Punters not believing the polls? Plus signs of major Remain complacency.
My thread on Sunday wot did it.
But the price on Betfair is largely unmoved
Unsurprising, I think the phone polls have it right as well, Leave are about 10 points behind at the moment and need a 5 point swing to get into contention. I'm not sure how that can be achieved.
The Leave vote seems fairly solid at around c.40%
The real question is whether Remain is at c.45% or 55% and how the don't knows split, and who turns out and who doesn't.
The DKs invariably break to the status quo in a referendum. It happened in Scotland and for AV. The only way to neutralise this effect is to show that neither option is the status quo. Leave obviously isn't, but remain isn't either just in a less obvious way.
Interesting. I wonder what the charming Italian would say?
But it's not only in Italy it works like that.
We used to have a nice place in Umbria (near San Gimignano).
In the late 1970s we received a phone call, encouraging us to sell the house and repatriate the funds to the UK "as a gesture of social solidarity". It was, of course, phrased as a polite suggestion, nothing more.
The idea that all Leavers want to bring back IDS is something Scott continues to push,
Link? I don't recall ever pushing such a line. I have said IDS is a poster boy for Brexiteers, they long for the heady days of failure under his leadership as they prefer that to winning under Cameron, I have noted when they praised his performance, and when others have been critical of his dreadful delivery, but those are not endorsements...
" they long for the heady days of failure under his leadership as they prefer that to winning under Cameron"
Who has said that on here and please provide one link.
Incidentally, Kinnock's piece is actually an endorsement of the boiled frog doctrine.
This is who the Tory remain side are enabling, federalists who want to create the single EU state by slowly ratcheting up the areas in which we "co-ordinate" with the EU.
Just heard Farage on the BBC accuse the IFS and Paul Johnson of doing whatever the government wants and after he may get a peerage. He is talking of the IFS, one of the most respected Institutions in the Country. He has lost it
Paul Johnson, the IFS director, has admitted 10 per cent of the body’s funding comes from the EU but said the money had no “impact” on its forecasts for what happened after Brexit."
Smear and insults is all that you Leavers have left isn't it.
I might do a piece this weekend. Leave: Fruitcakes led by donkeys
Look at the second sentence - smear, insult. Dearie me.
You have taken leave of your senses. If someone is on the payroll, their probity is always in doubt and it would be foolish to pretend that exactly the same wouldn't happen if the boot was on the other foot.
£25bn in Overseas Aid/EU contributions.
What kind of government wouldn't use it for it's own people in transition?
What twaddle. Everyone is on someone's payroll. That does not mean that every employee in the country is lacking in probity.
Overstating the case like this makes people less inclined to listen when a genuine argument about a possible conflict of interest is made.
Few people stand up to their pay master. Those who toe the line get promoted. Whistleblowers get sacked.
Most people have mortgages to pay and no other source of income than their pay.
I think the polls are giving a not altogether clear picture because they're down-weighting people on certainty to vote, but not adding what they've taken off them on to the 'don't know' vote. I am not convinced that this debate is engaging the majority of the public. Turnout is estimated at around 65%, so dk/wv is clearly being greatly underestimated according to the pollsters' own figures. DK of 3% is the most absurd of these - that would imply a 97% turnout.
This isn't a partisan point - in some cases it might lead to better Remain showings.
Incidentally, Kinnock's piece is actually an endorsement of the boiled frog doctrine.
This is who the Tory remain side are enabling, federalists who want to create the single EU state by slowly ratcheting up the areas in which we "co-ordinate" with the EU.
Yes, but the Tory Leave side seem to have a tin ear for how floating voters see this. Just because they are absolutely convinced on the democratic deficit of the EU (as I am) doesn't mean everyone else is. Most haven't thought about or studied it.
I've been shocked (in private messages in response to my blog) how few ABs simply had no idea what we're signed up to, how the EU works and where it's heading.
It may simply be that things have to get a whole lot worse for the UK (economically and legally) before we do Leave.
@BBCNormanS: @TheIFS is "the gold standard" of independent and impartial forecasting says PM
Quite astonishing how Brexiteers have managed to take a report that is not entirely helpful to their cause, and turn it into a major story about how paranoid and inconsistent they are.
Such epic incompetence is surely to be admired and applauded
" Says PM " who nobody trusts.
"Cameron on Europe" is up there with "Blair on Iraq" and "Mandleson on anything"
Smear and insults is all that you Leavers have left isn't it.
I might do a piece this weekend. Leave: Fruitcakes led by donkeys
Look at the second sentence - smear, insult. Dearie me.
You have taken leave of your senses. If someone is on the payroll, their probity is always in doubt and it would be foolish to pretend that exactly the same wouldn't happen if the boot was on the other foot.
£25bn in Overseas Aid/EU contributions.
What kind of government wouldn't use it for it's own people in transition?
What twaddle. Everyone is on someone's payroll. That does not mean that every employee in the country is lacking in probity.
Overstating the case like this makes people less inclined to listen when a genuine argument about a possible conflict of interest is made.
Few people stand up to their pay master. Those who toe the line get promoted. Whistleblowers get sacked.
Most people have mortgages to pay and no other source of income than their pay.
I'm more of the view that like-recruits-like. We prefer those who share the same wavelength.
Punters not believing the polls? Plus signs of major Remain complacency.
And the start of purdah. Level playing field kicks in. No more robbing the taxpayers to try and convince the, er, taxpayer of the merits of the EU.
Precedence suggests that purdah is no obstacle to the unleashing of 'Vow II, this time we really mean it'.
What would Vow 2 consist of?
'Renegotiation II, this time we will really mean it'
I really don't think that option is open. All 'Vow' style options are problematic. Views on whether the initial 'Vow' has been satisfactorily implemented aside, 'Vow 1' had two things going for it - the people who proposed it were the people with the power to offer it, and it wasn't against the background of an existing 'renegotiation' which was being touted as credible.
Sterling is strengthening against the Euro again. Now €1.31.
It seems to move up about 1cent for every 2% increase in probability of remain. It has moved up 6 cent as probability of Remain has moved from 68% to 80%. I know correlation is not causation but there is reason to suspect causation in this case, and the sterling/euro does seem to move up and down in sync with euref sentiment.
Taken to its logical conclusion, if the result is REMAIN then Sterling should move to €1.41. However, using the same logic, if the result is LEAVE, then Sterling should drop to €0.91!
Was discussing this yesterday with someone who'd job it is to worry about this sort of thing (although focused on cable, not GBP:EUR)
We concluded a 5% bounce if the vote is for Remain; 10-15% near term devaluation if it was for LEAVE
Just catching up and I agree with OGH, Plato and others that Andrea Leadsom is very impressive. Just shows the damage Osborne has wreaked by blocking her promotion out of sheer spite. Another reason why Osborne would be a terrible PM, he does not choose on ability, but on whether they are nice to him...
Mr Meeks recommended her as a trading bet, I agree.
Mr. Royale, I'm less politically attuned than most on this blog, but much more than is usual for the general voter, and find the EU bloody opaque. It's deliberately complicated, hard to understand and unaccountable.
I still think Remain will win at a canter, and we'll soon come to regret it.
"David Cameron. 10 Downing Street. Utter rubbish." That woman is the salt of the earth.
Gillian Duffy, my err hero? Gillian Duffy: 'I don't want to be a European' Where she goes a lot of older Labour wc voters are going. I find this idea of Labour voters breaking 80% for REMAIN, somewhat unbelieveable.
Mr. Betting, the Three Kingdoms' legendary strategist Zhuge Liang criticised leaders who selected offices for people, rather than people for offices (ie rewarding friends with jobs, rather than selecting on merit).
Incidentally, Kinnock's piece is actually an endorsement of the boiled frog doctrine.
This is who the Tory remain side are enabling, federalists who want to create the single EU state by slowly ratcheting up the areas in which we "co-ordinate" with the EU.
Yes, but the Tory Leave side seem to have a tin ear for how floating voters see this. Just because they are absolutely convinced on the democratic deficit of the EU (as I am) doesn't mean everyone else is. Most haven't thought about or studied it.
I've been shocked (in private messages in response to my blog) how few ABs simply had no idea what we're signed up to, how the EU works and where it's heading.
It may simply be that things have to get a whole lot worse for the UK (economically and legally) before we do Leave.
The treatment of Poland re new EC powers caused a big fuss in Times yesterday. IIRC over 300 comments with 95% saying WTF. It's a classic ABC1 audience.
@BBCNormanS: @TheIFS is "the gold standard" of independent and impartial forecasting says PM
Quite astonishing how Brexiteers have managed to take a report that is not entirely helpful to their cause, and turn it into a major story about how paranoid and inconsistent they are.
Such epic incompetence is surely to be admired and applauded
" Says PM " who nobody trusts.
"Cameron on Europe" is up there with "Blair on Iraq" and "Mandleson on anything"
Just did a YouGov - instapoll at end was 62% for "I will never forgive TB".
Smear and insults is all that you Leavers have left isn't it.
I might do a piece this weekend. Leave: Fruitcakes led by donkeys
Look at the second sentence - smear, insult. Dearie me.
You have taken leave of your senses. If someone is on the payroll, their probity is always in doubt and it would be foolish to pretend that exactly the same wouldn't happen if the boot was on the other foot.
£25bn in Overseas Aid/EU contributions.
What kind of government wouldn't use it for it's own people in transition?
What twaddle. Everyone is on someone's payroll. That does not mean that every employee in the country is lacking in probity.
Overstating the case like this makes people less inclined to listen when a genuine argument about a possible conflict of interest is made.
Few people stand up to their pay master. Those who toe the line get promoted. Whistleblowers get sacked.
Most people have mortgages to pay and no other source of income than their pay.
I'm more of the view that like-recruits-like. We prefer those who share the same wavelength.
Ture but they are the worst hirers. I used a system of matching person to key job components after 3 days training by some outside HR experts in that field. It worked very very well across 5 countries and cultures.
Smear and insults is all that you Leavers have left isn't it.
I might do a piece this weekend. Leave: Fruitcakes led by donkeys
Look at the second sentence - smear, insult. Dearie me.
You have taken leave of your senses. If someone is on the payroll, their probity is always in doubt and it would be foolish to pretend that exactly the same wouldn't happen if the boot was on the other foot.
£25bn in Overseas Aid/EU contributions.
What kind of government wouldn't use it for it's own people in transition?
What twaddle. Everyone is on someone's payroll. That does not mean that every employee in the country is lacking in probity.
Overstating the case like this makes people less inclined to listen when a genuine argument about a possible conflict of interest is made.
Few people stand up to their pay master. Those who toe the line get promoted. Whistleblowers get sacked.
Most people have mortgages to pay and no other source of income than their pay.
I'm more of the view that like-recruits-like. We prefer those who share the same wavelength.
I'd like to see what the report actually says, but it would be silly to dismiss the money and patronage trail. My company is owned by a consortium of companies who have shareholdings of different sizes. No-one would NEVER speak out against one of them, whether 10% or less. Just wouldn't happen. That's life.
Just like if I were TSE, and wanted a job with the Tory party, I wouldn't ever speak out against the leadership on PB. That's life.
It's not a 'grand conspiracy', as Remains are fond of calling it in an attempt to bat off any criticism of their beloved brass plaque institutions, it's simple self-interest and self-preservation in operation.
Punters not believing the polls? Plus signs of major Remain complacency.
And the start of purdah. Level playing field kicks in. No more robbing the taxpayers to try and convince the, er, taxpayer of the merits of the EU.
Precedence suggests that purdah is no obstacle to the unleashing of 'Vow II, this time we really mean it'.
What would Vow 2 consist of?
'Renegotiation II, this time we will really mean it'
I really don't think that option is open. All 'Vow' style options are problematic. Views on whether the initial 'Vow' has been satisfactorily implemented aside, 'Vow 1' had two things going for it - the people who proposed it were the people with the power to offer it, and it wasn't against the background of an existing 'renegotiation' which was being touted as credible.
I'd say any vow printed on the front of a tabloid would tend to be bollocks, doesn't mean they don't/won't happen. In the the case of the Indy vow, the credible, existing renegotiation was the the further powers promised by Calman which were punted by the the Unionist side as the only show in town for quite a long time. Ruth Davidson and her further powers 'line in the sand' sticks in the memory.
"David Cameron. 10 Downing Street. Utter rubbish." That woman is the salt of the earth.
Gillian Duffy, my err hero? Gillian Duffy: 'I don't want to be a European' Where she goes a lot of older Labour wc voters are going. I find this idea of Labour voters breaking 80% for REMAIN, somewhat unbelieveable.
Frank Field's advocating voting Leave to dump Cameron in the Times, though he's not articulated it very well. My Labour Leave friends are using that argument as a fig-leaf with their Remain mates - they just can't say they really want out loud.
Incidentally, Kinnock's piece is actually an endorsement of the boiled frog doctrine.
This is who the Tory remain side are enabling, federalists who want to create the single EU state by slowly ratcheting up the areas in which we "co-ordinate" with the EU.
Yes, but the Tory Leave side seem to have a tin ear for how floating voters see this. Just because they are absolutely convinced on the democratic deficit of the EU (as I am) doesn't mean everyone else is. Most haven't thought about or studied it.
I've been shocked (in private messages in response to my blog) how few ABs simply had no idea what we're signed up to, how the EU works and where it's heading.
It may simply be that things have to get a whole lot worse for the UK (economically and legally) before we do Leave.
The guy I was talking to yesterday (definitely an AB!) was saying how good the EU was for the art market.
He had no idea about the French imposition of droit de suite, which has killed the auction market in London
Smear and insults is all that you Leavers have left isn't it.
I might do a piece this weekend. Leave: Fruitcakes led by donkeys
Look at the second sentence - smear, insult. Dearie me.
You have taken leave of your senses. If someone is on the payroll, their probity is always in doubt and it would be foolish to pretend that exactly the same wouldn't happen if the boot was on the other foot.
£25bn in Overseas Aid/EU contributions.
What kind of government wouldn't use it for it's own people in transition?
What twaddle. Everyone is on someone's payroll. That does not mean that every employee in the country is lacking in probity.
Overstating the case like this makes people less inclined to listen when a genuine argument about a possible conflict of interest is made.
Few people stand up to their pay master. Those who toe the line get promoted. Whistleblowers get sacked.
Most people have mortgages to pay and no other source of income than their pay.
I'm more of the view that like-recruits-like. We prefer those who share the same wavelength.
I'd like to see what the report actually says, but it would be silly to dismiss the money and patronage trail. My company is owned by a consortium of companies who have shareholdings of different sizes. No-one would NEVER speak out against one of them, whether 10% or less. Just wouldn't happen. That's life.
Just like if I were TSE, and wanted a job with the Tory party, I wouldn't ever speak out against the leadership on PB. That's life.
It's not a 'grand conspiracy', as Remains are fond of calling it in an attempt to bat off any criticism of their beloved brass plaque institutions, it's simple self-interest and self-preservation in operation.
Don't fall for Blackburn's bollocks.
I've written pieces slagging off Dave, but people seem to forget that, and prefer to imagine what they think I wrote.
Why can't a new MP who is good enough become PM? All they lack is the knowledge of the school yard antics employed by the more experienced MPs. Hardly a loss considering this referendum debate.
How do you know whether they're good enough unless they've proven themselves already in high office - either the cabinet or as LotO?
Just heard Farage on the BBC accuse the IFS and Paul Johnson of doing whatever the government wants and after he may get a peerage. He is talking of the IFS, one of the most respected Institutions in the Country. He has lost it
LEAVE would be much smarter adopting the Leadsom 'more in sorrow than in anger' technique than this 'they're lying and in the pay of the EU' - the IFS has summarised a range of studies, many of which are based on NIESR projections - attack it on that basis, not that they're liars in the pay of the EU.....
I'm sure modesty forbids you from putting forward a supremely qualified candidate.
Modesty if of course my one great failing ....
However I bow to the supremacy of the Scottish voters who entrust the Great Office of State - Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland to Nicola Sturgeon in her other more minor role of First Minister of Scotland. She is the first female office holder of that position (and earlier incarnations) for more than a thousand years.
My view would be her as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Secretary, as a Brexit dream team.
Won't happen. Chancellor is too big a jump and besides, unless you have a new PM, Cameron isn't going to leave Osborne without either other top three job.
Leadsom at BIS would work.
I disagree. I think she could do it. She has lots of talent, worked in the City, and has experience as economic secretary to the Treasury.
BIS would be a bit of an insult, in my view.
She's a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. How on earth would a move to *any* cabinet post - never mind one probably more senior than her current department - be an insult?
Incidentally, Kinnock's piece is actually an endorsement of the boiled frog doctrine.
This is who the Tory remain side are enabling, federalists who want to create the single EU state by slowly ratcheting up the areas in which we "co-ordinate" with the EU.
Yes, but the Tory Leave side seem to have a tin ear for how floating voters see this. Just because they are absolutely convinced on the democratic deficit of the EU (as I am) doesn't mean everyone else is. Most haven't thought about or studied it.
I've been shocked (in private messages in response to my blog) how few ABs simply had no idea what we're signed up to, how the EU works and where it's heading.
It may simply be that things have to get a whole lot worse for the UK (economically and legally) before we do Leave.
Which is why we need a strong and well reasoned argument on why remain isn't the status quo. We are never going to win the argument on economics and immigration turns away as many voters as it captures. In order to get the 5-7 point swing that we need we have to make a well reasoned argument as to why remain isn't the status quo option. A vote for remain is a vote for the super state. It isn't an easy argument to make and in such a short timeframe probably impossible, but on here I can count three people who have been swayed from reluctant remain to reluctant leave, and as we know no PBer ever changes their mind! The leave side should have been preparing the ground for this for a year, ever since the Tory majority the Leave side should have been putting direct quotes from Eurocrats out there on how they want the EU to become a functioning state, they should have been trashing Major, Blair and Brown on their own failed negotiations and inability to get us out of the political union and presenting leaving the EU as the only way to ensure that the UK continues to exist and isn't subsumed into the EU nation.
With Dave giving up our veto on EMU integration this aspect is an argument we need to make because on the one hand you have federalists who have an open and stated goal of creating the single EU state and on the other you have the UK veto over the creation of this state being given up. The next EU treaty is going to formalise an EU treasury, EU taxation powers and possibly the ability of the EU to oversee/co-ordinate military co-operation between nations. It will apply to the EMU only so we will have no ability to veto it.
I read your blog piece and I know you can see it too, but where are the Leave side showing that the EU covets our UNSC seat? Why aren't they out there telling voters that the EU wants to take over defense competencies and using their attempts to control our UNSC seat as evidence. They are completely and utterly useless.
Mr. Betting, the Three Kingdoms' legendary strategist Zhuge Liang criticised leaders who selected offices for people, rather than people for offices (ie rewarding friends with jobs, rather than selecting on merit).
Some people, by virtue of seniority and support, have to be found offices for, irrespective of their ability.
That would imply that Britain is about to do an Atlantis and that exile kingdoms will be established on the continent, one in the vicinity of Belgium, the other on the côte d'azur?
I think the polls are giving a not altogether clear picture because they're down-weighting people on certainty to vote, but not adding what they've taken off them on to the 'don't know' vote. I am not convinced that this debate is engaging the majority of the public. Turnout is estimated at around 65%, so dk/wv is clearly being greatly underestimated according to the pollsters' own figures. DK of 3% is the most absurd of these - that would imply a 97% turnout.
This isn't a partisan point - in some cases it might lead to better Remain showings.
So to continue my polling odyssey which is currently gripping PB in a frenzied debate, I would take all dk/wnv as cast iron. When down-weighting, I'd add whatever fraction of the weight of an individual I had taken off them on to up-weighting dk/wnv individuals. It's the only logical thing to do. This would hopefully result in dk/wkv figures that broadly matched the projected turnout figures. Hopefully leaving a truer picture of voting intentions.
Why can't a new MP who is good enough become PM? All they lack is the knowledge of the school yard antics employed by the more experienced MPs. Hardly a loss considering this referendum debate.
How do you know whether they're good enough unless they've proven themselves already in high office - either the cabinet or as LotO?
How about proving themselves in the outside private world for 20+ years? Something Osborne has almost no record in.
I'm sure modesty forbids you from putting forward a supremely qualified candidate.
Modesty if of course my one great failing ....
However I bow to the supremacy of the Scottish voters who entrust the Great Office of State - Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland to Nicola Sturgeon in her other more minor role of First Minister of Scotland. She is the first female office holder of that position (and earlier incarnations) for more than a thousand years.
Ah, I was getting mixed up with the Privy Seal. You or Andy Murray for that I'd say.
Mr. Herdson, Constantius II promoted Julian on that basis. Didn't turn out too well for him.
For that matter, neither did John being regent whilst Richard was away [although the Lionheart did set up a system to try and limit his younger brother's powers].
Smear and insults is all that you Leavers have left isn't it.
I might do a piece this weekend. Leave: Fruitcakes led by donkeys
Look at the second sentence - smear, insult. Dearie me.
You have taken leave of your senses. If someone is on the payroll, their probity is always in doubt and it would be foolish to pretend that exactly the same wouldn't happen if the boot was on the other foot.
£25bn in Overseas Aid/EU contributions.
What kind of government wouldn't use it for it's own people in transition?
What twaddle. Everyone is on someone's payroll. That does not mean that every employee in the country is lacking in probity.
Overstating the case like this makes people less inclined to listen when a genuine argument about a possible conflict of interest is made.
Few people stand up to their pay master. Those who toe the line get promoted. Whistleblowers get sacked.
Most people have mortgages to pay and no other source of income than their pay.
I'm more of the view that like-recruits-like. We prefer those who share the same wavelength.
I'd like to see what the report actually says, but it would be silly to dismiss the money and patronage trail. My company is owned by a consortium of companies who have shareholdings of different sizes. No-one would NEVER speak out against one of them, whether 10% or less. Just wouldn't happen. That's life.
Just like if I were TSE, and wanted a job with the Tory party, I wouldn't ever speak out against the leadership on PB. That's life.
It's not a 'grand conspiracy', as Remains are fond of calling it in an attempt to bat off any criticism of their beloved brass plaque institutions, it's simple self-interest and self-preservation in operation.
Don't fall for Blackburn's bollocks.
I've written pieces slagging off Dave, but people seem to forget that, and prefer to imagine what they think I wrote.
I don't buy into what anyone else thinks; I form my own over all impression. That's my impression at present; it could change. We all make decisions in the real world. I'm not at all Ukippy in my office at work, because it would likely go down like a bag of sick. That's probably morally cowardly of me. But I'm not a saint, neither are you, or any of us.
Sterling is strengthening against the Euro again. Now €1.31.
It seems to move up about 1cent for every 2% increase in probability of remain. It has moved up 6 cent as probability of Remain has moved from 68% to 80%. I know correlation is not causation but there is reason to suspect causation in this case, and the sterling/euro does seem to move up and down in sync with euref sentiment.
Taken to its logical conclusion, if the result is REMAIN then Sterling should move to €1.41. However, using the same logic, if the result is LEAVE, then Sterling should drop to €0.91!
Was discussing this yesterday with someone who'd job it is to worry about this sort of thing (although focused on cable, not GBP:EUR)
We concluded a 5% bounce if the vote is for Remain; 10-15% near term devaluation if it was for LEAVE
It's also not my job to worry about GBP:EUR, but, since most of my income is in EUR and most of my outgoings are in GBP, worry I do. Roughly once a month, I need to swap a few thousand EUR for GBP, and I try to time my exchanges for optimum benefit. Unfortunately, I think I've missed the boat this month after Remain pulled ahead in the polls. I could really do with a poll giving a surprise lead to Leave right now!
"How do you know whether they're good enough unless they've proven themselves already in high office - either the cabinet or as LotO? "
Possibly LOTO, but the Cabinet? A flurry of flunkies to do your thinking and a couple of dozen others to hide behind.
Judgement is the issue and knowing who to listen to, not blindly following orders or bullying Osborne is CoE and couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag.
My view would be her as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Secretary, as a Brexit dream team.
Won't happen. Chancellor is too big a jump and besides, unless you have a new PM, Cameron isn't going to leave Osborne without either other top three job.
Leadsom at BIS would work.
I disagree. I think she could do it. She has lots of talent, worked in the City, and has experience as economic secretary to the Treasury.
BIS would be a bit of an insult, in my view.
She's a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. How on earth would a move to *any* cabinet post - never mind one probably more senior than her current department - be an insult?
She has worked as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and in the City. She has shown leadership, competence and capability in her brief, and through her TV interviews, press articles and leadership of Fresh Start.
She is only a junior minister because Osborne has artificially held her career back. And far more qualified for the role than he was with *no* government experience at all when he came to office in 2010, and just a modern history degree and life in politics.
I see no reason why she shouldn't jump straight into that role and I think she'd do a bloody good job.
Why can't a new MP who is good enough become PM? All they lack is the knowledge of the school yard antics employed by the more experienced MPs. Hardly a loss considering this referendum debate.
How do you know whether they're good enough unless they've proven themselves already in high office - either the cabinet or as LotO?
How about proving themselves in the outside private world for 20+ years? Something Osborne has almost no record in.
My views on Osborne as a potential leader and PM are well on the record.
Businessmen (and -women) who come straight into politics often have a difficult transition; there are different skills required. I like what I've seen so far of Leadsom (which is not much), but managing a party and a government, while appealing to the public are not the same as leading an individual business (or playing a prominent role within one). That's not to say it's not useful experience: it is. Nor is it to say that there aren't transferable skills: there are. But there is more demanded besides.
My view would be her as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Secretary, as a Brexit dream team.
Won't happen. Chancellor is too big a jump and besides, unless you have a new PM, Cameron isn't going to leave Osborne without either other top three job.
Leadsom at BIS would work.
I disagree. I think she could do it. She has lots of talent, worked in the City, and has experience as economic secretary to the Treasury.
BIS would be a bit of an insult, in my view.
She's a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. How on earth would a move to *any* cabinet post - never mind one probably more senior than her current department - be an insult?
She has worked as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and in the City. She has shown leadership, competence and capability in her brief, and through her TV interviews, press articles and leadership of Fresh Start.
She is only a junior minister because Osborne has artificially held her career back. And far more qualified for the role than he was with *no* government experience at all when he came to office in 2010, and just a modern history degree and life in politics.
I see no reason why she shouldn't jump straight into that role and I think she'd do a bloody good job.
Ah, I was getting mixed up with the Privy Seal. You or Andy Murray for that I'd say.
Both admirable choices ....
The post of Keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland is vacant and has remained so since the Liberal politician Lord Breadalbane died in office in the early 1920's.
The earliest known reference dates to the reign of King Alexander III.
Mr. Herdson, Constantius II promoted Julian on that basis. Didn't turn out too well for him.
For that matter, neither did John being regent whilst Richard was away [although the Lionheart did set up a system to try and limit his younger brother's powers].
But it's invariably a case of trying to mitigate or channel that individual's pre-existing power. Not offering them an office is often just as likely to provoke a revolt on behalf of the individual snubbed; one which not only that person but third parties can take advantage of.
Blair would no doubt have liked to have sacked Brown (or at least, moved him), but he couldn't as his party and government would have become unmanageable. Even the most absolute dictators can only maintain their position as long as there's loyalty within the parts of the state that matter - those which can intimidate.
Incidentally, Kinnock's piece is actually an endorsement of the boiled frog doctrine.
This is who the Tory remain side are enabling, federalists who want to create the single EU state by slowly ratcheting up the areas in which we "co-ordinate" with the EU.
Yes, but the Tory Leave side seem to have a tin ear for how floating voters see this. Just because they are absolutely convinced on the democratic deficit of the EU (as I am) doesn't mean everyone else is. Most haven't thought about or studied it.
I've been shocked (in private messages in response to my blog) how few ABs simply had no idea what we're signed up to, how the EU works and where it's heading.
It may simply be that things have to get a whole lot worse for the UK (economically and legally) before we do Leave.
Which is why we need a strong and well reasoned argument on why remain isn't the status quo. *cut for length*
I agree with the vast majority except 'superstate'. That's a turn-off. It's very Sir James Goldsmith, sort of thing people are immunised to. 'Chaos' 'Bailout' 'Expensive' 'Pick up the tab' 'Collapse' Are what will do it.
Superstate, EU army, scare the living sh*t out of me, but I don't think they stress out the average person, who wants the state to look after them. The breakdown of the 'looking after' is their concern, hence immigrants and services playing well.
Ozzie looking less than happy under Eagle assault.
Boris would be brilliant at PMQs, except for the regular gaffes from off-the-cuff one-liners, which would then need No.10 press team the next two days to put out the flames.
Mr. Herdson, must disagree. Brown was unmovable because Blair was too weak and stupid to prevent Brown amassing such power.
Did Basil II indulge the aristocracy, either collectively or individually? He did not. Once John Tzimisces was dead and Basil became emperor in reality as well as theory, nobody held power over him, and nobody could challenge him.
My view would be her as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Secretary, as a Brexit dream team.
Won't happen. Chancellor is too big a jump and besides, unless you have a new PM, Cameron isn't going to leave Osborne without either other top three job.
Leadsom at BIS would work.
I disagree. I think she could do it. She has lots of talent, worked in the City, and has experience as economic secretary to the Treasury.
BIS would be a bit of an insult, in my view.
She's a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. How on earth would a move to *any* cabinet post - never mind one probably more senior than her current department - be an insult?
She has worked as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and in the City. She has shown leadership, competence and capability in her brief, and through her TV interviews, press articles and leadership of Fresh Start.
She is only a junior minister because Osborne has artificially held her career back. And far more qualified for the role than he was with *no* government experience at all when he came to office in 2010, and just a modern history degree and life in politics.
I see no reason why she shouldn't jump straight into that role and I think she'd do a bloody good job.
'No' reason? I can think of several, both in terms of government experience and practical politics. I also think it'd be unfair on her to drop her into a position like that as the media scrutiny would be extremely intense following such a promotion and any failings would be magnified more than normal.
It won't happen though. There are other, bigger, beasts who would have a claim on the Treasury were Osborne to be moved and while they might accept being passed over for one of their own, they'll kick up a fuss if they're all passed over - and Cameron is in a weak position to see off that sort of challenge.
My view would be her as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Secretary, as a Brexit dream team.
Won't happen. Chancellor is too big a jump and besides, unless you have a new PM, Cameron isn't going to leave Osborne without either other top three job.
Leadsom at BIS would work.
I disagree. I think she could do it. She has lots of talent, worked in the City, and has experience as economic secretary to the Treasury.
BIS would be a bit of an insult, in my view.
She's a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. How on earth would a move to *any* cabinet post - never mind one probably more senior than her current department - be an insult?
She has worked as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and in the City. She has shown leadership, competence and capability in her brief, and through her TV interviews, press articles and leadership of Fresh Start.
She is only a junior minister because Osborne has artificially held her career back. And far more qualified for the role than he was with *no* government experience at all when he came to office in 2010, and just a modern history degree and life in politics.
I see no reason why she shouldn't jump straight into that role and I think she'd do a bloody good job.
'No' reason? I can think of several, both in terms of government experience and practical politics. I also think it'd be unfair on her to drop her into a position like that as the media scrutiny would be extremely intense following such a promotion and any failings would be magnified more than normal.
It won't happen though. There are other, bigger, beasts who would have a claim on the Treasury were Osborne to be moved and while they might accept being passed over for one of their own, they'll kick up a fuss if they're all passed over - and Cameron is in a weak position to see off that sort of challenge.
I would have Leadsom at BIS, Gove at No. 11 and demote Osborne.
Additionally I would give Patel a promotion. Not sure what to do with Boris.
Steve Hilton: "the EU is as old fashioned and weird as having a landline."
This is why he should have stuck to his original line of not commenting because he now lives in California and is not involved. It may be the case that only tin-foil wearers worried about electromagnetic radiation still retain a landline in Silicon Valley, but in middle england I suspect it is still completely normal.
Hm. Wasn't my impression. Just shows how subjective this can be at times.
A good indicator is how vocal for the respective backbenches are
Hmm, having the Whip's office get the backbenches to show how "unified" the party is behind the leadership isn't exactly something I'd base my leadership bets on.
I'd agree that industry and the civil service are different. I joined from industry late in my career and had German experts visit me about a scientific matter. They had a plane to catch later so rather than have them wandering round looking for something to eat, I ordered sandwiches from the canteen and signed the chitty.
An apologetic e-mail from admin followed. Not only was I not senior enough to sign the chitty but neither was my boss or my bosses boss. I went to see my bosses bosses boss and said "It was only a plate of bloody sandwiches, what's going on?" He just smiled and said "You've not got the hang of how we work here, have you?"
Experience of politics is experience of the school yard. I'd rather have a PM with sound judgement. Not that I had it, though.
My view would be her as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Secretary, as a Brexit dream team.
Won't happen. Chancellor is too big a jump and besides, unless you have a new PM, Cameron isn't going to leave Osborne without either other top three job.
Leadsom at BIS would work.
I disagree. I think she could do it. She has lots of talent, worked in the City, and has experience as economic secretary to the Treasury.
BIS would be a bit of an insult, in my view.
She's a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. How on earth would a move to *any* cabinet post - never mind one probably more senior than her current department - be an insult?
She has worked as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and in the City. She has shown leadership, competence and capability in her brief, and through her TV interviews, press articles and leadership of Fresh Start.
She is only a junior minister because Osborne has artificially held her career back. And far more qualified for the role than he was with *no* government experience at all when he came to office in 2010, and just a modern history degree and life in politics.
I see no reason why she shouldn't jump straight into that role and I think she'd do a bloody good job.
'No' reason? I can think of several, both in terms of government experience and practical politics. I also think it'd be unfair on her to drop her into a position like that as the media scrutiny would be extremely intense following such a promotion and any failings would be magnified more than normal.
It won't happen though. There are other, bigger, beasts who would have a claim on the Treasury were Osborne to be moved and while they might accept being passed over for one of their own, they'll kick up a fuss if they're all passed over - and Cameron is in a weak position to see off that sort of challenge.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I don't agree with a 'do your time' approach on the ladder. It's about capability to me.
My view would be her as Chancellor, and Gove as Foreign Secretary, as a Brexit dream team.
Won't happen. Chancellor is too big a jump and besides, unless you have a new PM, Cameron isn't going to leave Osborne without either other top three job.
Leadsom at BIS would work.
I disagree. I think she could do it. She has lots of talent, worked in the City, and has experience as economic secretary to the Treasury.
BIS would be a bit of an insult, in my view.
She's a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. How on earth would a move to *any* cabinet post - never mind one probably more senior than her current department - be an insult?
She has worked as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and in the City. She has shown leadership, competence and capability in her brief, and through her TV interviews, press articles and leadership of Fresh Start.
She is only a junior minister because Osborne has artificially held her career back. And far more qualified for the role than he was with *no* government experience at all when he came to office in 2010, and just a modern history degree and life in politics.
I see no reason why she shouldn't jump straight into that role and I think she'd do a bloody good job.
'No' reason? I can think of several, both in terms of government experience and practical politics. I also think it'd be unfair on her to drop her into a position like that as the media scrutiny would be extremely intense following such a promotion and any failings would be magnified more than normal.
It won't happen though. There are other, bigger, beasts who would have a claim on the Treasury were Osborne to be moved and while they might accept being passed over for one of their own, they'll kick up a fuss if they're all passed over - and Cameron is in a weak position to see off that sort of challenge.
I would have Leadsom at BIS, Gove at No. 11 and demote Osborne.
Additionally I would give Patel a promotion. Not sure what to do with Boris.
George 'Ramsay Bolton' Osborne probably has some "special" stuff planned for Bojo.
Mr. Herdson, must disagree. Brown was unmovable because Blair was too weak and stupid to prevent Brown amassing such power.
Did Basil II indulge the aristocracy, either collectively or individually? He did not. Once John Tzimisces was dead and Basil became emperor in reality as well as theory, nobody held power over him, and nobody could challenge him.
Blair had an opportunity to move Brown in 2001. Arguably, Brown was unmovable after 2002 because Blair eroded his own powerbase over Iraq. Doesn't really matter: he had strong parliamentary backing and as Blair's withered, Brown became all the more unmovable.
I don't know the Eastern Empire history that well but I don't accept that 'no-one' could challenge anyone. Enough provocations and the senators, praetorians, aristocracy, lieutenant-generals or whatever the gatekeepers of the second rank of power are will revolt.
Hm. Wasn't my impression. Just shows how subjective this can be at times.
A good indicator is how vocal for the respective backbenches are
Hmm, having the Whip's office get the backbenches to show how "unified" the party is behind the leadership isn't exactly something I'd base my leadership bets on.
Eagles taking the piss out of the front benchers as all Remain bar Gove squeezed onto the end was a blow landed.
Hm. Wasn't my impression. Just shows how subjective this can be at times.
A good indicator is how vocal for the respective backbenches are
Hmm, having the Whip's office get the backbenches to show how "unified" the party is behind the leadership isn't exactly something I'd base my leadership bets on.
Eagles taking the piss out of the front benchers as all Remain bar Gove squeezed onto the end was a blow landed.
except she first said there was no one from Brexit there and had to be corrected.
Comments
The Opinium poll is very good news for Leave however.
1) Opinium were spot-on in London on the binary question of Goldsmith or Khan just three weeks ago, so there is reason to assume credibility;
2) The gap is as much as fourteen points lower in London than phone pollster London subsamples are showing.
How low will the remain odds go before play kicks off @7am on 23/6?
I recon;
4/6 if the polls converge around 50/50
1/10 " 55/45
1/20 " 60/40
1/50 " 65/35
But it's not only in Italy it works like that.
We used to have a nice place in Umbria (near San Gimignano).
In the late 1970s we received a phone call, encouraging us to sell the house and repatriate the funds to the UK "as a gesture of social solidarity". It was, of course, phrased as a polite suggestion, nothing more.
Who has said that on here and please provide one link.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36373649
Feeding fish to Sturgeon ....
Early leak of the Survation poll?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/the-mogg-very-politely-sticks-knife-into-governor-6cj7xd0g9
Few people stand up to their pay master. Those who toe the line get promoted. Whistleblowers get sacked.
Most people have mortgages to pay and no other source of income than their pay.
This isn't a partisan point - in some cases it might lead to better Remain showings.
I've been shocked (in private messages in response to my blog) how few ABs simply had no idea what we're signed up to, how the EU works and where it's heading.
It may simply be that things have to get a whole lot worse for the UK (economically and legally) before we do Leave.
That woman is the salt of the earth.
We concluded a 5% bounce if the vote is for Remain; 10-15% near term devaluation if it was for LEAVE
Mr Meeks recommended her as a trading bet, I agree.
I still think Remain will win at a canter, and we'll soon come to regret it.
Gillian Duffy: 'I don't want to be a European'
Where she goes a lot of older Labour wc voters are going.
I find this idea of Labour voters breaking 80% for REMAIN, somewhat unbelieveable.
Just like if I were TSE, and wanted a job with the Tory party, I wouldn't ever speak out against the leadership on PB. That's life.
It's not a 'grand conspiracy', as Remains are fond of calling it in an attempt to bat off any criticism of their beloved brass plaque institutions, it's simple self-interest and self-preservation in operation.
In the the case of the Indy vow, the credible, existing renegotiation was the the further powers promised by Calman which were punted by the the Unionist side as the only show in town for quite a long time. Ruth Davidson and her further powers 'line in the sand' sticks in the memory.
He had no idea about the French imposition of droit de suite, which has killed the auction market in London
I've written pieces slagging off Dave, but people seem to forget that, and prefer to imagine what they think I wrote.
Cameron = Ar-Pharazon
They are always bad for Leave.
However I bow to the supremacy of the Scottish voters who entrust the Great Office of State - Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland to Nicola Sturgeon in her other more minor role of First Minister of Scotland. She is the first female office holder of that position (and earlier incarnations) for more than a thousand years.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e1c4f686-f121-4b7c-bc8e-009b8a79b60a
Also appearing by popular request..Mr Hosie.....
With Dave giving up our veto on EMU integration this aspect is an argument we need to make because on the one hand you have federalists who have an open and stated goal of creating the single EU state and on the other you have the UK veto over the creation of this state being given up. The next EU treaty is going to formalise an EU treasury, EU taxation powers and possibly the ability of the EU to oversee/co-ordinate military co-operation between nations. It will apply to the EMU only so we will have no ability to veto it.
I read your blog piece and I know you can see it too, but where are the Leave side showing that the EU covets our UNSC seat? Why aren't they out there telling voters that the EU wants to take over defense competencies and using their attempts to control our UNSC seat as evidence. They are completely and utterly useless.
It's all cock and ball to me in any case ....
You or Andy Murray for that I'd say.
For that matter, neither did John being regent whilst Richard was away [although the Lionheart did set up a system to try and limit his younger brother's powers].
"How do you know whether they're good enough unless they've proven themselves already in high office - either the cabinet or as LotO? "
Possibly LOTO, but the Cabinet? A flurry of flunkies to do your thinking and a couple of dozen others to hide behind.
Judgement is the issue and knowing who to listen to, not blindly following orders or bullying Osborne is CoE and couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag.
No doubt Jezza thinks Mrs Thornberry is a genius.
She is only a junior minister because Osborne has artificially held her career back. And far more qualified for the role than he was with *no* government experience at all when he came to office in 2010, and just a modern history degree and life in politics.
I see no reason why she shouldn't jump straight into that role and I think she'd do a bloody good job.
Businessmen (and -women) who come straight into politics often have a difficult transition; there are different skills required. I like what I've seen so far of Leadsom (which is not much), but managing a party and a government, while appealing to the public are not the same as leading an individual business (or playing a prominent role within one). That's not to say it's not useful experience: it is. Nor is it to say that there aren't transferable skills: there are. But there is more demanded besides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36378078
Given how they screwed up VAT for micro-traders (and smaller firms) whilst aiming for Amazon, one anticipates they'll **** this up too.
The post of Keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland is vacant and has remained so since the Liberal politician Lord Breadalbane died in office in the early 1920's.
The earliest known reference dates to the reign of King Alexander III.
Blair would no doubt have liked to have sacked Brown (or at least, moved him), but he couldn't as his party and government would have become unmanageable. Even the most absolute dictators can only maintain their position as long as there's loyalty within the parts of the state that matter - those which can intimidate.
The rimshot
'This report on Labour's future, which is surprisingly long'
'Chaos'
'Bailout'
'Expensive'
'Pick up the tab'
'Collapse'
Are what will do it.
Superstate, EU army, scare the living sh*t out of me, but I don't think they stress out the average person, who wants the state to look after them. The breakdown of the 'looking after' is their concern, hence immigrants and services playing well.
These are in my opinion of course.
Labour like a party on day release, but when Corbyn returns it will be 4 more years of hard Labour.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound
Govt benches very vocal. Fair to say this session has done more for Osborne's leadership prospects than Angela Eagle
Unexpected, Eagle was good but the main surprise was the strong support behind Osborne.
Did Basil II indulge the aristocracy, either collectively or individually? He did not. Once John Tzimisces was dead and Basil became emperor in reality as well as theory, nobody held power over him, and nobody could challenge him.
It won't happen though. There are other, bigger, beasts who would have a claim on the Treasury were Osborne to be moved and while they might accept being passed over for one of their own, they'll kick up a fuss if they're all passed over - and Cameron is in a weak position to see off that sort of challenge.
Steve Hilton: "the EU is as old fashioned and weird as having a landline."
Additionally I would give Patel a promotion. Not sure what to do with Boris.
I'd agree that industry and the civil service are different. I joined from industry late in my career and had German experts visit me about a scientific matter. They had a plane to catch later so rather than have them wandering round looking for something to eat, I ordered sandwiches from the canteen and signed the chitty.
An apologetic e-mail from admin followed. Not only was I not senior enough to sign the chitty but neither was my boss or my bosses boss. I went to see my bosses bosses boss and said "It was only a plate of bloody sandwiches, what's going on?" He just smiled and said "You've not got the hang of how we work here, have you?"
Experience of politics is experience of the school yard. I'd rather have a PM with sound judgement. Not that I had it, though.
I don't agree with a 'do your time' approach on the ladder. It's about capability to me.
She is very capable.
I don't know the Eastern Empire history that well but I don't accept that 'no-one' could challenge anyone. Enough provocations and the senators, praetorians, aristocracy, lieutenant-generals or whatever the gatekeepers of the second rank of power are will revolt.