica.
Stephen Crabb is interesting. He has a beard which fits nicely with the new anti-politics and his background should have Tories eating out of his hand. I don't really buy what some said about lacking charisma. Compared to whom? Osborne? May? Javid?
Let's face it though he hasn't really been tested yet and if Cameron is forced out quickly it may be too soon for him. 2018-19 perhaps?
(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.
A weighted average of your two possible outcomes produces 56% REMAIN and 44% LEAVE. As such, you are very close to the current betting market where Sporting has mid-market spreads of 53.7% REMAIN and 46.3% LEAVE.
I wonder if I'm alone in having decided to vote LEAVE, principally as a protest against the way in which the Government in general and Cameron in particular are rushing the referendum through, whilst trying to pretend that the so-called renegotiated terms actually amount to something meaningful, whereas in truth they assuredly do not. Secretly my head is nevertheless hoping for a REMAIN outcome, fearful of the consequences of the alternative.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
That;s gone from being lala bonkers what are you smoking, to worth pricing up.
Casino: "I might believe him, were it not for the eye contact between those two and the cheeky girly look that Theresa is giving him as he 'appreciates' her."
Frankly, I thought Mrs May looked awful ..... the words mutton, dressed and lamb sprang to mind.
(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.
A weighted average of your two possible outcomes produces 56% REMAIN and 44% LEAVE. As such, you are very close to the current betting market where Sporting has mid-market spreads of 53.7% REMAIN and 46.3% LEAVE.
I wonder if I'm alone in having decided to vote LEAVE, principally as a protest against the way in which the Government in general and Cameron in particular are rushing the referendum through, whilst trying to pretend that the so-called renegotiated terms actually amount to something meaningful, whereas in truth they assuredly do not. Secretly my head is nevertheless hoping for a REMAIN outcome, fearful of the consequences of the alternative.
Thanks. But, blimey: Project Fear is working on you too!
I suspect you are not alone. Personally, both my head and heart are for Leave, but I doubt they'll be enough of us.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
Let's start with the Shadow Chancellor being more popular among Labour supporters.
Good news, I'm not going to Old Trafford tonight, bloody sciatica.
You wouldn't be much use when it all kicks off then?
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
That;s gone from being lala bonkers what are you smoking, to worth pricing up.
Even you praised Ozzy yesterday. Made want to stick a grand on Ozzy as next Tory leader/PM.
(and check the Book of Revelation, that AlanBrooke praising Ozzy wasn't foretold in The Book of Revelation somewhere between The Seven Headed Dragon and The Whore of Babylon)
Casino: "I might believe him, were it not for the eye contact between those two and the cheeky girly look that Theresa is giving him as he 'appreciates' her."
Frankly, I thought Mrs May looked awful ..... the words mutton, dressed and lamb sprang to mind.
Casino: "I might believe him, were it not for the eye contact between those two and the cheeky girly look that Theresa is giving him as he 'appreciates' her."
Frankly, I thought Mrs May looked awful ..... the words mutton, dressed and lamb sprang to mind.
Remember Edwina and John..........................................................
Listening, I was amazed: how could he enlist the independent OBR on either side of the UK referendum debate?
But the document itself (Box 3.4, pdf) tells a very different story. Rather than take sides the OBR explicitly says “it is not for us to judge” – and quotes a study by Open Europe, a think tank, which modelled a scenario in which the UK leaves the EU in 2018 and found that GDP could be 2.2 per cent lower or 1.6 per cent higher by 2030, depending on the arrangements for trade and regulation that follow ‘Brexit’.
But the point the OBR wanted to make was that any Brexit effects – good or bad – would take years. We ought to dismiss the panic scenario is being painted. So leaving the EU would have almost no economic effect in the short term.
Any significant drop in growth will be attributed to Brexit , if that happens. The Tories, led by Cameron, would be doubly blamed, even if the truth is otherwise.
(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.
A weighted average of your two possible outcomes produces 56% REMAIN and 44% LEAVE. As such, you are very close to the current betting market where Sporting has mid-market spreads of 53.7% REMAIN and 46.3% LEAVE.
I wonder if I'm alone in having decided to vote LEAVE, principally as a protest against the way in which the Government in general and Cameron in particular are rushing the referendum through, whilst trying to pretend that the so-called renegotiated terms actually amount to something meaningful, whereas in truth they assuredly do not. Secretly my head is nevertheless hoping for a REMAIN outcome, fearful of the consequences of the alternative.
Thanks. But, blimey: Project Fear is working on you too!
I suspect you are not alone. Personally, both my head and heart are for Leave, but I doubt they'll be enough of us.
I was told last night, Project Fear hasn't even started, all we're seeing is the phoney war 1939 stuff.
Project Fear will start in earnest on May the 9th.
" So leaving the EU would have almost no economic effect in the short term."
Fraser is talking through his hat. There aren't many certainties in economic forecasting, but that there would be substantial short-term (1 to 2 years) economic damage as a result of the uncertainty which would follow a Leave result is one of them.
The OBR doesn't agree with you. This is what they have to say:
"whatever the long-term pros or cons of the UK’s membership of the European Union, a vote to leave in the forthcoming referendum could usher in an extended period of uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This could have negative implications for activity via business and consumer confidence and might result in greater volatility in financial and other asset markets (see Box 3.4)."
So, 'could' and 'might', not 'certainties'.
Of course, the OBR are being careful not to take sides. What else would you expect? That doesn't mean that it's not a certainty that there will be a short-term hit as I described. Surely no-one is seriously going to pretend otherwise, are they? I mean, really? We don't even know, in even the vaguest terms, what Brexit settlement we'd be attempting to negotiate, let alone how long it would take or what the result would be.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
I have absolutely no idea , but I do not believe that such a development is a prerequisite of my prediction. How often in the past has a Shadow Chancellor been more favoured than the incumbent?
Ed Balls managed it in the last Parliament.
Gawd, Ed Balls. I remember him. How the mighty have fallen.
But how fantastic to have him replaced with the delightful Andrea:
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
That;s gone from being lala bonkers what are you smoking, to worth pricing up.
Even you praised Ozzy yesterday. Made want to stick a grand on Ozzy as next Tory leader/PM.
(and check the Book of Revelation, that AlanBrooke praising Ozzy wasn't foretold in The Book of Revelation somewhere between The Seven Headed Dragon and The Whore of Babylon)
LOL
TSE, if I am happy enough to give credit where it is dus and employment is an Osborne success, then perhaps you might be gracious enough to admit where he has failed :
the deficit, growth, AAA. BOP, infrastructure, rebalancing the economy, tax reform, banks that are too big to fail.
You're like Wnger wanting to talk about your goal while ignoring the 5 from Barca as somehow not relevant.
(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.
A weighted average of your two possible outcomes produces 56% REMAIN and 44% LEAVE. As such, you are very close to the current betting market where Sporting has mid-market spreads of 53.7% REMAIN and 46.3% LEAVE.
I wonder if I'm alone in having decided to vote LEAVE, principally as a protest against the way in which the Government in general and Cameron in particular are rushing the referendum through, whilst trying to pretend that the so-called renegotiated terms actually amount to something meaningful, whereas in truth they assuredly do not. Secretly my head is nevertheless hoping for a REMAIN outcome, fearful of the consequences of the alternative.
Thanks. But, blimey: Project Fear is working on you too!
I suspect you are not alone. Personally, both my head and heart are for Leave, but I doubt they'll be enough of us.
I was told last night, Project Fear hasn't even started, all we're seeing is the phoney war 1939 stuff.
Project Fear will start in earnest on May the 9th.
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.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
That;s gone from being lala bonkers what are you smoking, to worth pricing up.
Even you praised Ozzy yesterday. Made want to stick a grand on Ozzy as next Tory leader/PM.
(and check the Book of Revelation, that AlanBrooke praising Ozzy wasn't foretold in The Book of Revelation somewhere between The Seven Headed Dragon and The Whore of Babylon)
LOL
TSE, if I am happy enough to give credit where it is dus and employment is an Osborne success, then perhaps you might be gracious enough to admit where he has failed :
the deficit, growth, AAA. BOP, infrastructure, rebalancing the economy, tax reform, banks that are too big to fail.
You're like Wnger wanting to talk about your goal while ignoring the 5 from Barca as somehow not relevant.
I admit he has failed by the targets he set himself.
I'm just more forgiving of the legacy he was given and take that in to account.
Journalists are slowly getting to the bottom of the co-ordinated "Cuts to the Disabled" messages from yesterday. It seems that these "Heartless Cuts" are reductions in increases.
Last July, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that by 2020/21, the PIP would cost £15.2 billion.
Since then, based on reports from benefits officials, the OBR has been raising its forecasts, projecting that far from saving money, the new PIP regime would actually increase total spending on disability benefits.
Its Budget forecasts this year show that the PIP was actually on course to cost £18.2 billion by 2020/21.
Once Mr Osborne’s cuts are applied, that figure is reduced to £17.2 billion.
To be clear, government spending on the PIP for the disabled is going to go up, from £16.2 billion this year, to £16.7 billion by the general election and £17.2 billion the following year.
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.
I am coming to the view that it either has to be the Donald or someone not involved in the Primary process.
I don't see how you can give the nom to second (or third) place. The only NotDonald option would be someone not involved in the Primary process.
As a result I am now zeroing out my Cruz green as I am more convinced than ever that the Donald is the only game in town.
But I will keep reading the tea leaves to try and spot a potential joker emerging.
EDIT: Maybe Jeb Bush, he wasn't involved in the primary process was he?
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.
Project Fear versus Project Be LEAVE!
It's more Project Shit Your Pants now, to be honest.
From now on I suspect we are going to start hearing a fair bit more from Labour -and the commentariat as a whole - about 'Osborne's Mess'. The electorate are also like to be increasingly receptive to such a message.
So when do you predict the first poll showing John McDonnell is more preferred as Chancellor than Osborne?
That;s gone from being lala bonkers what are you smoking, to worth pricing up.
Even you praised Ozzy yesterday. Made want to stick a grand on Ozzy as next Tory leader/PM.
(and check the Book of Revelation, that AlanBrooke praising Ozzy wasn't foretold in The Book of Revelation somewhere between The Seven Headed Dragon and The Whore of Babylon)
LOL
TSE, if I am happy enough to give credit where it is dus and employment is an Osborne success, then perhaps you might be gracious enough to admit where he has failed :
the deficit, growth, AAA. BOP, infrastructure, rebalancing the economy, tax reform, banks that are too big to fail.
You're like Wnger wanting to talk about your goal while ignoring the 5 from Barca as somehow not relevant.
I admit he has failed by the targets he set himself.
I'm just more forgiving of the legacy he was given and take that in to account.
Whereas I take the view if he spent more time on the day job and less time dicking about in other people's business he might be a better Chancellor.
What summed it up for me was the germans announce €264 bn of infrastucture yesterday which will create jobs and improve the underlying productivity of their economy while George busies himself with banning Happy Meals.
Casino: "I might believe him, were it not for the eye contact between those two and the cheeky girly look that Theresa is giving him as he 'appreciates' her."
Frankly, I thought Mrs May looked awful ..... the words mutton, dressed and lamb sprang to mind.
Remember Edwina and John..........................................................
Well, yes ...... but at least they had the good sense not to perform in the full glare of the TV cameras in the HoC. You have to wonder why Mrs May felt the need to promote herself so yesterday - after all she and her department were not remotely concerned with Budgetary matters. Throughout the last Parliament, it became customary for the Prime Minister to sit on the Chancellor's left and for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (then Danny Alexander) to sit to his right.
Not sure about the Harold Shipman inference for a start - he was actually convicted of 15 in 2000, against a 400+ drop. Suppose it depends whether, firstly, the enquiry figure of 250 has been written across to the crime stats and, secondly, whether they would have been attributed to the different years across which they were committed.
The Shipman murders (or, to be precise, the ones which the Shipman Inquiry concluded were definitely murders) were all attributed to the year when they were confirmed - 2002, IIRC. They didn't retrospectively adjust the old figures.
Comments
It was one of the worst interviews I have ever heard.
And then the vox pops about the budget were so stupid I switched the radio off.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/the-obr-is-relaxed-about-brexit-contrary-to-what-osborne-claimed
If I were going to be in that hot seat the day after the Budget, I would have risen at 5am with a copy of all the papers and and extensive briefing packs, then made a nuisance of myself at the Treasury all morning to clarify anything that I wasn't 100% sure of answering!!
The larger departments should all have people dedicated to the key media slots of the day (8:10 R4, Neil, main TV news bulletins), yet they all fail continually.
A brief glance at their outcomes in the months running up to the election shows a combined 'right-wing' position of around 45-46% (Tory/UKIP). On the day of the vote it was 51%.
The combined left wing position was overstated.
Anything close to a 10 point lead for Remain on the phones is game on.
George Osborne’s budget shows he is planning an early election.
The chancellor’s budget is weird. Either there’s going to be economic pain before polling day in 2020, or more elaborate scheming is afoot
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/17/geoge-osborne-budget-planning-early-election-economic-strategy-scheming?CMP=share_btn_tw
Generally these find that static gains/losses from UK EU exit are not very significant with positives and negatives often cancelling out.
Such negative effects as you do get are normally the result of longer-term dynamic factors such as lower productivity growth.
But frankly the methodologies used in some of these studies (e.g. those that show big declines in the stock of FDI) are a bit flaky, close to finger-in-the air at times. You can get any result you want if you tweak the parameters a bit.
I was lying in bed around 7am and literally sprang up in WTF disbelief. His later apology was just dessert.
Then again it might just be like the Poll Tax riots.
It's completely counter-productive and bloody stupid.
Osborne has kicked the can down the road, whilst maintaining a credible (just) roadmap for getting to a surplus by GE2020 whilst giving away a few goodies this year/next to try and ease the Government through the EU ref.
I expect a tougher clearer Autumn Statement if Remain clearly wins.
(PS. On the long-term strategy, the D'Ancona article I posted to earlier explains what Osborne is up to)
One thing I would also say is that there are a couple of very low cost services now that do all the processing for you, with simple plugin to your website. And the system pumps out all the paperwork and all you have to do is send it off.
I have a couple of online businesses that sell a fair bit to EU and I thought the initial reports would be very bad, but actually not been an issue (other than the fact I have to tell customers in places like Greece that it will cost them quite a bit extra because of the very high VAT).
I noted that the government made a sensible decision yesterday in relation to AirBnB style renting. If you earn less than £1k a year out of it, it is tax free. Again this seems very sensible, people can earn an extra bit of cash, while not being hampered by the same red tape as being a "proper" business. Also from government / tax office point of view, saves a load of time going after really small fry for not paying 72p tax on one night room rental.
-PREDICTABLE, REGULARLY-SPACED GENERAL ELECTIONS!
-When do we want them?
-EVERY FIVE YEARS, NOT A MOMENT SOONER OR A MOMENT LATER!!!
I can see it now.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/who-killed-violent-crime/
The best bit was being told by the Klan, that Obama, a secret Muslim who wants to convert the USA to Islam, is controlled by the Jews and their money.
They basically admitted their focus was on stopping the big boys playing the VAT system (which in this case I think is fair enough) and I would think it is actually providing more VAT to the UK coffers i.e. Europe acting together to stop a loophole being exploited.
But they dropped the ball and didn't properly think through the fact different EU thresholds are wildly different and instead went for the lowest threshold of all EU countries, which is zero.
If this had just been a UK thing, I think it would have been adjusted by now. Instead it will either never be adjusted or take years before finally they make the sensible adjustment.
George Osborne blames 'camera angle' for Theresa May cleavage photo
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/george-osborne-blames-camera-angle-for-theresa-may-cleavage-photo-a3205891.html
(1) People get used to Corbyn and McDonnell and vote Labour in anyway. The Tories, and you, think the chance of this to be zero. It's not.
(2) The Tories gaily pile up enemies and disasters and splits, thinking themselves invulnerable, and then in 2019 Labour changes to a popular leader.
"whatever the long-term pros or cons of the UK’s membership of the European Union,
a vote to leave in the forthcoming referendum could usher in an extended period of
uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This
could have negative implications for activity via business and consumer confidence
and might result in greater volatility in financial and other asset markets (see Box 3.4)."
So, 'could' and 'might', not 'certainties'.
"Leaving aside the debate over the long-term impact of ‘Brexit’, there appears to be a greater consensus that a vote to leave would result in a period of potentially disruptive uncertainty"
The EU, the climate's enemy.
Arizona Primaries - March 22:
GOP (58 Delegates)
Trump 31%
Cruz 19
Kasich 10
Dem's (75 Delegates)
Clinton 50%
Sanders 24
Merrill Poll
As such, you are very close to the current betting market where Sporting has mid-market spreads of 53.7% REMAIN and 46.3% LEAVE.
I wonder if I'm alone in having decided to vote LEAVE, principally as a protest against the way in which the Government in general and Cameron in particular are rushing the referendum through, whilst trying to pretend that the so-called renegotiated terms actually amount to something meaningful, whereas in truth they assuredly do not. Secretly my head is nevertheless hoping for a REMAIN outcome, fearful of the consequences of the alternative.
We'd be poring over every sub MOE change as proof the budget is a success/disaster
From November 2014
Brown 'was a better chancellor than Osborne'
Six months later the Tories and their economic message won a majority
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/26/brown-seen-better-chancellor-osborne/
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/17/horse-called-zabana-hilariously-throws-jockey-off-horse-on-start-line-in-jlt-novices-chase-at-cheltenham-5758260
I don't have the data for 1979, I'm not sure it was asked.
Frankly, I thought Mrs May looked awful ..... the words mutton, dressed and lamb sprang to mind.
Out today: HOW TO WIN A MARGINAL SEAT by @GavinBarwellMP https://t.co/jJRKwu5U0f https://t.co/ALZFBLjHfI
Let's face it though he hasn't really been tested yet and if Cameron is forced out quickly it may be too soon for him. 2018-19 perhaps?
I suspect you are not alone. Personally, both my head and heart are for Leave, but I doubt they'll be enough of us.
(and check the Book of Revelation, that AlanBrooke praising Ozzy wasn't foretold in The Book of Revelation somewhere between The Seven Headed Dragon and The Whore of Babylon)
Project Fear will start in earnest on May the 9th.
But how fantastic to have him replaced with the delightful Andrea:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6uvJZkTOvl4
Darth Sidious (aka. Palpatine): I will MAKE it legal!
Be LEAVE!
TSE, if I am happy enough to give credit where it is dus and employment is an Osborne success, then perhaps you might be gracious enough to admit where he has failed :
the deficit, growth, AAA. BOP, infrastructure, rebalancing the economy, tax reform, banks that are too big to fail.
You're like Wnger wanting to talk about your goal while ignoring the 5 from Barca as somehow not relevant.
I'm just more forgiving of the legacy he was given and take that in to account.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/12196561/Are-disability-benefit-cuts-George-Osbornes-new-tax-credit-disaster.html
The Republican race may come down to California. Here's how that would look. https://t.co/IPHAaeNbGI https://t.co/ScZBvkEco9
I don't see how you can give the nom to second (or third) place. The only NotDonald option would be someone not involved in the Primary process.
As a result I am now zeroing out my Cruz green as I am more convinced than ever that the Donald is the only game in town.
But I will keep reading the tea leaves to try and spot a potential joker emerging.
EDIT: Maybe Jeb Bush, he wasn't involved in the primary process was he?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/17/if-no-one-else-stops-trump-the-electoral-college-still-can-its-in-the-constitution/
What summed it up for me was the germans announce €264 bn of infrastucture yesterday which will create jobs and improve the underlying productivity of their economy while George
busies himself with banning Happy Meals.
He's just not credible.
You have to wonder why Mrs May felt the need to promote herself so yesterday - after all she and her department were not remotely concerned with Budgetary matters. Throughout the last Parliament, it became customary for the Prime Minister to sit on the Chancellor's left and for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (then Danny Alexander) to sit to his right.