GBPUSD 1.4480 having been around the 1.47 handle before the 'poll annnouncement'.
Sterling's high overnight at 1.4724 failed to take out the 1.4763 corrective high on May 3rd - known as a failed 5th in Elliott Wave terms as part of the larger correction off the 1.3883 lows post Boris announcing he was going to campaign on the leave side.
This is a decidedly BEARISH setup....irrespective of the outcome on the 23rd June.
Also note the weakness in the Dow today vis a vis the S&P. The smart money is getting out before quite a stock market correction coming up. Its a false move(including gold that will ideally fall to the $900 area) ......before we get into the sovereign debt crisis proper (I think starting January 2017) when it will be stocks / gold / dollar up, bonds / property / debt down in the move of a lifetime.
Oh god....'that site'. Once upon a time circa 2008 there were some decent posters on there....namely cgnao. Not so now me thinks!
Ah the mysterious Cgnao.
Cgnao saved me a fortune when I took note of him and moved my personal pension funds into a essentially a fixed interest rate account just before the ballon went up in 2007/8.
Its not as good as it was but still useful to lurk on and off topic is hilarious.
I always found HPC members trolling Mumsnet amusing.
The in sport at the moment is trolling the forum stsrted by a buy to let landlord who campaigned against Osbornes buy to let stamp duty hike.
It was also through house price crash that I discovered the infamous and side splitting mumsnet Oxo Tower thread started by a lady who innocently described how her other half had taken her up the well known iconic south bank building to celebrate their anniversary with dinner at the restaurant at the top.
O/T and selfish. I’m delighted to report that my latest blood test has come back negative and therefore I've, or rather the NHS has, beaten my cancer! Five years after the operation finally I’m in the clear!
That's fabulous!! So glad for you. Many happy years to come!
Seconded.
NickP - I asked last night re: your admiration of Switzerland - how do you reconcile Switzerland doing so well whilst outside of the EU?
Sorry, missed it when you first asked. Switzerland has a lot going for them in terms of being a European financial centre in an extremely stable society, and they attempt to align themselves extremely closely to EU policy (for a long time the franc shadowed the Euro), constrained by the direct democracy system. They voted narrowly to oppose free movement, and the Swiss government are still scratching their heads over how to square that with the EU making it a condition for a range of other agreements important to Switzerland: the most likely is that they'll go back for a fresh vote, saying the problem is otherwise insoluble. The Government doesn't think they can prosper without close integration with the EU.
They're a good example of a pretty healthy economy tightly bound into the EU - they're doing OK, but the idea that they have freedom of action is almost wholly illusory. Britain, by contrast, has a highly unhealthy economy with a huge payments deficit, serious underinvestment and over-dependence on consumer debt and an obsession with reducing immigration at any cost. It won't end happily.
Oh god....'that site'. Once upon a time circa 2008 there were some decent posters on there....namely cgnao. Not so now me thinks!
Ah the mysterious Cgnao.
Cgnao saved me a fortune when I took note of him and moved my personal pension funds into a essentially a fixed interest rate account just before the ballon went up in 2007/8.
Its not as good as it was but still useful to lurk on and off topic is hilarious.
Haven't been on there for ages! I don't think anyone ever got to the bottom of cgnao's identity did they?
I dont think so but I have my suspicions.
Dont need to read this just look at the pictures lol.
When I say bullish on stocks overall - look at the Dow repeatedly challenging the 18500/18600 area - its like the Dow challenging the 1,000 area until the breakout at the umpteemth attempt off the August 1982 lows. One of my favourite Martin Armstrong quotes is....' the gods of Wall Street give you one attempt to sell the high' .......eg the summer of 1929. They don't give you many attempts as is the case with the Dow right now.
Do either of you know what happened to "spline", the handle of a poster on HPC who left about 2009/10? He was bloody good at predicting.
Britain doesn't have just one culture, and attempts to define British mores devolve into silliness when you compare Fermanagh to Lowestoft or Aberdeen or Liverpool. So it seems ambitious to hope EU migrants will adopt British mores like a drop in a bucket of water, when there is no such homogenous thing.
Thus let's cut out the PC. A lot of the immigration reductionists want Muslims to be stopped coming into the UK or even want Muslims born in Britain to be encouraged to leave. At the least, they want Muslims to keep quiet and leave the public sphere to atheists, Christians, Jews, and other accepted religions. But for some reason they are supporting an EU referendum to reduce the numbers of Poles and Irish who will move to the UK without doing anything to achieve what they really want.
I am trying to think of a polite word to describe what you just wrote there.
Ah lets cut out the PC. What you wrote is bollocks.
I think "bollocks" is perfectly polite in the circumstances.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Oh god....'that site'. Once upon a time circa 2008 there were some decent posters on there....namely cgnao. Not so now me thinks!
Ah the mysterious Cgnao.
Cgnao saved me a fortune when I took note of him and moved my personal pension funds into a essentially a fixed interest rate account just before the ballon went up in 2007/8.
Its not as good as it was but still useful to lurk on and off topic is hilarious.
Haven't been on there for ages! I don't think anyone ever got to the bottom of cgnao's identity did they?
I dont think so but I have my suspicions.
Dont need to read this just look at the pictures lol.
When I say bullish on stocks overall - look at the Dow repeatedly challenging the 18500/18600 area - its like the Dow challenging the 1,000 area until the breakout at the umpteemth attempt off the August 1982 lows. One of my favourite Martin Armstrong quotes is....' the gods of Wall Street give you one attempt to sell the high' .......eg the summer of 1929. They don't give you many attempts as is the case with the Dow right now.
Do either of you know what happened to "spline", the handle of a poster on HPC who left about 2009/10? He was bloody good at predicting.
If you believe that Christianity has been a good influence on the UK, you should probably be encouraging Polish and Lithuanian immigration. Countries where religion has, in living memory of young people, been a motive for freedom and opposition to anti-individualistic communism. But the LEAVE campaign is protean this way. It's about their economic effect... until it comes time to talk about economics, when it becomes about the social effect... which is not itself expounded on, other than demanding that we all treat the opinions of anti-immigration people without challenge and with honour and respect (normally while calling pro-immigration people luvvies, fatcats, out of touch or traitors).
If you believe that Christianity has been a good influence on the UK, you should probably be encouraging Polish and Lithuanian immigration. Countries where religion has, in living memory of young people, been a motive for freedom and opposition to anti-individualistic communism. But the LEAVE campaign is protean this way. It's about their economic effect... until it comes time to talk about economics, when it becomes about the social effect... which is not itself expounded on, other than demanding that we all treat the opinions of anti-immigration people without challenge and with honour and respect (normally while calling pro-immigration people luvvies, fatcats, out of touch or traitors).
Would you say that Christianity has been a good influence on the USA?
I'll join the chorus of much deserved thanks to Cyclefree for another thought provoking piece.
I opined yesterday morning immigration was a complex multi-faceted issue and if easy answers existed, we'd be doing them.
On that basis, I approach anyone offering "solutions" with a degree of caution.
I have, I think, two major issues with what Cyclefree is, with all good faith, proposing. First is much of immigration (apart from the much publicised economic migrants) consists of family members seeking to join family already and legally resident in the UK. It's not easy to enforce the separation of families - brothers from sisters and the like and the fact is the family already provides the accommodation and arguably the employment that we regard as pre-requisites for those seeking to come here.
Second, I think I would want an immigration policy that would not lead to problems for those seeking to migrate from the UK. The other side of the coin, the migration of UK citizens to other countries, has to be part of immigration policy. They ought not, I think, to be separated and for those wishing to live their lives beyond the UK, the economic implications of that re-location need to be made clear.
It's not a sin to want to come to the UK, nor should it be a sin to want to leave. Quite apart from the retired, there are the successful who may consider better opportunities to fulfill their potential elsewhere (the US, Singapore, Australasia for example). As part of a holistic policy toward movement, we ought to think about those wanting to leave as much as those wanting to arrive.
I respectfully disagree that it would be difficult to emulate them though. Switzerland has had the ideal balance of a free trade, low tax, high skill economy. The UK is good on the first point (although undermined by the EU), average on the second and lamentably poor on the third.....which gives a fair indication as to why the UK is very much in the middle of the road in terms of income levels amongst developed economy peers.
I think the most significant difference is that because of its size, the UK's weight will always be felt in European affairs in a way that Switzerland can avoid. We change the balance and therefore other actors will inevitably draw us into their intrigues whether we like it or not. This wouldn't fundamentally change if we were outside the EU. Giving us what would be perceived as 'free-loader' status would grate on the remaining members of the EU.
Our voting block in the parliament is only 8.4% though, and I can't think of an occasion on which the UK MEP's have voted en-block? And as for soft power - arguably we hold sway with the Nordics and have some influence amongst former communist countries in eastern Europe? But we've been outvoted more times than any other EU member state...so our influence strictly in EU terms is distinctly limited in my opinion.
One fascinating consequence of Brexit would be Anglo Russian relations. Putin being the much under-estimated clever politician that he is can clearly see the Russian interest in Brexit, and the resulting (calculated) weakening of the NATO alliance. Another factor is the US - Obama has already made one intervention in the campaign - can he realistically do so again? And anyway what is his influence, given he'll be off the scene in 7 and a bit months time.
Got to say I disagree with the PB majority. I think some are getting carried away by the polling. Whilst good for Leave, we're over three weeks from the vote, and the leads are very small.
If EU citizens not eligible to vote are getting polling cards, that's many (hundreds of thousands?) voters likely to vote Remain.
And unless they are Cypriot, Maltese, or Irish surely it will be illegal with all that results in both individually and for the referendum?
Does receipt of a polling card imply eligibility to vote? Logically it should do, but perhaps the Authority has sent poll cards out to everyone but will issue ballot papers only to UK residents. I wonder if this is happening in all Authorities or just the few highlighted so far.
The likelihood is that a computer system has wrongly been set to treat the referendum as a national rather than local one.
I know Vote Leave have targeted postal voters.
I was in the house of a postal voter and saw one of the mailings. She is an EU citizen and cannot vote in General Elections. Vote Leave cock up or Electoral Register cock up? I'll keep the forum informed of developments.
One fascinating consequence of Brexit would be Anglo Russian relations. Putin being the much under-estimated clever politician that he is can clearly see the Russian interest in Brexit, and the resulting (calculated) weakening of the NATO alliance.
Yes, and if Trump wins, the NATO alliance is going to have some hard questions asked of it even without Brexit so the realities of hard power can't be ignored.
It would be fascinating in some ways to see an EU behemoth sandwiched between an independent UK and Russia.
I respectfully disagree that it would be difficult to emulate them though. Switzerland has had the ideal balance of a free trade, low tax, high skill economy. The UK is good on the first point (although undermined by the EU), average on the second and lamentably poor on the third.....which gives a fair indication as to why the UK is very much in the middle of the road in terms of income levels amongst developed economy peers.
I think the most significant difference is that because of its size, the UK's weight will always be felt in European affairs in a way that Switzerland can avoid. We change the balance and therefore other actors will inevitably draw us into their intrigues whether we like it or not. This wouldn't fundamentally change if we were outside the EU. Giving us what would be perceived as 'free-loader' status would grate on the remaining members of the EU.
Our voting block in the parliament is only 8.4% though, and I can't think of an occasion on which the UK MEP's have voted en-block? And as for soft power - arguably we hold sway with the Nordics and have some influence amongst former communist countries in eastern Europe? But we've been outvoted more times than any other EU member state...so our influence strictly in EU terms is distinctly limited in my opinion.
One fascinating consequence of Brexit would be Anglo Russian relations. Putin being the much under-estimated clever politician that he is can clearly see the Russian interest in Brexit, and the resulting (calculated) weakening of the NATO alliance. Another factor is the US - Obama has already made one intervention in the campaign - can he realistically do so again? And anyway what is his influence, given he'll be off the scene in 7 and a bit months time.
Obama cheesed even my old mum off by telling us how to vote. Think it was part of the reason she drifted to Leave. Note the past tense she voted postally.
If you believe that Christianity has been a good influence on the UK, you should probably be encouraging Polish and Lithuanian immigration. Countries where religion has, in living memory of young people, been a motive for freedom and opposition to anti-individualistic communism. But the LEAVE campaign is protean this way. It's about their economic effect... until it comes time to talk about economics, when it becomes about the social effect... which is not itself expounded on, other than demanding that we all treat the opinions of anti-immigration people without challenge and with honour and respect (normally while calling pro-immigration people luvvies, fatcats, out of touch or traitors).
Would you say that Christianity has been a good influence on the USA?
Well you look at New England and the Quakers and you'd have to say Yes. Those people developed the habits that later made the Americans so successful. The only other answer I could give would be to say that Christianity is so fundamental to the United States of America, as a country whose foundational settlements were Christian colonies rather than (as in most of the world's nations) migration waves before the modern state came into being, that to distinguish the unique influence of Christianity on the USA is a mug's game.
@achrisevans: More bad news for the Top Gear haters: consolidated figures for the first episode of the new series have now past 5.6 million and counting.
SHOUTY MC-SHOUTY FACE back at it again...he doth protest too much. By his measure, the old Top Gear's shown on Dave must have 100 million viewers....
It is a strange attitude. 75% of those expressing an opinion on twitter were negative, most of the press were negative etc etc etc and rather than taking the Tony Blair "we will listen to the public" approach to PR disasters, MC-SHOUTY FACE is basically giving it the middle finger to all those Top Gear fans who didn't like the first episode.
I respectfully disagree that it would be difficult to emulate them though. Switzerland has had the ideal balance of a free trade, low tax, high skill economy. The UK is good on the first point (although undermined by the EU), average on the second and lamentably poor on the third.....which gives a fair indication as to why the UK is very much in the middle of the road in terms of income levels amongst developed economy peers.
I think the most significant difference is that because of its size, the UK's weight will always be felt in European affairs in a way that Switzerland can avoid. We change the balance and therefore other actors will inevitably draw us into their intrigues whether we like it or not. This wouldn't fundamentally change if we were outside the EU. Giving us what would be perceived as 'free-loader' status would grate on the remaining members of the EU.
One fascinating consequence of Brexit would be Anglo Russian relations. Putin being the much under-estimated clever politician that he is can clearly see the Russian interest in Brexit, and the resulting (calculated) weakening of the NATO alliance.
I fail to see the connection between Brexit and the weakening of the NATO Alliance. If the remaining EU countries want to form an EU Armed Force, they will do so - whether we are in the EU or not. This is the true existential threat to NATO.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
Seems unreasonably generous to me. Surely if you live abroad for that length of time you apply for that country's citizenship.
I don't see why you should be obliged to. Citizenship should have a deeper meaning than just where you live.
You're not obliged to. But if you've opted out of the nation for 15 years why should you still get a vote?
Because you may have paid 40 years of tax and NI?
That just paid for the 40 years of services and governance you enjoyed (or laboured under depending on your outlook). I see no reason why it should qualify you to continue to take part in the decision making once you have decided to leave. I think 15 years is pretty generous.
Our latest AGW climate change proponent Fearsome Engineer (or however he spells it!) I've yet to engage in debate. He should watch this video for starters, and I suggest he see what the Austrian grape growers think. How many of them voted for Hofer? The stark urban rural divide was very noticeable in the presidential vote:
Seems unreasonably generous to me. Surely if you live abroad for that length of time you apply for that country's citizenship.
I don't see why you should be obliged to. Citizenship should have a deeper meaning than just where you live.
You're not obliged to. But if you've opted out of the nation for 15 years why should you still get a vote?
Because you may have paid 40 years of tax and NI?
That would apply to General Elections too. The government is applying the standard franchise here not disenfranchising anyone who is a citizen and has the vote otherwise.
A better example of how our laws are not fit for purpose would not be easy to find. We gave political asylum to a Ugandan national whose political views were unacceptable to the regime there. He got leave to remain for a period and then indefinite leave to remain. His wife and 4 children then got leave to remain here on the back of his permission. He beat her up and they separated.
We have something called a domestic violence rule. Basically, that means that if your immigration status is dependent on another and you leave them because of domestic violence it should not affect your status so you don't have to stay in an abusive relationship. Until now that did not apply to those whose right to live here was precarious. But that has now been found to be a breach of article 14 which gives a right to be treated in a similar way to those in a similar position. So the Secretary of State's decision to refuse leave to remain to this woman who has no fear of persecution herself has been quashed and this woman and her 4 children get to continue living in Glasgow at our expense.
I make no comment at all as to whether this court has got the law right. What is clear is that the law is an ass and we simply cannot go on like this.
If you believe that Christianity has been a good influence on the UK, you should probably be encouraging Polish and Lithuanian immigration. Countries where religion has, in living memory of young people, been a motive for freedom and opposition to anti-individualistic communism. But the LEAVE campaign is protean this way. It's about their economic effect... until it comes time to talk about economics, when it becomes about the social effect... which is not itself expounded on, other than demanding that we all treat the opinions of anti-immigration people without challenge and with honour and respect (normally while calling pro-immigration people luvvies, fatcats, out of touch or traitors).
Would you say that Christianity has been a good influence on the USA?
Well you look at New England and the Quakers and you'd have to say Yes. Those people developed the habits that later made the Americans so successful. The only other answer I could give would be to say that Christianity is so fundamental to the United States of America, as a country whose foundational settlements were Christian colonies rather than (as in most of the world's nations) migration waves before the modern state came into being, that to distinguish the unique influence of Christianity on the USA is a mug's game.
You presumably hold no truck with the notion that the USA is a nation founded on genocide and slavery.
That just paid for the 40 years of services and governance you enjoyed (or laboured under depending on your outlook). I see no reason why it should qualify you to continue to take part in the decision making once you have decided to leave.
That's a very post-modern view of the nation state as being not so much a nation, but merely a council. In my view if you're British, you're British, and it's not unreasonable to think that you might care enough about the future of Britain for your vote to be worth something.
On topic I would be very concerned if we were to turn our backs on genuine asylum cases as seems to be intimated by Point 8. I think that we are perfectly capable of absorbing thousands (rather than ten or hundreds of thousands) of genuine asylum seekers each year and what has turned us against asylum as a country (if that is indeed the way people now think) is the mass non asylum migration over the last few decades which have hardened us against those who are genuinely in need.
I like to think that as a part of a sensible immigration policy outlined by Miss Cyclefree we would also find room for making a significant contribution to the international asylum system as a mature and responsible nation.
"Spline" (real name unknown) was a predictor who posted to HPC[2] in the Noughties. He found a relationship between house prices and Bank of England mortgage approvals that could predict house prices about three months out. He predicted the 2008 crash and the 2009 partial recovery but has not been heard from for many moons, and his website[1] has been dead for some time. A pity.
[1] h ttps://web.archive.org/web/20130828175930/http://www.houseprices.uk.net/articles/house_price_predictor/ [2] h ttp://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/65339-wheres-spline-gone/page-3
Seems unreasonably generous to me. Surely if you live abroad for that length of time you apply for that country's citizenship.
I don't see why you should be obliged to. Citizenship should have a deeper meaning than just where you live.
You're not obliged to. But if you've opted out of the nation for 15 years why should you still get a vote?
Because you may have paid 40 years of tax and NI?
That would apply to General Elections too. The government is applying the standard franchise here not disenfranchising anyone who is a citizen and has the vote otherwise.
has the vote otherwise – where? Not in the host country unless (s)he renounces British citizenship, and not here either because of our idiosyncratic 15 year rule. This is one area where European harmonisation would be in order.
That just paid for the 40 years of services and governance you enjoyed (or laboured under depending on your outlook). I see no reason why it should qualify you to continue to take part in the decision making once you have decided to leave.
That's a very post-modern view of the nation state as being not so much a nation, but merely a council. In my view if you're British, you're British, and it's not unreasonable to think that you might care enough about the future of Britain for your vote to be worth something.
You can of course remain British and consider yourself British but that does not mean you should have the right to vote on issues if you choose not to live in the country where those issues will be implemented, particularly if you have no intention of returning permanently.
I also have in my mind the number of 90 day rule Brits who are happy to live outside the UK for tax purposes but expect to benefit from the country as and when they get tired of living abroad.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
I respectfully disagree that it would be difficult to emulate them though. Switzerland has had the ideal balance of a free trade, low tax, high skill economy. The UK is good on the first point (although undermined by the EU), average on the second and lamentably poor on the third.....which gives a fair indication as to why the UK is very much in the middle of the road in terms of income levels amongst developed economy peers.
I think the most significant difference is that because of its size, the UK's weight will always be felt in European affairs in a way that Switzerland can avoid. We change the balance and therefore other actors will inevitably draw us into their intrigues whether we like it or not. This wouldn't fundamentally change if we were outside the EU. Giving us what would be perceived as 'free-loader' status would grate on the remaining members of the EU.
One fascinating consequence of Brexit would be Anglo Russian relations. Putin being the much under-estimated clever politician that he is can clearly see the Russian interest in Brexit, and the resulting (calculated) weakening of the NATO alliance.
I fail to see the connection between Brexit and the weakening of the NATO Alliance. If the remaining EU countries want to form an EU Armed Force, they will do so - whether we are in the EU or not. This is the true existential threat to NATO.
They're already well on the way to doing it, and as I understand it, our armed forces are well on the way to being integrated with French armed forces, a lot further in fact than is commonly realised or recognised. Brexit would likely cause chaos with regard the immediate positioning and inter-dependency with the French, so I can appreciate why the current top brass want the status quo to remain. That's cloud cuckoo land though expecting the status quo to endure. Its a bit like a repeat of 25 years ago in the post-Communist world which the armed forces have arguably been incredibly slow to adapt to having had the comfort blanket of cold war politics removed. Richard Dearlove speaking out in favour of Brexit is a noticeable exception, albeit long retired.
As for a weakening in NATO, Brexit is just one source of instability - EU Army initiatives are another as you identify along with the strains that Turkey is causing. I'd like to see an independent Kurdish state but that would be like waiting for a month of Sundays
@achrisevans: More bad news for the Top Gear haters: consolidated figures for the first episode of the new series have now past 5.6 million and counting.
Good for them - it's the first show of the relaunch, so you expect decent ratings. Let's see how it goes in a couple of weeks.
If they ditch Evans and revamp the format they have a good chance of having a good show.
He is rather blowing his own horn to excess on this. Rather fits with the self-made man who admires his creator attitude he projects.
That just paid for the 40 years of services and governance you enjoyed (or laboured under depending on your outlook). I see no reason why it should qualify you to continue to take part in the decision making once you have decided to leave.
That's a very post-modern view of the nation state as being not so much a nation, but merely a council. In my view if you're British, you're British, and it's not unreasonable to think that you might care enough about the future of Britain for your vote to be worth something.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Seems unreasonably generous to me. Surely if you live abroad for that length of time you apply for that country's citizenship.
I don't see why you should be obliged to. Citizenship should have a deeper meaning than just where you live.
You're not obliged to. But if you've opted out of the nation for 15 years why should you still get a vote?
Because you may have paid 40 years of tax and NI?
That would apply to General Elections too. The government is applying the standard franchise here not disenfranchising anyone who is a citizen and has the vote otherwise.
has the vote otherwise – where? Not in the host country unless (s)he renounces British citizenship, and not here either because of our idiosyncratic 15 year rule. This is one area where European harmonisation would be in order.
I'm saying they don't have the vote otherwise (in any British election) so don't here either. It is entirely consistent with the established law.
Anyone who has lived abroad for over 15 years has done so knowing they'd lose the right to vote here. That is a choice they made consciously.
"Spline" (real name unknown) was a predictor who posted to HPC[2] in the Noughties. He found a relationship between house prices and Bank of England mortgage approvals that could predict house prices about three months out. He predicted the 2008 crash and the 2009 partial recovery but has not been heard from for many moons, and his website[1] has been dead for some time. A pity.
[1] h ttps://web.archive.org/web/20130828175930/http://www.houseprices.uk.net/articles/house_price_predictor/ [2] h ttp://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/65339-wheres-spline-gone/page-3
That's basically saying BoE mortgage approvals are a 3 month leading indicator.......which is useful, but given the lags inherent in the property market.......and from history we know that property operates on the longest cycle of any asset market (78 years on the Martin Armstrong model).....but I don't think its a great leap forward, more common sense......although we could do with an awful lot more of that in the economics profession!
On topic I would be very concerned if we were to turn our backs on genuine asylum cases as seems to be intimated by Point 8. I think that we are perfectly capable of absorbing thousands (rather than ten or hundreds of thousands) of genuine asylum seekers each year and what has turned us against asylum as a country (if that is indeed the way people now think) is the mass non asylum migration over the last few decades which have hardened us against those who are genuinely in need.
I like to think that as a part of a sensible immigration policy outlined by Miss Cyclefree we would also find room for making a significant contribution to the international asylum system as a mature and responsible nation.
A slight correction, it is the the mass non-asylum migrants coming here under the cloak of refugee or asylum status that has poisoned the well.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
On topic I would be very concerned if we were to turn our backs on genuine asylum cases as seems to be intimated by Point 8. I think that we are perfectly capable of absorbing thousands (rather than ten or hundreds of thousands) of genuine asylum seekers each year and what has turned us against asylum as a country (if that is indeed the way people now think) is the mass non asylum migration over the last few decades which have hardened us against those who are genuinely in need.
I like to think that as a part of a sensible immigration policy outlined by Miss Cyclefree we would also find room for making a significant contribution to the international asylum system as a mature and responsible nation.
That is a fair point. But - and I don't say this easily - I think the basis for seeking asylum needs to be more tightly drawn, we should have the option of making it time limited i.e. once the emergency you are fleeing from is over, you no longer need (or get?) asylum and a country should be able to place an upper limit on numbers where it is facing hundreds of thousands or millions seeking asylum.
Numbers matter. A people's willingness to help strangers in need is possibly (probably?) in an inverse relationship with the numbers who may be eligible for help. At some point the numbers can simply feel overwhelming and at that point people may feel taken advantage of rather than compassionate. Compassion needs to be freely given not demanded as an entitlement.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
You are talking about the American presidency with a birther... There is going to be an element of tendentiousness.
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
The BBC show was quite interesting actually. Interview with Bojo intercut with Osborne was effective
But the interesting part was the 2 producers
One who sells into the EU single market, and would be stuffed if we left.
One who wanted to sell outside the single market and was stymied by tariffs, which of course would still exist if we left...
Quite likely not.
The EU is responsible for all tariffs on goods coming into the Single Market. This often results in retaliatory or reciprocal tariffs by other non EU countries. If we were outside the EU and so chose not to impose those tariffs on non EU goods then there is a good chance of an agreement that removes tariffs for our producers as well.
Our latest AGW climate change proponent Fearsome Engineer (or however he spells it!) I've yet to engage in debate. He should watch this video for starters, and I suggest he see what the Austrian grape growers think. How many of them voted for Hofer? The stark urban rural divide was very noticeable in the presidential vote:
Well, I looked, and here's what Susanne Staggl, marketing manager of the Austrian Wine Institute thinks:
At least two factors lead to the large scale of damage. Staggl said the rise in general average temperatures over the past few years has led to an earlier start of the vegetation cycle, making the vines more sensitive to such a late frost. She also said that the regions hit by the frost this month had little or no vines 20 years ago.
So it would appear that the vines in question were being grown in areas that had only recently become warm enough to support them as a consequence of AGW, but they were caught out by a late frost. Perhaps the maker of your video should have done a little research before grasping the wrong end of the stick, and perhaps you should be a little more sceptical of random stuff you find on the internet!
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
The BBC show was quite interesting actually. Interview with Bojo intercut with Osborne was effective
But the interesting part was the 2 producers
One who sells into the EU single market, and would be stuffed if we left.
One who wanted to sell outside the single market and was stymied by tariffs, which of course would still exist if we left...
No, if we leave, we could negotiate a trade deal with Brazil. We used to have them with Brazil and Argentina. We'd get Chile (a long time ally) reasonably quickly I would have thought too.
What holds us up, is that the EU is very very slow at negotiating trade deals, particularly with useful growing markets who would like to sell us food for less than the EU does....
Jeremy Corbyn has apparently gone on holiday. Tells you all you need to know!!!
Out in the sun in his vest?
He was also invited to the commemoration of the Battle of Jutland as LOTO but buggered off on holiday instead. He and his cohorts really do hate and loathe this country.
The EU is responsible for all tariffs on goods coming into the Single Market. This often results in retaliatory or reciprocal tariffs by other non EU countries. If we were outside the EU and so chose not to impose those tariffs on non EU goods then there is a good chance of an agreement that removes tariffs for our producers as well.
If I understood it correctly, her complaint was specifically about a country for which the EU had no deal in place, and neither would the UK (in the short term)
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.
Would you need Labour votes to get round the fixed term parliament act? Couldn't the Tories just repeal the act with their majority?
...They're already well on the way to doing it, and as I understand it, our armed forces are well on the way to being integrated with French armed forces, a lot further in fact than is commonly realised or recognised...
The EU is responsible for all tariffs on goods coming into the Single Market. This often results in retaliatory or reciprocal tariffs by other non EU countries. If we were outside the EU and so chose not to impose those tariffs on non EU goods then there is a good chance of an agreement that removes tariffs for our producers as well.
If I understood it correctly, her complaint was specifically about a country for which the EU had no deal in place, and neither would the UK (in the short term)
I suppose the point is that at the moment we cannot make a deal with that country as all trade deals have to be done by the EU. So leaving the EU would make it possible for us to have a deal which might otherwise get held up for years.
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.
Would you need Labour votes to get round the fixed term parliament act? Couldn't the Tories just repeal the act with their majority?
Maybe - not sure. But I suspect it would be very controversial and thus take time - ie the Lords would block it. OK, they could use the Parliament Act but that would take too long - it would defeat the object of the exercise - ie getting a quick, new mandate.
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.
Great, great question.
I think if it is very close they could campaign on a no-Brexit ticket - as long as they had a credible leader from the right of the party. Might attract some leftish Europhile Tory votes. But that would mean Corbyn would have to do the honourable thing and resign. Unlikely.
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.
That is an interesting scenario which may lead to Labour declining to support an election.
On another note, thanks for the article, Cyclefree. Very thought provoking. It is clear to me that immigration needs to be controlled to a rate that the population can accept.
The EU is responsible for all tariffs on goods coming into the Single Market. This often results in retaliatory or reciprocal tariffs by other non EU countries. If we were outside the EU and so chose not to impose those tariffs on non EU goods then there is a good chance of an agreement that removes tariffs for our producers as well.
If I understood it correctly, her complaint was specifically about a country for which the EU had no deal in place, and neither would the UK (in the short term)
Why not? Brazil used to be a major trading partner. (As did Argentina)
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
It fails in very close elections though eg 1968 and 2000 and with this election likely to be very close too I would not say it predicts anything with certainty
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
You are talking about the American presidency with a birther... There is going to be an element of tendentiousness.
morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable
no particular fan of Hilary, but which of these doesn't apply to the Donald, too?
None of them, with my amateur psychology hat on. Anyhow, I've known women like Clinton up close and personal. Bad, bad news...
But DYOR.
I doubt you have ever met Hillary, nor know her at all.
I have heard that fellow democrats, when on the committee investigating Nixon, thought her behaviour worse. Nothing I have seen since has changed that perception.
Got to say I disagree with the PB majority. I think some are getting carried away by the polling. Whilst good for Leave, we're over three weeks from the vote, and the leads are very small.
If EU citizens not eligible to vote are getting polling cards, that's many (hundreds of thousands?) voters likely to vote Remain.
Oh. let us have our fun.
The REMAINIACS are now visibly and palpably terrified, after weeks and months of sneering and gloating and endless PB threaders on the "awfulness of the LEAVE campaign" (now leading).
The INNERS are eating crow. Good.
I can feel it coming, they are going to up the ante to interstellar war....
The REMAINIACS are now visibly and palpably terrified
Link?
This was all over the previous thread, Brexiteers crowing about how frightened the Remainers are. Can you point me to a single instance of a frightened EDIT: palpably terrified Remainer?
Got to say I disagree with the PB majority. I think some are getting carried away by the polling. Whilst good for Leave, we're over three weeks from the vote, and the leads are very small.
If EU citizens not eligible to vote are getting polling cards, that's many (hundreds of thousands?) voters likely to vote Remain.
Oh. let us have our fun.
The REMAINIACS are now visibly and palpably terrified, after weeks and months of sneering and gloating and endless PB threaders on the "awfulness of the LEAVE campaign" (now leading).
The INNERS are eating crow. Good.
I can feel it coming, they are going to up the ante to interstellar war....
To be fair, if a bunch of actual aliens turned up an offered an opinion it would be a bit of a game changer!
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.
Labour and the SNP would say, "you want LEAVE, Mr PM, you made your bed, don't expect us to do your job if you really believe it". The Conservatives would have to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and would be accused of running away from their Brexit promise in the ensuing election. Labour would PROBABLY say the referendum vote was close, the debate in May/June was a Tory farce, and Cameron failed to negotiate a good deal, so give us a mandate to get a better deal and we'll call the proper in-out referendum. It might not work, of course, but beats insincerely saying they are Leave in tooth and claw. Unless the result is hugely more LEAVE than the polls say today, they need the pro-REMAIN vote more than pro-LEAVE.
One fascinating consequence of Brexit would be Anglo Russian relations. Putin being the much under-estimated clever politician that he is can clearly see the Russian interest in Brexit, and the resulting (calculated) weakening of the NATO alliance.
Yes, and if Trump wins, the NATO alliance is going to have some hard questions asked of it even without Brexit so the realities of hard power can't be ignored.
It would be fascinating in some ways to see an EU behemoth sandwiched between an independent UK and Russia.
Didn't Enoch Powell advocate an Anglo-Russian alliance?
Sounded very odd during the Cold War, but they were our allies during the Napoleonic Wars and both World Wars.
Caroline Lucas, the Green party’s only MP, has declared she will stand for the party’s leadership in a job share with its work and pensions spokesman, Jonathan Bartley, under the slogan “The Power of Working TogethEr
Clinton has the innovative idea of replaying Obama's campaign against Romney with Trump.
“Donald Trump is a pretty nontraditional candidate, but in a lot of ways we’re about to see a very traditional campaign, because it works,” said one former top Obama campaign official. “We beat the drum on Romney for months on jobs and his record, calling him out of touch with most Americans — for months — through paid media, candidate appearances, using surrogates.”
“I don’t think it’s a mistake,” he added. “But I don’t think we’ll know if it’s a mistake for months."
Hilary feeling the need to go to California to campaign and see off the Sanders threat tells you everything you need to know about the current state of her campaign. And as for aping Obama against Romney......haven't things moved on a bit in the past 4 years as to the average American and his / her confidence in government? Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is profiting from precisely the loss of confidence in government over that time. 'Change you can believe in' - that would go down like a lead balloon in the current climate.
The Consumer Confidence Index, which has predicted 10 out of 12 of the last elections' Popular Vote correctly is below 100 and fading.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
Is that you predicting a Trump victory? Or just sabre-rattling?
All the augurs point that way. Even the polls, perhaps against their will at first, are being ineluctably drawn towards that inevitable conclusion...
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
You are talking about the American presidency with a birther... There is going to be an element of tendentiousness.
Diddums. Unlike you, who can only burp buzzwords you've heard on the MSM, I can at least string together a legal and historical argument as to why I might be right [even if I'm ultimately proven wrong, which I haven't been yet]...
Our latest AGW climate change proponent Fearsome Engineer (or however he spells it!) I've yet to engage in debate. He should watch this video for starters, and I suggest he see what the Austrian grape growers think. How many of them voted for Hofer? The stark urban rural divide was very noticeable in the presidential vote:
Well, I looked, and here's what Susanne Staggl, marketing manager of the Austrian Wine Institute thinks:
At least two factors lead to the large scale of damage. Staggl said the rise in general average temperatures over the past few years has led to an earlier start of the vegetation cycle, making the vines more sensitive to such a late frost. She also said that the regions hit by the frost this month had little or no vines 20 years ago.
So it would appear that the vines in question were being grown in areas that had only recently become warm enough to support them as a consequence of AGW, but they were caught out by a late frost. Perhaps the maker of your video should have done a little research before grasping the wrong end of the stick, and perhaps you should be a little more sceptical of random stuff you find on the internet!
So 20 years ago, as per your linked article you were predicting this were you? and I quote:
Pull the other one. Talk about clutching at straws!
The mini-ice age with global cooling into 2030 is just getting started. And rather than just confine our discussion to just Austria and Germany, what about the very cold winter in Mexico over 2015/6? Snow recorded in Okinawa for the first time in recorded history last winter? And snow for the first time 200 miles south of Hanoi for the first time?
And in Obama's backyard in Washington DC an abnormally cold May with remarkably few days above 80F for the month?
Incidences of cold weather are piling up around the globe, and no amount of temperature manipulation by NOAA and their friends can hide what is becoming increasingly obvious that global temperatures are starting to cool, confirmed by raw non-manipulated satellite data.
On topic I would be very concerned if we were to turn our backs on genuine asylum cases as seems to be intimated by Point 8. I think that we are perfectly capable of absorbing thousands (rather than ten or hundreds of thousands) of genuine asylum seekers each year and what has turned us against asylum as a country (if that is indeed the way people now think) is the mass non asylum migration over the last few decades which have hardened us against those who are genuinely in need.
I like to think that as a part of a sensible immigration policy outlined by Miss Cyclefree we would also find room for making a significant contribution to the international asylum system as a mature and responsible nation.
That is a fair point. But - and I don't say this easily - I think the basis for seeking asylum needs to be more tightly drawn, we should have the option of making it time limited i.e. once the emergency you are fleeing from is over, you no longer need (or get?) asylum and a country should be able to place an upper limit on numbers where it is facing hundreds of thousands or millions seeking asylum.
Numbers matter. A people's willingness to help strangers in need is possibly (probably?) in an inverse relationship with the numbers who may be eligible for help. At some point the numbers can simply feel overwhelming and at that point people may feel taken advantage of rather than compassionate. Compassion needs to be freely given not demanded as an entitlement.
I think we could go back to a national interpretation of the 1967 Refugee Protocol with a narrow reading of what a refugee is and hence who qualifies even for temporary shelf while a request for asylum is adjudicated. This would exclude displaced persons, no matter how awful their plight, if there were no clear persecution on an individual or group level.
The moral flip side is that, if we are not to extend asylum to displaced persons, we should be doing much more to assist in making life in camps for displaced persons near their homes as safe, comfortable and enriching as possible
Comments
It was also through house price crash that I discovered the infamous and side splitting mumsnet Oxo Tower thread started by a lady who innocently described how her other half had taken her up the well known iconic south bank building to celebrate their anniversary with dinner at the restaurant at the top.
They're a good example of a pretty healthy economy tightly bound into the EU - they're doing OK, but the idea that they have freedom of action is almost wholly illusory. Britain, by contrast, has a highly unhealthy economy with a huge payments deficit, serious underinvestment and over-dependence on consumer debt and an obsession with reducing immigration at any cost. It won't end happily.
That's a reasonable position, but the thing is the rules are not uniform across EU counties. And we in particular are out of step.
Should mean the stake through the heart for Clinton...
http://www.euronews.com/2016/02/27/as-a-british-expat-how-do-i-vote-in-the-uk-s-eu-referendum/
He wasn't saying that in 2005: Go to about 16:25 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IalSiKGMCqA
I'll join the chorus of much deserved thanks to Cyclefree for another thought provoking piece.
I opined yesterday morning immigration was a complex multi-faceted issue and if easy answers existed, we'd be doing them.
On that basis, I approach anyone offering "solutions" with a degree of caution.
I have, I think, two major issues with what Cyclefree is, with all good faith, proposing. First is much of immigration (apart from the much publicised economic migrants) consists of family members seeking to join family already and legally resident in the UK. It's not easy to enforce the separation of families - brothers from sisters and the like and the fact is the family already provides the accommodation and arguably the employment that we regard as pre-requisites for those seeking to come here.
Second, I think I would want an immigration policy that would not lead to problems for those seeking to migrate from the UK. The other side of the coin, the migration of UK citizens to other countries, has to be part of immigration policy. They ought not, I think, to be separated and for those wishing to live their lives beyond the UK, the economic implications of that re-location need to be made clear.
It's not a sin to want to come to the UK, nor should it be a sin to want to leave. Quite apart from the retired, there are the successful who may consider better opportunities to fulfill their potential elsewhere (the US, Singapore, Australasia for example). As part of a holistic policy toward movement, we ought to think about those wanting to leave as much as those wanting to arrive.
One fascinating consequence of Brexit would be Anglo Russian relations. Putin being the much under-estimated clever politician that he is can clearly see the Russian interest in Brexit, and the resulting (calculated) weakening of the NATO alliance. Another factor is the US - Obama has already made one intervention in the campaign - can he realistically do so again? And anyway what is his influence, given he'll be off the scene in 7 and a bit months time.
I was in the house of a postal voter and saw one of the mailings. She is an EU citizen and cannot vote in General Elections. Vote Leave cock up or Electoral Register cock up? I'll keep the forum informed of developments.
It would be fascinating in some ways to see an EU behemoth sandwiched between an independent UK and Russia.
It is a strange attitude. 75% of those expressing an opinion on twitter were negative, most of the press were negative etc etc etc and rather than taking the Tony Blair "we will listen to the public" approach to PR disasters, MC-SHOUTY FACE is basically giving it the middle finger to all those Top Gear fans who didn't like the first episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCPk-XJmlt8
http://order-order.com/2016/05/31/6-times-mcdonnell-shared-platforms-with-tories/
I believe that is what one calls an own goal...we don't even have to mention platform sharing with the IRA...
A better example of how our laws are not fit for purpose would not be easy to find. We gave political asylum to a Ugandan national whose political views were unacceptable to the regime there. He got leave to remain for a period and then indefinite leave to remain. His wife and 4 children then got leave to remain here on the back of his permission. He beat her up and they separated.
We have something called a domestic violence rule. Basically, that means that if your immigration status is dependent on another and you leave them because of domestic violence it should not affect your status so you don't have to stay in an abusive relationship. Until now that did not apply to those whose right to live here was precarious. But that has now been found to be a breach of article 14 which gives a right to be treated in a similar way to those in a similar position. So the Secretary of State's decision to refuse leave to remain to this woman who has no fear of persecution herself has been quashed and this woman and her 4 children get to continue living in Glasgow at our expense.
I make no comment at all as to whether this court has got the law right. What is clear is that the law is an ass and we simply cannot go on like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs90lqBCHpE
Quick, it's like a legitimate version of the Smear Khan strategy. Someone should tell, erm, Guido and the oligarch press to run a hit piece...
I like to think that as a part of a sensible immigration policy outlined by Miss Cyclefree we would also find room for making a significant contribution to the international asylum system as a mature and responsible nation.
[1] h ttps://web.archive.org/web/20130828175930/http://www.houseprices.uk.net/articles/house_price_predictor/
[2] h ttp://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/65339-wheres-spline-gone/page-3
I also have in my mind the number of 90 day rule Brits who are happy to live outside the UK for tax purposes but expect to benefit from the country as and when they get tired of living abroad.
I mean, Hillary Clinton? C'mon now. The most morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable woman in American public life as POTUS?
The stuff of nightmares. You know it. I know it. And the American public knows it...
Science can only move on with people looking at and challenging what we believe. This law stops people doing that.
As for a weakening in NATO, Brexit is just one source of instability - EU Army initiatives are another as you identify along with the strains that Turkey is causing. I'd like to see an independent Kurdish state but that would be like waiting for a month of Sundays
If they ditch Evans and revamp the format they have a good chance of having a good show.
He is rather blowing his own horn to excess on this. Rather fits with the self-made man who admires his creator attitude he projects.
http://rrhelections.com/index.php/2011/10/17/consumer-confidence-and-presidential-elections/
Anyone who has lived abroad for over 15 years has done so knowing they'd lose the right to vote here. That is a choice they made consciously.
But the interesting part was the 2 producers
One who sells into the EU single market, and would be stuffed if we left.
One who wanted to sell outside the single market and was stymied by tariffs, which of course would still exist if we left...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Richard Nixon won in 1968 despite being just as 'morally bankrupt, pathologically venal and dangerously unstable' as you describe Hillary to be, even if he only beat Humphrey by 0.7% he still beat him!
@montie: @Arron_banks If you can't say anything positive, will you just shut up until 24th June? Please.
Numbers matter. A people's willingness to help strangers in need is possibly (probably?) in an inverse relationship with the numbers who may be eligible for help. At some point the numbers can simply feel overwhelming and at that point people may feel taken advantage of rather than compassionate. Compassion needs to be freely given not demanded as an entitlement.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3143499/consumer-confidence-shows-win-for-donald-trump-in-november-and-its-rarely-wrong/
1968 [huge DEM split narrowly handed election to Nixon]
2012 [Obama had at least got the CCI up off the floor and heading toward 100]
The EU is responsible for all tariffs on goods coming into the Single Market. This often results in retaliatory or reciprocal tariffs by other non EU countries. If we were outside the EU and so chose not to impose those tariffs on non EU goods then there is a good chance of an agreement that removes tariffs for our producers as well.
At least two factors lead to the large scale of damage. Staggl said the rise in general average temperatures over the past few years has led to an earlier start of the vegetation cycle, making the vines more sensitive to such a late frost. She also said that the regions hit by the frost this month had little or no vines 20 years ago.
http://www.decanter.com/wine-news/frost-in-austria-destroys-thousands-of-hectares-of-vines-31066/
So it would appear that the vines in question were being grown in areas that had only recently become warm enough to support them as a consequence of AGW, but they were caught out by a late frost. Perhaps the maker of your video should have done a little research before grasping the wrong end of the stick, and perhaps you should be a little more sceptical of random stuff you find on the internet!
Suppose Brexit wins, Cameron resigns, Boris (or another Brexit supporter) is elected Con leader (and thus becomes PM).
Boris (or whoever) then calls a GE to get a fresh mandate (I realise Lab would have to agree to get round Fixed Term Parliament Act - but Lab surely couldn't reject the chance of winning a GE).
Now my question - what would Lab's policy be re Brexit? Would Lab just say it would negotiate Brexit? Even when 90% of Lab MPs don't support it? And not a single member of Shadow Cabinet supports it?
But if Lab said they wouldn't go ahead with Brexit, they would be completely ridiculed as not following the wishes of the electorate. That would surely lead to electoral wipe-out - and I mean real wipe-out - say under 150 seats.
It looks like a heck of an awkward situation.
What holds us up, is that the EU is very very slow at negotiating trade deals, particularly with useful growing markets who would like to sell us food for less than the EU does....
But DYOR.
#TheNewPolitics
Free movement for free trade, yes or no?
I think if it is very close they could campaign on a no-Brexit ticket - as long as they had a credible leader from the right of the party. Might attract some leftish Europhile Tory votes. But that would mean Corbyn would have to do the honourable thing and resign. Unlikely.
On another note, thanks for the article, Cyclefree. Very thought provoking. It is clear to me that immigration needs to be controlled to a rate that the population can accept.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36422611
Trump might be softening his policies but not his approach to the media. It's certainly not going to be dull.
This was all over the previous thread, Brexiteers crowing about how frightened the Remainers are. Can you point me to a single instance of a
frightenedEDIT: palpably terrified Remainer?So, in the short term, we won't have one...
Sounded very odd during the Cold War, but they were our allies during the Napoleonic Wars and both World Wars.
"Meanwhile in Germany, where frost was not nearly as serious a problem this year, a helicopter was used for the first time ever to raise temperatures on frost-stricken vines, said German Wine Institute spokesman Ernst Büscher.
Read more at http://www.decanter.com/wine-news/frost-in-austria-destroys-thousands-of-hectares-of-vines-31066/#yFjj7AYXR6Ak9CrU.99"
Pull the other one. Talk about clutching at straws!
The mini-ice age with global cooling into 2030 is just getting started. And rather than just confine our discussion to just Austria and Germany, what about the very cold winter in Mexico over 2015/6? Snow recorded in Okinawa for the first time in recorded history last winter? And snow for the first time 200 miles south of Hanoi for the first time?
And in Obama's backyard in Washington DC an abnormally cold May with remarkably few days above 80F for the month?
Incidences of cold weather are piling up around the globe, and no amount of temperature manipulation by NOAA and their friends can hide what is becoming increasingly obvious that global temperatures are starting to cool, confirmed by raw non-manipulated satellite data.