If he does become President I just cannot see him getting involved in detailed policy stuff. He'll set a tone: protectionist on trade, tough on terror etc, but will leave almost all the work to others - perhaps even to a technocratic VP choice.
I wouldn't underestimate how much power he could wield, even governing through technocrats. He would probably be similar in style to Putin in a lot of ways. You could imagine the staged for TV meetings where his ministers report back to him and get given their instructions and the strong-arming of American businesses a la Putin's on camera humiliation of Deripaska.
Ruth Davidson complaining about "middle class giveaways", can't see Osbourne saying that. And she's right free tuition fees are a massive middle class giveaway especially in Scotland where the poor do worse than in England in gaining Uni places.
Osborne HUMILIATED by Brussels: EU 'drops' agreement to exempt UK from tampon tax
GEORGE Osborne has been humiliated by European Union (EU) bureaucrats who have dropped his supposed agreement to exempt Britain from the punishing tampon tax, it has been claimed.
I'm reading contradictory things on twitter, some say the non rated items would appear on another list.
There's a distinction between exempt items and zero rated items apparently.
There is, it's to do with whether a company can claim back the VAT it's paid on the goods it bought to produce the goods it sold. Zero rated it can, exempt it can't.
I think.
The "intricacies" of VAT are one thing...But the Posh Boys promised they'd exempt Tampons from VAT and now it seems they can't even do that (even though we're in the middle of a referendum that might see us pull out of the EU)
If it "catches on" with the media it will look dreadful for REMAIN.
The Mumsnet brigade will got nuttso if it is true.
And more generally it's something that in some ways is kind of trivial but just expresses the absurdity of the EU and our position within.
I imagine there's a lot of frantic phone calls into the Commission going on right now to try and shut this one down until after 23rd June.
We also have the Netflix bollocks....I presume if they are going to do Netflix, next with be music streaming like Spotify etc.
Mandatory Johnny Hallyday? ( "the French Elvis")
The equivalent would be making providers include 20% of EU content, not putting Johnny Halladay on every playlist. It wouldn't even be Rammstein, but could be classical content, or even the back catalogue of Depeche Mode.
I hope you aren't suggesting that Rammstein might be a bit crap ;-)
Most certainly not!
If we vote to Remain the national anthem will be replaced by a heavy metal version of Ode to Joy, to be sung while saluting the EU flag .Or something like that...
(Rammstein are headlining Friday at Download Festival in Donnington, I am a little tempted by the prospect of Euro-Heavy Metal)
Ruth Davidson complaining about "middle class giveaways", can't see Osbourne saying that. And she's right free tuition fees are a massive middle class giveaway especially in Scotland where the poor do worse than in England in gaining Uni places.
re the tampon tax. Why don't we just unilaterally change the VAT rate? Who cares if we get sued!
I understand the symbolism of tampons being taxed, but with current retail prices running at about 12p per tampon, the VAT is about 2p per tampon.
VAT rules have plenty of other anomalies too.
VAT is a complete dogs dinner. Any trip to somewhere like Costco where you clearly see pre-Vat / post-VAT on the same price label, gives a clear illustration that it is total bonkers what is considered luxury and what isn't.
You come away with the clear impression that basically which products were VATable was decided by a toddler with a set of coloured stickers.
Japan just has a single flat rate on everything. (Unfortunately this will probably be changed because the government needs the votes of a sketchy religious cult called Soka Gakkai and they're demanding complexity.)
This makes much more sense - if it turns out to have regressive effects (eg poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on food) the government can use the extra revenue to help them in a more targeted way by tweaking taxes/benefits.
re the tampon tax. Why don't we just unilaterally change the VAT rate? Who cares if we get sued!
I understand the symbolism of tampons being taxed, but with current retail prices running at about 12p per tampon, the VAT is about 2p per tampon.
VAT rules have plenty of other anomalies too.
VAT is a complete dogs dinner. Any trip to somewhere like Costco where you clearly see pre-Vat / post-VAT on the same price label, gives a clear illustration that it is total bonkers what is considered luxury and what isn't.
You come away with the clear impression that basically which products were VATable was decided by a toddler with a set of coloured stickers.
Japan just has a single flat rate on everything. (Unfortunately this will probably be changed because the government needs the votes of a sketchy religious cult called Soka Gakkai and they're demanding complexity.)
This makes much more sense - if it turns out to have regressive effects (eg poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on food) the government can use the extra revenue to help them in a more targeted way by tweaking taxes/benefits.
Um. Why not just not tax any of it in the first place?
@iankatz1000: Khalid Mahmood says BME voters alienated by Vote Leave: "Rather than concentrating on race they shd hv concentrated on econ msg" #newsnight
Minorities put off by racist campaign. Wow, who saw that coming...
He must have known leave would have gone big on immigration ?
If he does become President I just cannot see him getting involved in detailed policy stuff. He'll set a tone: protectionist on trade, tough on terror etc, but will leave almost all the work to others - perhaps even to a technocratic VP choice.
I wouldn't underestimate how much power he could wield, even governing through technocrats. He would probably be similar in style to Putin in a lot of ways. You could imagine the staged for TV meetings where his ministers report back to him and get given their instructions and the strong-arming of American businesses a la Putin's on camera humiliation of Deripaska.
The "checks and balances" on Presidential power in the USA will keep him on the leash of Congress and Supreme Court. The whole Constitution was designed to restrict the power of autocrat populists.
A fundamental contradiction at the heart of Vote Leave is becoming harder to ignore. The Brexiters demand that Britain should leave the EU so that sovereignty is returned to the British people. Yet they lose no opportunity to attack the credibility of the very public institutions which would exercise that sovereignty should the UK depart.
Four weeks before referendum day, there are signs that wavering voters are starting to recognise that the Leave side cannot mount a sustained case for the UK’s departure from the EU. Even if the Brexiters fail on June 23, however, their irresponsible campaign may leave a mark. Their tactics risk inflicting lasting damage on Britain’s democratic culture.
I'd go along with that. I'm seeing signs of a nascent Trumpification of Britain, and Leave are to blame.
Ruth Davidson complaining about "middle class giveaways", can't see Osbourne saying that. And she's right free tuition fees are a massive middle class giveaway especially in Scotland where the poor do worse than in England in gaining Uni places.
francis
Evening Malc! A bit late for you?
Hello Gin, Yes and its as boring as it has been recently and plonkers like nunu , almost as daft as Scotttwat
It's enough to drive a man to GIN... Or Scottish malt?
A fundamental contradiction at the heart of Vote Leave is becoming harder to ignore. The Brexiters demand that Britain should leave the EU so that sovereignty is returned to the British people. Yet they lose no opportunity to attack the credibility of the very public institutions which would exercise that sovereignty should the UK depart.
Four weeks before referendum day, there are signs that wavering voters are starting to recognise that the Leave side cannot mount a sustained case for the UK’s departure from the EU. Even if the Brexiters fail on June 23, however, their irresponsible campaign may leave a mark. Their tactics risk inflicting lasting damage on Britain’s democratic culture.
I'd go along with that. I'm seeing signs of a nascent Trumpification of Britain, and Leave are to blame.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
A fundamental contradiction at the heart of Vote Leave is becoming harder to ignore. The Brexiters demand that Britain should leave the EU so that sovereignty is returned to the British people. Yet they lose no opportunity to attack the credibility of the very public institutions which would exercise that sovereignty should the UK depart.
Four weeks before referendum day, there are signs that wavering voters are starting to recognise that the Leave side cannot mount a sustained case for the UK’s departure from the EU. Even if the Brexiters fail on June 23, however, their irresponsible campaign may leave a mark. Their tactics risk inflicting lasting damage on Britain’s democratic culture.
I'd go along with that. I'm seeing signs of a nascent Trumpification of Britain, and Leave are to blame.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
Ruth Davidson complaining about "middle class giveaways", can't see Osbourne saying that. And she's right free tuition fees are a massive middle class giveaway especially in Scotland where the poor do worse than in England in gaining Uni places.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is no institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is not institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
+ Britain's going to be swamped with 97 million Turks if the people vote REMAIN
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is not institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
You missed off the Roman Catholic Church in your list.
And we all know how much trust this forum has in that institution.
On the others, the first six failed to see the Great Crash coming, the seventh has engineered a stagnation in the last ten years in continental Europe and the American President is the head of state of a foreign state, not someone who has the best interests of the British people at heart, but the American people.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the elite is so distrusted because it has so manifestly failed in recent years?
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is no institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
To be fair, there have been plenty of times in world historh where the world's elite institutions have all been wrong together, like with the gold standard. Remain seem to be relying far too much on arguments from authority. I'd like to hear them discuss the detailed arguments more.
Pick your predicted turnout, and degree of age and class skew, then get a prediction.E.g 38% turn out with no skew gives 51% leave, but 77% turnout gives 51% remain. At 66%, the general election turnout, they're predicting a 50-50 split.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is no institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
To be fair, there have been plenty of times in world historh where the world's elite institutions have all been wrong together, like with the gold standard. Remain seem to be relying far too much on arguments from authority. I'd like to hear them discuss the detailed arguments more.
Just an anecdote from lunch at work.
I asked a Remainer why he wanted to remain in the EU. He answered that his Facebook circle all wanted to and I asked him for one argument in favour that he had heard. After a long pause, he managed to remember one which I then proceeded to pick apart with some ease.
That's the problem with arguments from authority. Your supporters can't re-use the arguments as they aren't the people in (supposed) authority and cannot remember who the hell said what in any case.
I think this is why Remain aren't really pulling ahead much despite dominating the debate for weeks.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is not institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
+ Britain's going to be swamped with 97 million Turks if the people vote REMAIN
so if we vote leave the population of Turkey will increase by twenty million...only joking.
Compare and contrast with Cameron and Osborne refusing to plan for Brexit even though they claim it would bring about utter disaster.
They really are completely unfit to govern.
Eh? Why would they need to plan for it, since we are told there's no risk and everything is going to be dandy?
Leavers really, really have lost their marbles, and it shows up most unambiguously in their completely irrational, personalised reaction to Cameron and Osborne (plus of course the insane claims that organisations like the IFS, OECD and NIESR are not independent).
re the tampon tax. Why don't we just unilaterally change the VAT rate? Who cares if we get sued!
I understand the symbolism of tampons being taxed, but with current retail prices running at about 12p per tampon, the VAT is about 2p per tampon.
VAT rules have plenty of other anomalies too.
VAT is a complete dogs dinner. Any trip to somewhere like Costco where you clearly see pre-Vat / post-VAT on the same price label, gives a clear illustration that it is total bonkers what is considered luxury and what isn't.
You come away with the clear impression that basically which products were VATable was decided by a toddler with a set of coloured stickers.
Japan just has a single flat rate on everything. (Unfortunately this will probably be changed because the government needs the votes of a sketchy religious cult called Soka Gakkai and they're demanding complexity.)
This makes much more sense - if it turns out to have regressive effects (eg poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on food) the government can use the extra revenue to help them in a more targeted way by tweaking taxes/benefits.
Um. Why not just not tax any of it in the first place?
Because the government needs some money and consumption taxes make perfect sense to tax as they're harder to evade and raise funds from tourists rather than only taxing locals.
Pick your predicted turnout, and degree of age and class skew, then get a prediction.E.g 38% turn out with no skew gives 51% leave, but 77% turnout gives 51% remain. At 66%, the general election turnout, they're predicting a 50-50 split.
But they're YouGov so they'll be miles out anyway.
Compare and contrast with Cameron and Osborne refusing to plan for Brexit even though they claim it would bring about utter disaster.
They really are completely unfit to govern.
Eh? Why would they need to plan for it, since we are told there's no risk and everything is going to be dandy?
Leavers really, really have lost their marbles, and it shows up most unambiguously in their completely irrational, personalised reaction to Cameron and Osborne (plus of course the insane claims that organisations like the IFS, OECD and NIESR are not independent).
Ah Richard N in one of his ever increasing dumb moods.
You do not need to plan for it if everything is going to be fine. But it is Cameron and Osborne who are saying it would be a disaster and at the same time say they are going to do nothing about it.
Compare and contrast with Cameron and Osborne refusing to plan for Brexit even though they claim it would bring about utter disaster.
They really are completely unfit to govern.
Eh? Why would they need to plan for it, since we are told there's no risk and everything is going to be dandy?
Leavers really, really have lost their marbles, and it shows up most unambiguously in their completely irrational, personalised reaction to Cameron and Osborne (plus of course the insane claims that organisations like the IFS, OECD and NIESR are not independent).
Ah Richard N in one of his ever increasing dumb moods.
You do not need to plan for it if everything is going to be fine. But it is Cameron and Osborne who are saying it would be a disaster and at the same time say they are going to do nothing about it.
Basic logic fail by the Remainiacs.
On the contrary, they are doing everything in their power to head it off.
But if it does happen, what precisely are they supposed to do about it? There is no contingency planning possible. Obviously the Bank of England will try to limit the damage, but as we've discussed before there's very little scope to use monetary levers in a situation where the currency is already falling too fast. Anyone got any other ideas?
Compare and contrast with Cameron and Osborne refusing to plan for Brexit even though they claim it would bring about utter disaster.
They really are completely unfit to govern.
Eh? Why would they need to plan for it, since we are told there's no risk and everything is going to be dandy?
Leavers really, really have lost their marbles, and it shows up most unambiguously in their completely irrational, personalised reaction to Cameron and Osborne (plus of course the insane claims that organisations like the IFS, OECD and NIESR are not independent).
Ah Richard N in one of his ever increasing dumb moods.
You do not need to plan for it if everything is going to be fine. But it is Cameron and Osborne who are saying it would be a disaster and at the same time say they are going to do nothing about it.
Basic logic fail by the Remainiacs.
On the contrary, they are doing everything in their power to head it off.
But if it does happen, what precisely are they supposed to do about it? There is no contingency planning possible. Obviously the Bank of England will try to limit the damage, but as we've discussed before there's very little scope to use monetary levers in a situation where the currency is already falling too fast. Anyone got any other ideas?
So why if there is no contingency planning possible did the Treasury change its tune within 2 days and say there was contingency planning underway.
"Steve Hilton, former adviser to the #PM, said the Gov't #Remain numbers were "made up”. “I know because I used to do that stuff”, he said"
He's a silly idiot. He should know you don't start by discrediting yourself and he should also know the difference between being a politician and an advertising man. There's a saying in advertising "They think they're chefs when really they're waiters". It must have passed him by.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is not institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
+ Britain's going to be swamped with 97 million Turks if the people vote REMAIN
If your going on immigration,what about this from the remain labour and Tory governments - labour saying only 13 thousand eastern Europeans would come to Britain and then we had fake Dave on his tens of thousands cut pledge.
"Steve Hilton, former adviser to the #PM, said the Gov't #Remain numbers were "made up”. “I know because I used to do that stuff”, he said"
He's a silly idiot. He should know you don't start by discrediting yourself and he should also know the difference between being a politician and an advertising man. There's a saying in advertising "They think they're chefs when really they're waiters". It must have passed him by.
Did the EU block his Big Society idea? No, I didn't think so either.
Compare and contrast with Cameron and Osborne refusing to plan for Brexit even though they claim it would bring about utter disaster.
They really are completely unfit to govern.
Eh? Why would they need to plan for it, since we are told there's no risk and everything is going to be dandy?
Leavers really, really have lost their marbles, and it shows up most unambiguously in their completely irrational, personalised reaction to Cameron and Osborne (plus of course the insane claims that organisations like the IFS, OECD and NIESR are not independent).
There are plenty of insults to choose from. I am not quite sure why you have such a hard on for words typically used to stigmatise those with mental health problems. Maybe give it some thought before you churn out your next fanatical defence of Cameron.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is not institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
+ Britain's going to be swamped with 97 million Turks if the people vote REMAIN
If your going on immigration,what about this from the remain labour and Tory governments - labour saying only 13 thousand eastern Europeans would come to Britain and then we had fake Dave on his tens of thousands cut pledge.
Remain with real power and lies.
Extraordinary statistics on the Pakistani population of Bradford today. Radio 4. One in two new births are Pakistani and because of marrying first cousins over generations the gene pool is completely corrupted. A report has just been completed. It's really interesting
There are plenty of insults to choose from. I am not quite sure why you have such a hard on for words typically used to stigmatise those with mental health problems. Maybe give it some thought before you churn out your next fanatical defence of Cameron.
Let's see: 'hard on' and 'fanatical'? And you have the impertinence to criticise my choice of words when I point out the irrationality of some of the positions of our more extreme Leavers?
They can plan at least the outlines of the deal they would seek.
And they could tell us what they are.
And then we could make a decision between the two plans.
But of course we can't be trusted to do that.
Night all.
I agree, but obviously it's up to those advocating Leave to tell the outline of what they are recommending we vote for. To be fair, in the last three weeks that has become a bit clearer. I'm still in the dark about what contingency planning is possible, though.
There are plenty of insults to choose from. I am not quite sure why you have such a hard on for words typically used to stigmatise those with mental health problems. Maybe give it some thought before you churn out your next fanatical defence of Cameron.
Let's see: 'hard on' and 'fanatical'? And you have the impertinence to criticise my choice of words when I point out the irrationality of some of the positions of our more extreme Leavers?
At least those words cannot be used to stigmatise those with mental health problems.
Chancellor says Treasury civil servants planning for the impact of leaving the EU on financial stability in the UK – but Number 10 maintains no wider policy planning taking place.
Clearly they'll try to stabilise the banking system and reassure the markets, to the limited extent that they can. I'm not sure what else they can do.
@iankatz1000: Khalid Mahmood says BME voters alienated by Vote Leave: "Rather than concentrating on race they shd hv concentrated on econ msg" #newsnight
Minorities put off by racist campaign. Wow, who saw that coming...
Chancellor says Treasury civil servants planning for the impact of leaving the EU on financial stability in the UK – but Number 10 maintains no wider policy planning taking place.
Clearly they'll try to stabilise the banking system and reassure the markets, to the limited extent that they can. I'm not sure what else they can do.
So they are doing some kind of planning,
They can no more do all the forward planning for either leave of remain, because they can't start negotiating leave till they've been told to, and can't negotiate remain because we have no idea what Juncker has been either smoking or drinking this week so we don't know what Brussels will be doing next.
They can no more do all the forward planning for either leave of remain, because they can't start negotiating leave till they've been told to, and can't negotiate remain because we have no idea what Juncker has been either smoking or drinking this week so we don't know what Brussels will be doing next.
Yes, I think that's broadly right, (leaving aside the Juncker jibe). In the case of a Leave result, above all they'll need a political direction, and clearly the current government - who are arguing for Remain - can't give that.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is not institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
+ Britain's going to be swamped with 97 million Turks if the people vote REMAIN
If your going on immigration,what about this from the remain labour and Tory governments - labour saying only 13 thousand eastern Europeans would come to Britain and then we had fake Dave on his tens of thousands cut pledge.
Remain with real power and lies.
Extraordinary statistics on the Pakistani population of Bradford today. Radio 4. One in two new births are Pakistani and because of marrying first cousins over generations the gene pool is completely corrupted. A report has just been completed. It's really interesting
It does sound interesting roger,could you please post the report.
What worries me is the arranged marriage racket,how the hell is our British born Pakistani population going to integrate if we have a British Pakistani daughter or son sent to Pakistan for a Pakistani husband or wife ,just what happened to my next door neighbour 2 weeks ago.
Sorry if it went away from your post but for me it's all connected.
If he does become President I just cannot see him getting involved in detailed policy stuff. He'll set a tone: protectionist on trade, tough on terror etc, but will leave almost all the work to others - perhaps even to a technocratic VP choice.
I wouldn't underestimate how much power he could wield, even governing through technocrats. He would probably be similar in style to Putin in a lot of ways. You could imagine the staged for TV meetings where his ministers report back to him and get given their instructions and the strong-arming of American businesses a la Putin's on camera humiliation of Deripaska.
The "checks and balances" on Presidential power in the USA will keep him on the leash of Congress and Supreme Court. The whole Constitution was designed to restrict the power of autocrat populists.
That's what it was designed for but the growth in the power of the directly-elected president, and the executive he's in charge of, have completely wrecked the design. The president runs a huge military with minimal practical accountability to anybody, not to mention the most powerful mass-surveillance operation in the history of mankind.
If he does become President I just cannot see him getting involved in detailed policy stuff. He'll set a tone: protectionist on trade, tough on terror etc, but will leave almost all the work to others - perhaps even to a technocratic VP choice.
I wouldn't underestimate how much power he could wield, even governing through technocrats. He would probably be similar in style to Putin in a lot of ways. You could imagine the staged for TV meetings where his ministers report back to him and get given their instructions and the strong-arming of American businesses a la Putin's on camera humiliation of Deripaska.
The "checks and balances" on Presidential power in the USA will keep him on the leash of Congress and Supreme Court. The whole Constitution was designed to restrict the power of autocrat populists.
That's what it was designed for but the growth in the power of the directly-elected president, and the executive he's in charge of, have completely wrecked the design. The president runs a huge military with minimal practical accountability to anybody, not to mention the most powerful mass-surveillance operation in the history of mankind.
And Obama's rule by directive, unless overturned by the Supreme Court, has seen another massive increase in the power of the Presidency.
They can no more do all the forward planning for either leave of remain, because they can't start negotiating leave till they've been told to, and can't negotiate remain because we have no idea what Juncker has been either smoking or drinking this week so we don't know what Brussels will be doing next.
Yes, I think that's broadly right, (leaving aside the Juncker jibe). In the case of a Leave result, above all they'll need a political direction, and clearly the current government - who are arguing for Remain - can't give that.
Quite. It's also the case that they can't argue they have a clear mandate for leave (whereas a UKIP government would) but only one for a referendum.
If they trotted up to Brussels now and said, "Suppose... would you?" they would not be helping an actual leave position, Brussels would say no (at least officially) because Brussels can't say: "If you leave it'll be all sweetness and light, take what you want" even if they actually meant it. If they did you'd need your head examined to vote remain.
Quite. It's also the case that they can't argue they have a clear mandate for leave (whereas a UKIP government would) but only one for a referendum.
If they trotted up to Brussels now and said, "Suppose... would you?" they would not be helping an actual leave position, Brussels would say no (at least officially) because Brussels can't say: "If you leave it'll be all sweetness and light, take what you want" even if they actually meant it. If they did you'd need your head examined to vote remain.
Yes, I think that's right. So what would be required would be a new government, presumably dominated and led by Conservatives who have backed Leave, who would be credible in the exit negotiations; I don't see how Cameron and Osborne could be credible in that scenario. It would be a stunning political flip-flop if they managed it! Getting that new government in place, and getting support for an agreed position within parliament (in practice, within the Conservative parliamentary party), would take a bit of time. Only then - and I think only after we'd pulled the Article 50 lever - could serious negotiations start.
If he does become President I just cannot see him getting involved in detailed policy stuff. He'll set a tone: protectionist on trade, tough on terror etc, but will leave almost all the work to others - perhaps even to a technocratic VP choice.
I wouldn't underestimate how much power he could wield, even governing through technocrats. He would probably be similar in style to Putin in a lot of ways. You could imagine the staged for TV meetings where his ministers report back to him and get given their instructions and the strong-arming of American businesses a la Putin's on camera humiliation of Deripaska.
The "checks and balances" on Presidential power in the USA will keep him on the leash of Congress and Supreme Court. The whole Constitution was designed to restrict the power of autocrat populists.
That's what it was designed for but the growth in the power of the directly-elected president, and the executive he's in charge of, have completely wrecked the design. The president runs a huge military with minimal practical accountability to anybody, not to mention the most powerful mass-surveillance operation in the history of mankind.
And Obama's rule by directive, unless overturned by the Supreme Court, has seen another massive increase in the power of the Presidency.
Unfortunately people only object to this when the other side is doing it, with the result that every president gives the ratchet another turn.
Whether indicted or not, she's holed below the waterline on this.
Trump will let the hulk wallow for a while, then launch the final torpedoes to send her to the bottom...
If Obama comes to the conclusion that this is what will happen, he could give the nod to the FBI. A non Clinton/Sanders candidate is still a possibility.
O/T I think Trump is going to win, which is will be a hell of a shock. Nov 8th is a bigger day than June 23rd for the west's future.
Re. the EU Ref, Shy Leave. Before GE2015, which I predicted and made a stack of cash on, I was convinced there were a lot of shy tories out there, soaking up the Don't knows. I'm beginning to think there may be a lot of Shy Leave. They're basically scared shit about immigration but don't want to fess up.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
If he does become President I just cannot see him getting involved in detailed policy stuff. He'll set a tone: protectionist on trade, tough on terror etc, but will leave almost all the work to others - perhaps even to a technocratic VP choice.
I wouldn't underestimate how much power he could wield, even governing through technocrats. He would probably be similar in style to Putin in a lot of ways. You could imagine the staged for TV meetings where his ministers report back to him and get given their instructions and the strong-arming of American businesses a la Putin's on camera humiliation of Deripaska.
The "checks and balances" on Presidential power in the USA will keep him on the leash of Congress and Supreme Court. The whole Constitution was designed to restrict the power of autocrat populists.
That's what it was designed for but the growth in the power of the directly-elected president, and the executive he's in charge of, have completely wrecked the design. The president runs a huge military with minimal practical accountability to anybody, not to mention the most powerful mass-surveillance operation in the history of mankind.
And Obama's rule by directive, unless overturned by the Supreme Court, has seen another massive increase in the power of the Presidency.
Unfortunately people only object to this when the other side is doing it, with the result that every president gives the ratchet another turn.
Whether indicted or not, she's holed below the waterline on this.
Trump will let the hulk wallow for a while, then launch the final torpedoes to send her to the bottom...
Strangely, I read this report and my major response was 'meh'. It's certainly not good for Clinton, but I don't think there are any fatal wounds, per se, either. Trump will use it against her to good effect, no doubt. But this comes no where near the level of forcing the Clintons to back out of the race.
That said, this is just the State Department IG's report. He will have had less access than the FBI will demand. The big report is yet to come. If there are no really fatal blows in that, then Clinton will ride it out. Possibly to a humiliating loss, but I think that is around the 50:50 mark at the moment.
Time to return to US politics - the latest turn in the Clinton saga is surely the big news of the day? Anyone else agree that Hillary has suddenly aged considerably, such that she now looks every day of her 68 years and 7 months as does Bill Clinton of his 69 years and 9 months?
Time to return to US politics - the latest turn in the Clinton saga is surely the big news of the day? Anyone else agree that Hillary has suddenly aged considerably, such that she now looks every day of her 68 years and 7 months as does Bill Clinton of his 69 years and 9 months?
Bill had looked octogenarian for the past twenty years. I guess that's what the West Wing does to you.
Hillary is in big trouble, not necessarily because of the latest but the cumulative effect of all this. Every week that Sanders now stays in it he knocks a percentage point off her.
I'm not going to say Trump's unstoppable because this has been a crazy run-in, but the money has to be on him.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
Time to return to US politics - the latest turn in the Clinton saga is surely the big news of the day? Anyone else agree that Hillary has suddenly aged considerably, such that she now looks every day of her 68 years and 7 months as does Bill Clinton of his 69 years and 9 months?
Bill had looked octogenarian for the past twenty years. I guess that's what the West Wing does to you.
Hillary is in big trouble, not necessarily because of the latest but the cumulative effect of all this. Every week that Sanders now stays in it he knocks a percentage point off her.
I'm not going to say Trump's unstoppable because this has been a crazy run-in, but the money has to be on him.
Politicians always seem to age at double speed while in office. The job is in reality considerably more stressful than us amateur commentators would like to imagine, and it's probably exacerbated by the recent tradition of politicians coming to the front at a younger age. Compare photos of Obama today to 2007 or 2008, or photos of the 38 year old David Cameron as he stood for the leadership election in 2005.
Agree about Hillary being in big trouble, there has to be a non-trivial chance that she's not the nominee. On that basis the strategy should really be to lay her (for POTUS) rather than back Trump.
F1. Remember that, being Monaco, they run on Thursday and rest on Friday. P1 is at 09:00 and P2 at 13:00 UK time. Watch for better than expected performance from McLaren and Red Bull, it's a chassis track rather than an engine track.
Time to return to US politics - the latest turn in the Clinton saga is surely the big news of the day? Anyone else agree that Hillary has suddenly aged considerably, such that she now looks every day of her 68 years and 7 months as does Bill Clinton of his 69 years and 9 months?
Bill had looked octogenarian for the past twenty years. I guess that's what the West Wing does to you.
Hillary is in big trouble, not necessarily because of the latest but the cumulative effect of all this. Every week that Sanders now stays in it he knocks a percentage point off her.
I'm not going to say Trump's unstoppable because this has been a crazy run-in, but the money has to be on him.
Trump is a year older than Clinton. The decisive factor may well be which way Bernie Sanders' supporters jump: Clinton as the Democrat; Trump as the outsider; stay at home.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is no institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
To be fair, there have been plenty of times in world historh where the world's elite institutions have all been wrong together, like with the gold standard. Remain seem to be relying far too much on arguments from authority. I'd like to hear them discuss the detailed arguments more.
Just an anecdote from lunch at work.
I asked a Remainer why he wanted to remain in the EU. He answered that his Facebook circle all wanted to and I asked him for one argument in favour that he had heard. After a long pause, he managed to remember one which I then proceeded to pick apart with some ease.
That's the problem with arguments from authority. Your supporters can't re-use the arguments as they aren't the people in (supposed) authority and cannot remember who the hell said what in any case.
I think this is why Remain aren't really pulling ahead much despite dominating the debate for weeks.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
Targeting makes no difference, when the country is one constituency.
You want to avoid preaching to the converted.
Or preaching to non-voters.
presumably you want to preach to the converted and get them to turn out. At least that's what the article says
Yes that's what it says. You have to get the balance right of targetting those whom you're going to influence though, no point targetting:
* those you can't win over or who will be more likely to vote for your opponents because of your actions. * those will will vote for you and turnout no matter what. * those who will not turn out no matter what.
Realistically in a national election I'm not convinced its possible to divine with enough level of accuracy that and all campaigning is probably a net positive. The fact they say Remain have done more campaigning events is probably my biggest takeaway from the article, not that they're more effective. I found that surprising.
I would have thought that just that serious investigators are STILL picking over Clinton’s emails and STILL finding something amiss would stop people voting for her. There must, surely, still be a significant risk that if elected she’ll be impeached.
I don't know what a "Nascent Trumpification" is but if you mean lots of people getting really fed up with the political classes then perhaps having ten years plus of prime ministers saying one thing and doing another and, it would seem, telling barefaced lies might, perhaps, be a more substantial cause then the Leave Campaign.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
No
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is no institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
To be fair, there have been plenty of times in world historh where the world's elite institutions have all been wrong together, like with the gold standard. Remain seem to be relying far too much on arguments from authority. I'd like to hear them discuss the detailed arguments more.
Just an anecdote from lunch at work.
I asked a Remainer why he wanted to remain in the EU. He answered that his Facebook circle all wanted to and I asked him for one argument in favour that he had heard. After a long pause, he managed to remember one which I then proceeded to pick apart with some ease.
That's the problem with arguments from authority. Your supporters can't re-use the arguments as they aren't the people in (supposed) authority and cannot remember who the hell said what in any case.
I think this is why Remain aren't really pulling ahead much despite dominating the debate for weeks.
The problem is that there isn't an opponent trying to pick apart the argument in the ballot box. If your colleague still believes in Remain without knowing why (and remember people may tell you what they think you want to hear) then in the privacy of the ballot booth his vote counts as equally as anyone elses.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
Targeting makes no difference, when the country is one constituency.
You want to avoid preaching to the converted.
Or preaching to non-voters.
presumably you want to preach to the converted and get them to turn out. At least that's what the article says
Yes that's what it says. You have to get the balance right of targetting those whom you're going to influence though, no point targetting:
* those you can't win over or who will be more likely to vote for your opponents because of your actions. * those will will vote for you and turnout no matter what. * those who will not turn out no matter what.
Realistically in a national election I'm not convinced its possible to divine with enough level of accuracy that and all campaigning is probably a net positive. The fact they say Remain have done more campaigning events is probably my biggest takeaway from the article, not that they're more effective. I found that surprising.
I don't think it's any secret that Remain are better organised than Leave.
That said, those academics won't know about things I've been doing (and others) such as leafleting homes, standing outside community centres and doing a little bit of canvassing on our own initiative.
Time to return to US politics - the latest turn in the Clinton saga is surely the big news of the day? Anyone else agree that Hillary has suddenly aged considerably, such that she now looks every day of her 68 years and 7 months as does Bill Clinton of his 69 years and 9 months?
The email stuff -- not much new there. Voters who take a view on this will have done so two years ago. What would be new is arresting and charging her but not this. I'd liken it to Chilcot: the details might be fascinating but no-one will change their mind about Tony Blair and Iraq.
Pick your predicted turnout, and degree of age and class skew, then get a prediction.E.g 38% turn out with no skew gives 51% leave, but 77% turnout gives 51% remain. At 66%, the general election turnout, they're predicting a 50-50 split.
That's interesting. If I chuck in a 10% underlying lead for Remain, and a 67% turnout and a fairly neutral class mix, but on age relatively generous to younger voters, I struggle to get different results to 54/46, or 53/47, to Remain.
Trump is a year older than Clinton. The decisive factor may well be which way Bernie Sanders' supporters jump: Clinton as the Democrat; Trump as the outsider; stay at home.
Sanders supporters will go Clinton just as the vast majority of GOP primary voters have opted for Trump.
This is a 3D election
Demographics - Favours Clinton Differential Turnout - Democrat Hispanic voter registration spiking in swing states. Disdain - Who is the least worst candidate - Polling favours Clinton marginally.
My first foray of the day comes from the Times and Tim Montgomerie.
Britain will be better off out of sickly Europe Now that Cameron can no longer use the civil service as a propaganda tool, the economic argument begins in earnest
Trump is a year older than Clinton. The decisive factor may well be which way Bernie Sanders' supporters jump: Clinton as the Democrat; Trump as the outsider; stay at home.
Sanders supporters will go Clinton just as the vast majority of GOP primary voters have opted for Trump.
This is a 3D election
Demographics - Favours Clinton Differential Turnout - Democrat Hispanic voter registration spiking in swing states. Disdain - Who is the least worst candidate - Polling favours Clinton marginally.
Trump has the white working class (called middle class over there) mens vote in the bag.
It al depends whether the WWC women identify themselves as white or wimmin.
Sadly American politics are becoming very Rhodesianised - the logical result of identity politics championed by the left
Trump is a year older than Clinton. The decisive factor may well be which way Bernie Sanders' supporters jump: Clinton as the Democrat; Trump as the outsider; stay at home.
Sanders supporters will go Clinton just as the vast majority of GOP primary voters have opted for Trump.
This is a 3D election
Demographics - Favours Clinton Differential Turnout - Democrat Hispanic voter registration spiking in swing states. Disdain - Who is the least worst candidate - Polling favours Clinton marginally.
And JackW fervently hopes all the above is true, otherwise he'll be kiltless in the Grampians on November 4th.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
< I don't think it's any secret that Remain are better organised than Leave.
That said, those academics won't know about things I've been doing (and others) such as leafleting homes, standing outside community centres and doing a little bit of canvassing on our own initiative.
Also I'm not sure that leave have really got into gear yet. No point until tomorrow when the referee is forced by Purdah to stop being Remains leading centre forward.
Far better to let remain have the publucity up to now ie give themselves enough rope to hang themselves.
Brexit can start the onslaught of deconstruction of remains case tomorrow with remain now on their own.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
Targeting makes no difference, when the country is one constituency.
You want to avoid preaching to the converted.
Or preaching to non-voters.
presumably you want to preach to the converted and get them to turn out. At least that's what the article says
Yes that's what it says. You have to get the balance right of targetting those whom you're going to influence though, no point targetting:
* those you can't win over or who will be more likely to vote for your opponents because of your actions. * those will will vote for you and turnout no matter what. * those who will not turn out no matter what.
Realistically in a national election I'm not convinced its possible to divine with enough level of accuracy that and all campaigning is probably a net positive. The fact they say Remain have done more campaigning events is probably my biggest takeaway from the article, not that they're more effective. I found that surprising.
Read it now. I'm not sure what's most effective. I've not taken part in any organised events, but I've delivered 2,500 leaflets, which is a better use of my time, I think. It's only anecdote, but we've had three pieces of literature so far from Leave, with only the government booklet from Remain.
I would have thought that just that serious investigators are STILL picking over Clinton’s emails and STILL finding something amiss would stop people voting for her. There must, surely, still be a significant risk that if elected she’ll be impeached.
That's a real possibility but how many people will it put off? There is the embarrassment factor of having a president impeached but there's also a good argument that it's best for the investigators to do their thing and that if they do turn something up, to let Congress then sort out the ramifications.
As an aside, '45th US President to be impeached between 2017/21 inaugurations' would be an interesting market, both on a Yes/No angle and - perhaps even more interestingly - with odds for Clinton / Trump / AN Other (100/1+) / Neither.
Trump has the white working class (called middle class over there) mens vote in the bag.
It al depends whether the WWC women identify themselves as white or wimmin.
Sadly American politics are becoming very Rhodesianised - the logical result of identity politics championed by the left
Certainly true that Trump performs well with WWC but presently the polling and voting numbers indicate he is only marginally performing better that Romney in a demographic that is falling. Each cycle the GOP contender has to squeeze a greater proportion of WWC just to stand still.
The swing states are all trending blue with the exception of Pennsylvania that is edging red at the margin. Trump has to near run the table of swing states to win. He is very keen to talk about a wall to keep Hispanics out. The irony being that in keenly contested states like Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio and perhaps even Arizona it will be the Hispanic bloc that builds a wall against Trump reaching the White House.
And JackW fervently hopes all the above is true, otherwise he'll be kiltless in the Grampians on November 4th.
The fresh air will undoubtedly do my ARSE the power of good and also provide the natives with as rare and awesome sight as the Loch Ness Monster and the monster number of UKIP MP's in parliament.
That really is an excellent piece. The points at the end about the adverse consequences of us staying in the EU are the most significant. As I have said repeatedly the idea that remain is a vote for the existing status quo really has to be undermined (should be easy as it is not true but getting traction for this has proven difficult so far) if Leave is to have a serious chance.
My observation on the excitable posts on HMG contingency planning. I've no doubt there is some but if it's admitted then Leave will immediately demand that it's released. I suspect the thinking is why should the government help make Leave's arguments. They should be articulating their detailed vision of the future.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
Targeting makes no difference, when the country is one constituency.
You want to avoid preaching to the converted.
Or preaching to non-voters.
presumably you want to preach to the converted and get them to turn out. At least that's what the article says
Yes that's what it says. You have to get the balance right of targetting those whom you're going to influence though, no point targetting:
* those you can't win over or who will be more likely to vote for your opponents because of your actions. * those will will vote for you and turnout no matter what. * those who will not turn out no matter what.
Realistically in a national election I'm not convinced its possible to divine with enough level of accuracy that and all campaigning is probably a net positive. The fact they say Remain have done more campaigning events is probably my biggest takeaway from the article, not that they're more effective. I found that surprising.
Read it now. I'm not sure what's most effective. I've not taken part in any organised events, but I've delivered 2,500 leaflets, which is a better use of my time, I think. It's only anecdote, but we've had three pieces of literature so far from Leave, with only the government booklet from Remain.
I've noticed that. When distributing Leave leaflets, I've seen no sign of any Remain activity whatsoever. Still time, I suppose. I have seen some vaguely pro-EU e-mails at work from my union. Maybe there's a social media effort?
One thing that I can't get my head round is why so many people on this site are seemingly so fixated by trade deals. Looking around my study and just about everything in it, save the books and the pictures, has been manufactured in and imported from a country with which we do not have a free trade deal let alone are part of some single market. Even the wine I am drinking (Cook's Bay, a nice Sauvignon Blanc from New Zealand, and a snip at £6.50 a bottle - Frog stuff of equivalent quality would be two or three times the price).
Not being part of the single market or even having a free trade deal doesn't stop the exporters in Japan, South Korea, China, New Zealand or even bloody Australia selling their stuff to me at prices I am prepared to pay (much of it very reasonable in my view).
So why all this fuss about the Single Market of 500 million souls? If a company is producing something that someone else wants to buy at a price the customer is prepared to pay then they will make sales and the single market doesn't matter a hoot.
In fairness it did matter a lot more at the time that the single market was launched 20 odd years ago when trade tariffs and NTBs were much more significant. But the trade off (sorry) has changed radically over that period and the problems being caused to this country in particular by freedom of movement within that single market exceed the gains by a considerable margin.
Personally, I believe that we would retain the single market benefits if we leave anyway. It is just too much in the interests of both parties to maintain it. I accept that there is a risk and even that there may be some very short term adverse effects from the uncertainty but as the Andrew Lilico piece shows even if I am wrong the adverse effects are ultimately tiny.
Blow for Leave supporters as figures show Remain is winning the Brexit ground war Pro-EU supporters target their campaigning in key areas while Brexiteers events are more randomly spread.
Targeting makes no difference, when the country is one constituency.
You want to avoid preaching to the converted.
Or preaching to non-voters.
presumably you want to preach to the converted and get them to turn out. At least that's what the article says
Yes that's what it says. You have to get the balance right of targetting those whom you're going to influence though, no point targetting:
* those you can't win over or who will be more likely to vote for your opponents because of your actions. * those will will vote for you and turnout no matter what. * those who will not turn out no matter what.
Realistically in a national election I'm not convinced its possible to divine with enough level of accuracy that and all campaigning is probably a net positive. The fact they say Remain have done more campaigning events is probably my biggest takeaway from the article, not that they're more effective. I found that surprising.
Read it now. I'm not sure what's most effective. I've not taken part in any organised events, but I've delivered 2,500 leaflets, which is a better use of my time, I think. It's only anecdote, but we've had three pieces of literature so far from Leave, with only the government booklet from Remain.
Comments
If we vote to Remain the national anthem will be replaced by a heavy metal version of Ode to Joy, to be sung while saluting the EU flag .Or something like that...
(Rammstein are headlining Friday at Download Festival in Donnington, I am a little tempted by the prospect of Euro-Heavy Metal)
This makes much more sense - if it turns out to have regressive effects (eg poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on food) the government can use the extra revenue to help them in a more targeted way by tweaking taxes/benefits.
The problem, if there is one, is really down to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
It would be one thing to claim that the PM is always lying to you, which you may or may not agree with depending on which PM is under discussion.
What Leave have done is claimed that the PM is lying to you, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IFS, the OECD, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, the American President, Uncle Tom Cobley and all
Basically there is no institution on the planet in which you can place any trust, anywhere, say Leave.
Which makes it tricky to actually govern, or hold a rational debate
Btw, lay Fallin, pronounced Failin'
And we all know how much trust this forum has in that institution.
On the others, the first six failed to see the Great Crash coming, the seventh has engineered a stagnation in the last ten years in continental Europe and the American President is the head of state of a foreign state, not someone who has the best interests of the British people at heart, but the American people.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the elite is so distrusted because it has so manifestly failed in recent years?
Uncle Tom Cobley seems to have done OK, though.
https://yougov.co.uk/turnout-o-meter/
Pick your predicted turnout, and degree of age and class skew, then get a prediction.E.g 38% turn out with no skew gives 51% leave, but 77% turnout gives 51% remain. At 66%, the general election turnout, they're predicting a 50-50 split.
I asked a Remainer why he wanted to remain in the EU. He answered that his Facebook circle all wanted to and I asked him for one argument in favour that he had heard. After a long pause, he managed to remember one which I then proceeded to pick apart with some ease.
That's the problem with arguments from authority. Your supporters can't re-use the arguments as they aren't the people in (supposed) authority and cannot remember who the hell said what in any case.
I think this is why Remain aren't really pulling ahead much despite dominating the debate for weeks.
Leavers really, really have lost their marbles, and it shows up most unambiguously in their completely irrational, personalised reaction to Cameron and Osborne (plus of course the insane claims that organisations like the IFS, OECD and NIESR are not independent).
You do not need to plan for it if everything is going to be fine. But it is Cameron and Osborne who are saying it would be a disaster and at the same time say they are going to do nothing about it.
Basic logic fail by the Remainiacs.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968/laughter
But if it does happen, what precisely are they supposed to do about it? There is no contingency planning possible. Obviously the Bank of England will try to limit the damage, but as we've discussed before there's very little scope to use monetary levers in a situation where the currency is already falling too fast. Anyone got any other ideas?
Do try and get your story straight Richard
He's a silly idiot. He should know you don't start by discrediting yourself and he should also know the difference between being a politician and an advertising man. There's a saying in advertising "They think they're chefs when really they're waiters". It must have passed him by.
Remain with real power and lies.
And they could tell us what they are.
And then we could make a decision between the two plans.
But of course we can't be trusted to do that.
Night all.
So I did a google and apparently according to everyone both the BoE and treasury are making plans, see here:
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=bank of england contingency plans for brexit
Chancellor says Treasury civil servants planning for the impact of leaving the EU on financial stability in the UK – but Number 10 maintains no wider policy planning taking place.
Clearly they'll try to stabilise the banking system and reassure the markets, to the limited extent that they can. I'm not sure what else they can do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0
They can no more do all the forward planning for either leave of remain, because they can't start negotiating leave till they've been told to, and can't negotiate remain because we have no idea what Juncker has been either smoking or drinking this week so we don't know what Brussels will be doing next.
What worries me is the arranged marriage racket,how the hell is our British born Pakistani population going to integrate if we have a British Pakistani daughter or son sent to Pakistan for a Pakistani husband or wife ,just what happened to my next door neighbour 2 weeks ago.
Sorry if it went away from your post but for me it's all connected.
If they trotted up to Brussels now and said, "Suppose... would you?" they would not be helping an actual leave position, Brussels would say no (at least officially) because Brussels can't say: "If you leave it'll be all sweetness and light, take what you want" even if they actually meant it. If they did you'd need your head examined to vote remain.
Trump will let the hulk wallow for a while, then launch the final torpedoes to send her to the bottom...
Re. the EU Ref, Shy Leave. Before GE2015, which I predicted and made a stack of cash on, I was convinced there were a lot of shy tories out there, soaking up the Don't knows. I'm beginning to think there may be a lot of Shy Leave. They're basically scared shit about immigration but don't want to fess up.
That said, this is just the State Department IG's report. He will have had less access than the FBI will demand. The big report is yet to come. If there are no really fatal blows in that, then Clinton will ride it out. Possibly to a humiliating loss, but I think that is around the 50:50 mark at the moment.
Anyone else agree that Hillary has suddenly aged considerably, such that she now looks every day of her 68 years and 7 months as does Bill Clinton of his 69 years and 9 months?
Hillary is in big trouble, not necessarily because of the latest but the cumulative effect of all this. Every week that Sanders now stays in it he knocks a percentage point off her.
I'm not going to say Trump's unstoppable because this has been a crazy run-in, but the money has to be on him.
Clinton 45 .. Trump 39
Sanders 46 .. Trump 35
http://zogbyanalytics.com/news/747-ohio-likely-voters-choose-clinton-and-sanders-over-trump
Clinton 46 .. Sanders 44
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/poll-clinton-and-sanders-in-dead-heat-in-california-223580
Agree about Hillary being in big trouble, there has to be a non-trivial chance that she's not the nominee. On that basis the strategy should really be to lay her (for POTUS) rather than back Trump.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10874230/Jean-Claude-Juncker-profile-When-it-becomes-serious-you-have-to-lie.html
* those you can't win over or who will be more likely to vote for your opponents because of your actions.
* those will will vote for you and turnout no matter what.
* those who will not turn out no matter what.
Realistically in a national election I'm not convinced its possible to divine with enough level of accuracy that and all campaigning is probably a net positive. The fact they say Remain have done more campaigning events is probably my biggest takeaway from the article, not that they're more effective. I found that surprising.
That said, those academics won't know about things I've been doing (and others) such as leafleting homes, standing outside community centres and doing a little bit of canvassing on our own initiative.
This is a 3D election
Demographics - Favours Clinton
Differential Turnout - Democrat Hispanic voter registration spiking in swing states.
Disdain - Who is the least worst candidate - Polling favours Clinton marginally.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/735514390263386112
My first foray of the day comes from the Times and Tim Montgomerie.
Britain will be better off out of sickly Europe
Now that Cameron can no longer use the civil service as a propaganda tool, the economic argument begins in earnest
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/brexiteers-can-prove-well-be-better-off-out-w2pmj0r68
It al depends whether the WWC women identify themselves as white or wimmin.
Sadly American politics are becoming very Rhodesianised - the logical result of identity politics championed by the left
Far better to let remain have the publucity up to now ie give themselves enough rope to hang themselves.
Brexit can start the onslaught of deconstruction of remains case tomorrow with remain now on their own.
As an aside, '45th US President to be impeached between 2017/21 inaugurations' would be an interesting market, both on a Yes/No angle and - perhaps even more interestingly - with odds for Clinton / Trump / AN Other (100/1+) / Neither.
The swing states are all trending blue with the exception of Pennsylvania that is edging red at the margin. Trump has to near run the table of swing states to win. He is very keen to talk about a wall to keep Hispanics out. The irony being that in keenly contested states like Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio and perhaps even Arizona it will be the Hispanic bloc that builds a wall against Trump reaching the White House.
Personally, I believe that we would retain the single market benefits if we leave anyway. It is just too much in the interests of both parties to maintain it. I accept that there is a risk and even that there may be some very short term adverse effects from the uncertainty but as the Andrew Lilico piece shows even if I am wrong the adverse effects are ultimately tiny.