Theresa May will be a strong candidate. She has Eurosceptic instincts but would fight for reform. She has avoided throwing mud.
I'm sorry but the idea of a reformable E.U has been totally destroyed, no one the Tory party seriously belives it can be refromed (atleast not the grassroots).
However, with Hollande and Merkel both facing pretty awful polling at the moment, the national moods are changing and the Euro-elite may not be able to count on national governments providing them with cover for that much longer.
Hollande scored 14% in the most recent French presidential 1st round poll, whether against Sarkozy/Bayrou or Juppe:
Try the ons bulletin on healthcare spending. In line with international standards it is wider than just nhs spending but includes Social care as well plus private expenditure.
TSE says Cameron was confident and polished, I didn't see it but that's good enough for me, TSE is very unbiased and objective when talking about Dave.
How do you feel about the remarks by the professionals about how well he did?
I feel OK about them. Did any professionals criticise him?
On the other hand, the professionals have told us time and time again that Trump really blew it this time. ...
Theresa May will be a strong candidate. She has Eurosceptic instincts but would fight for reform. She has avoided throwing mud.
I'm sorry but the idea of a reformable E.U has been totally destroyed, no one the Tory party seriously belives it can be refromed (atleast not the grassroots).
However, with Hollande and Merkel both facing pretty awful polling at the moment, the national moods are changing and the Euro-elite may not be able to count on national governments providing them with cover for that much longer.
Hollande scored 14% in the most recent French presidential 1st round poll, whether against Sarkozy/Bayrou or Juppe:
I haven't seen this published here yet - a survey of Political Studies Association members has said that Remain will win comfortably. Among academics ( of which I was one) 87% thought they would win, among pollsters it was 92% and among journalists it was 97%!
Lol!
This is the group-think madness that is feeding into Remain complacency imho.
Mass confirmation bias.
It just goes to show the very clever are no more accurate or insightful than us mugs. They can just deploy more sophisticated explanations.
I haven't seen this published here yet - a survey of Political Studies Association members has said that Remain will win comfortably. Among academics ( of which I was one) 87% thought they would win, among pollsters it was 92% and among journalists it was 97%!
Not sure that says that Remain will win comfortably. 90% could have thought remain would win with 51%, for instance.
Rod thought, on limited evidence, Remain was a 51% shot.
I take what Rod says very seriously, although personally I think Leave is a 35-40% shot.
Doc, is you are still here, I think it was you yesterday last evening posted that the current spend on the NHS was 6.2% of GDP. Is that right? If so, would please post a link to the figures?
The reason I ask is that proportion seems awfully close to what we had in the late nineties under Major and before Blair made his dramatic declaration on live TV. Of course in those days much of the Health Service was not bogged down in hugely expensive PFI contracts.
Thanks, Doc. It looks to me looks like we are back to where we were in 1997 in terms of health spend. Except we now have all those lovely PFI contracts top-slicing it and having lots more new expensive treatments to fund, an older population requiring even more care and no plan for how to manage any of it.
What a freakin mess.
If its any solace, Doctors salaies are down over 20% from 2004, with the prospect of at least 4 more years of sub inflation settlements.
Doc, is you are still here, I think it was you yesterday last evening posted that the current spend on the NHS was 6.2% of GDP. Is that right? If so, would please post a link to the figures?
The reason I ask is that proportion seems awfully close to what we had in the late nineties under Major and before Blair made his dramatic declaration on live TV. Of course in those days much of the Health Service was not bogged down in hugely expensive PFI contracts.
Thanks, Doc. It looks to me looks like we are back to where we were in 1997 in terms of health spend. Except we now have all those lovely PFI contracts top-slicing it and having lots more new expensive treatments to fund, an older population requiring even more care and no plan for how to manage any of it.
What a freakin mess.
If its any solace, Doctors salaies are down over 20% from 2004, with the prospect of at least 4 more years of sub inflation settlements.
In other news, I hear of a sale on worlds smallest violins.
Hmm. There's an Amazon (.com only) beta feature. Apparently I'm the 49th ranked e-book horror author (slightly odd as I only write short stories in the genre, but still): http://www.amazon.com/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
I checked Mr. T's pages (Tremayne and Knox) but neither had anything similar, which is a bit peculiar. It might be in the process of being tested on smaller genres (thrillers are, of course, a massive genre, horror etc are smaller).
Doc, is you are still here, I think it was you yesterday last evening posted that the current spend on the NHS was 6.2% of GDP. Is that right? If so, would please post a link to the figures?
The reason I ask is that proportion seems awfully close to what we had in the late nineties under Major and before Blair made his dramatic declaration on live TV. Of course in those days much of the Health Service was not bogged down in hugely expensive PFI contracts.
Thanks, Doc. It looks to me looks like we are back to where we were in 1997 in terms of health spend. Except we now have all those lovely PFI contracts top-slicing it and having lots more new expensive treatments to fund, an older population requiring even more care and no plan for how to manage any of it.
What a freakin mess.
If its any solace, Doctors salaies are down over 20% from 2004, with the prospect of at least 4 more years of sub inflation settlements.
In other news, I hear of a sale on worlds smallest violins.
On topic - I have no view on who should be the next Tory leader and hence PM, other than to say #Priti4Leader
No Labourite who I would take seriously could vote 'Leave' knowing it might result in pro hanging Priti Patel becoming leader.
You're not meant to take my postings regarding Priti Patel seriously. In as much as I think Labour would stand a better chance against her rather than Boris in 2020, then why not put up with her for a couple of years?
Doc, is you are still here, I think it was you yesterday last evening posted that the current spend on the NHS was 6.2% of GDP. Is that right? If so, would please post a link to the figures?
The reason I ask is that proportion seems awfully close to what we had in the late nineties under Major and before Blair made his dramatic declaration on live TV. Of course in those days much of the Health Service was not bogged down in hugely expensive PFI contracts.
Thanks, Doc. It looks to me looks like we are back to where we were in 1997 in terms of health spend. Except we now have all those lovely PFI contracts top-slicing it and having lots more new expensive treatments to fund, an older population requiring even more care and no plan for how to manage any of it.
What a freakin mess.
If its any solace, Doctors salaies are down over 20% from 2004, with the prospect of at least 4 more years of sub inflation settlements.
In other news, I hear of a sale on worlds smallest violins.
Mr. L, Boris isn't having an Andrew Neil interview either, is he?
I'm not sure - I didn't think the line-up had been announced yet - other than that Osborne is one person appearing and there are four programmes (so presumably two from each side).
On topic - I have no view on who should be the next Tory leader and hence PM, other than to say #Priti4Leader
No Labourite who I would take seriously could vote 'Leave' knowing it might result in pro hanging Priti Patel becoming leader.
You're not meant to take my postings regarding Priti Patel seriously. In as much as I think Labour would stand a better chance against her rather than Boris in 2020, then why not put up with her for a couple of years?
Mr. Pubgoer, it's about time I win on a leadership election. I missed the Obama bet, and didn't back Corbyn or Trump.
After your Verstappen triumph, you deserve a roll of good winners. I must say that Priti has a very strong effect amongst certain gentlemen in their mid 40's.
Not sure if already posted - Curtice article posted earlier today:
"In short, in what has proven to be a relatively thin week for polls (thanks perhaps in part to the bank holiday), we have had three polls that, properly interpreted, do not give any grounds to believe that a significant change has occurred at all, and just one unusual finding that has yet to be corroborated. Unfortunately, much commentary and speculation on polls is inclined to focus on the poll that is the exception rather than the rule – but it is the rule that is the better guide."
Not sure if already posted - Curtice article posted earlier today:
"In short, in what has proven to be a relatively thin week for polls (thanks perhaps in part to the bank holiday), we have had three polls that, properly interpreted, do not give any grounds to believe that a significant change has occurred at all, and just one unusual finding that has yet to be corroborated. Unfortunately, much commentary and speculation on polls is inclined to focus on the poll that is the exception rather than the rule – but it is the rule that is the better guide."
I'm not sure - I didn't think the line-up had been announced yet - other than that Osborne is one person appearing and there are four programmes (so presumably two from each side).
Monday 6 June: Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary (remain)
Wednesday 8 June: George Osborne, the chancellor (remain)
Friday 10 June: Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader (leave)
Friday 17 June: Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions secretary (leave)
I'm not sure - I didn't think the line-up had been announced yet - other than that Osborne is one person appearing and there are four programmes (so presumably two from each side).
Monday 6 June: Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary (remain)
Wednesday 8 June: George Osborne, the chancellor (remain)
Friday 10 June: Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader (leave)
Friday 17 June: Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions secretary (leave)
Thanks a lot.
Line-up seems reasonable - though I am surprised they aren't alternating Remain and Leave.
I'm not sure - I didn't think the line-up had been announced yet - other than that Osborne is one person appearing and there are four programmes (so presumably two from each side).
Monday 6 June: Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary (remain)
Wednesday 8 June: George Osborne, the chancellor (remain)
Friday 10 June: Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader (leave)
Friday 17 June: Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions secretary (leave)
Thanks a lot.
Line-up seems reasonable - though I am surprised they aren't alternating Remain and Leave.
On topic - I have no view on who should be the next Tory leader and hence PM, other than to say #Priti4Leader
No Labourite who I would take seriously could vote 'Leave' knowing it might result in pro hanging Priti Patel becoming leader.
She might be pro-hanging, but she would remain in a tiny minority in Westminster.
Even if I was totally opposed to capital punishment (which I'm not) then I can't imagine that it could be the dominant issue when considering politicians views. An unfair death of a criminal is something that one could balance with other benefits. We'd all trade the poor criminal's life for a million children spared starvation for example. I'd probably trade my own life for that.
We mainly don't have a death penalty because people are uncomfortable drawing the line. That's totally sensible, but I think its wrong to get terribly preachy on the issue. We all generally value our own lives over every other (Family stuff excepted).
Looks like Gove has a good rebuttal already for the £350m:
The rebate can also be extended, not sure what the point is dealing in hypotheticals when the net number is bad enough.
His point is that the £350m per week is what we are liable for (gross) as a member of the EU is spent, and the EU control how that is spent.
Yes, we have negotiated a rebate, but it's not guaranteed. It's been whittled away in the past and could be so again in future.
All well and good if that had actually been what Leave had been saying. Personally, I think they should have gone for the net number, and said that it is only this "low" due to our rebate, which can be/has been whittled away.
On topic - I have no view on who should be the next Tory leader and hence PM, other than to say #Priti4Leader
No Labourite who I would take seriously could vote 'Leave' knowing it might result in pro hanging Priti Patel becoming leader.
She might be pro-hanging, but she would remain in a tiny minority in Westminster.
Even if I was totally opposed to capital punishment (which I'm not) then I can't imagine that it could be the dominant issue when considering politicians views. An unfair death of a criminal is something that one could balance with other benefits. We'd all trade the poor criminal's life for a million children spared starvation for example. I'd probably trade my own life for that.
We mainly don't have a death penalty because people are uncomfortable drawing the line. That's totally sensible, but I think its wrong to get terribly preachy on the issue. We all generally value our own lives over every other (Family stuff excepted).
I am opposed to capital punishment. But, I wouldn't oppose a referendum on it if the people called for one.
I would campaign on the "No" side. Vehemently.
But, if I lost, I'd accept the result and work out how best to moderate or campaign for its repeal again in future.
Looks like Gove has a good rebuttal already for the £350m:
The rebate can also be extended, not sure what the point is dealing in hypotheticals when the net number is bad enough.
His point is that the £350m per week is what we are liable for (gross) as a member of the EU is spent, and the EU control how that is spent.
Yes, we have negotiated a rebate, but it's not guaranteed. It's been whittled away in the past and could be so again in future.
All well and good if that had actually been what Leave had been saying. Personally, I think they should have gone for the net number, and said that it is only this "low" due to our rebate, which can be/has been whittled away.
Giving a number that Remain could bleat on and complain about was quite deliberate, IMHO.
Looks like Gove has a good rebuttal already for the £350m:
The rebate can also be extended, not sure what the point is dealing in hypotheticals when the net number is bad enough.
His point is that the £350m per week is what we are liable for (gross) as a member of the EU is spent, and the EU control how that is spent.
Yes, we have negotiated a rebate, but it's not guaranteed. It's been whittled away in the past and could be so again in future.
All well and good if that had actually been what Leave had been saying. Personally, I think they should have gone for the net number, and said that it is only this "low" due to our rebate, which can be/has been whittled away.
Giving a number that Remain could bleat on and complain about was quite deliberate, IMHO.
It has given the figure far greater airtime.
A fair point, but seems a bit wrong to base it on a half-truth
Looks like Gove has a good rebuttal already for the £350m:
The rebate can also be extended, not sure what the point is dealing in hypotheticals when the net number is bad enough.
His point is that the £350m per week is what we are liable for (gross) as a member of the EU is spent, and the EU control how that is spent.
Yes, we have negotiated a rebate, but it's not guaranteed. It's been whittled away in the past and could be so again in future.
All well and good if that had actually been what Leave had been saying. Personally, I think they should have gone for the net number, and said that it is only this "low" due to our rebate, which can be/has been whittled away.
Giving a number that Remain could bleat on and complain about was quite deliberate, IMHO.
It has given the figure far greater airtime.
A fair point, but seems a bit wrong to base it on a half-truth
It's not a half-truth. It's not true to say we'd have £350m per week to spend immediately extra if we left. It is true to say the EU is in ultimate control of that amount.
It is true to say we would have funds of £290m per week at our immediate discretion if we left.
First, and most desirable for No10, obviously, is a clear Remain win: 55% to 45%, or better. Downing Street then wins a mandate to take immediate steps to mobilise the party behind a clear domestic unity agenda.
A tight Remain win, however, means a much tougher job. A win is a win, but unifying the party is tougher and there will be more debate over its strategic direction towards the 2020 election.
Looks like Gove has a good rebuttal already for the £350m:
The rebate can also be extended, not sure what the point is dealing in hypotheticals when the net number is bad enough.
His point is that the £350m per week is what we are liable for (gross) as a member of the EU is spent, and the EU control how that is spent.
Yes, we have negotiated a rebate, but it's not guaranteed. It's been whittled away in the past and could be so again in future.
All well and good if that had actually been what Leave had been saying. Personally, I think they should have gone for the net number, and said that it is only this "low" due to our rebate, which can be/has been whittled away.
Giving a number that Remain could bleat on and complain about was quite deliberate, IMHO.
It has given the figure far greater airtime.
A fair point, but seems a bit wrong to base it on a half-truth
It's not a half-truth. It's not true to say we'd have £350m per week to spend immediately extra if we left. It is true to say the EU is in ultimate control of that amount.
It is true to say we would have funds of £290m per week at our immediate discretion if we left.
The EU don't control what we spend the rebate on, surely, or have I missed your point?
I noticed with some amusement that on the previous thread some were talking up Dublin as a financial centre.
Ireland has had a history of financial scandals to rival Britain's. Its regulators are weak and ineffective. They must be the only regulator which a few years ago wrote a report on ethics and couldn't even spell the word - calling it "ethitical conduct". And Germany's regulators are not much better: the BaFin is probably the weakest of all the major European regulators and has a hell of a job trying to oversee the, frankly, unregulatable, Deutsche Bank.
The regulatory system is a key part of what makes a financial centre. And the regulatory system depends in part on the government behind it. A close study of Irish political culture would not give one - well, me - enormous confidence, I have to say.
Looks like Gove has a good rebuttal already for the £350m:
The rebate can also be extended, not sure what the point is dealing in hypotheticals when the net number is bad enough.
His point is that the £350m per week is what we are liable for (gross) as a member of the EU is spent, and the EU control how that is spent.
Yes, we have negotiated a rebate, but it's not guaranteed. It's been whittled away in the past and could be so again in future.
I was wondering this morning why Leave keep the £350 million going. I'm not sure the number matters too much but every time I hear it it's in the context of it being made up
Doc, is you are still here, I think it was you yesterday last evening posted that the current spend on the NHS was 6.2% of GDP. Is that right? If so, would please post a link to the figures?
The reason I ask is that proportion seems awfully close to what we had in the late nineties under Major and before Blair made his dramatic declaration on live TV. Of course in those days much of the Health Service was not bogged down in hugely expensive PFI contracts.
Thanks, Doc. It looks to me looks like we are back to where we were in 1997 in terms of health spend. Except we now have all those lovely PFI contracts top-slicing it and having lots more new expensive treatments to fund, an older population requiring even more care and no plan for how to manage any of it.
What a freakin mess.
If its any solace, Doctors salaies are down over 20% from 2004, with the prospect of at least 4 more years of sub inflation settlements.
No solace at all, Doc. but thank you. I do think that at some point soon the UK, or maybe just England, is going to have to have a proper grown-up discussion about how we fund and provide our health system.
What we have now is not sustainable and with a growing population and a more elderly population it is not going to get any better. What was suitable for 1947 mighy, just might, not be the best for 2017 let alone 2027.
Looks like Gove has a good rebuttal already for the £350m:
The rebate can also be extended, not sure what the point is dealing in hypotheticals when the net number is bad enough.
His point is that the £350m per week is what we are liable for (gross) as a member of the EU is spent, and the EU control how that is spent.
Yes, we have negotiated a rebate, but it's not guaranteed. It's been whittled away in the past and could be so again in future.
All well and good if that had actually been what Leave had been saying. Personally, I think they should have gone for the net number, and said that it is only this "low" due to our rebate, which can be/has been whittled away.
Giving a number that Remain could bleat on and complain about was quite deliberate, IMHO.
It has given the figure far greater airtime.
A fair point, but seems a bit wrong to base it on a half-truth
It's not a half-truth. It's not true to say we'd have £350m per week to spend immediately extra if we left. It is true to say the EU is in ultimate control of that amount.
It is true to say we would have funds of £290m per week at our immediate discretion if we left.
On their website, Vote Leave completely ignore the rebate and claim as fact that "the EU now costs the UK over £350 million each week." This is a simple, in-your-face lie. They don't say it's the amount the EU is ultimately in control of (which is itself a very dubious claim) or similar; they say it's what it costs us, and that this amount would otherwise be available for, e.g. the NHS. There's no spinning it otherwise - this is just a lie by any normal definition of the word. They are lying.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/31/tusk-blames-utopian-eu-elites-for-eurosceptic-revolt-and-brexit/
Juncker, unfortunately, isn't among them.
However, with Hollande and Merkel both facing pretty awful polling at the moment, the national moods are changing and the Euro-elite may not be able to count on national governments providing them with cover for that much longer.
Hollande scored 14% in the most recent French presidential 1st round poll, whether against Sarkozy/Bayrou or Juppe:
http://mobile.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2017/article/2016/06/01/presidentielle-hollande-ne-recueille-que-14-des-intentions-de-vote_4930246_4854003.html?xtref=http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/03/marine-le-pen-surges-french-polls/
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/bulletins/ukhealthaccounts/2014
http://labourlist.org/2016/06/why-should-labour-support-the-european-union-the-case-for-out/
Sound advice to my fellow Labourites.
On topic - I have no view on who should be the next Tory leader and hence PM, other than to say #Priti4Leader
It just goes to show the very clever are no more accurate or insightful than us mugs. They can just deploy more sophisticated explanations.
There's a lesson there.
I take what Rod says very seriously, although personally I think Leave is a 35-40% shot.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/david-james-and-john-barnes-brexit-would-boost-homegrown-english-football-talent-a3262991.html
Clinton 45 Trump 42
Biden 50 Trump 40
Sanders 42 Trump 42
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Mason_Dixon_FL_June_2016.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
I checked Mr. T's pages (Tremayne and Knox) but neither had anything similar, which is a bit peculiar. It might be in the process of being tested on smaller genres (thrillers are, of course, a massive genre, horror etc are smaller).
Will people say - if he wants to be leader, why wasn't he leading?
Not saying he should do these events for Leave - it's up to Leave who they think will perform best. I'm just talking about his leadership credentials.
NB. I know he may do the Wembley debate but that will have many participants.
Looking forward to the debate ahead. Walking round that factory with Boris he looked like a washerwoman. No offence to washerwomen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Re4aDJL3heA
I'm on her too but a bit lower than you got.
When asked why it's Gove not Boris, Kate says people want sensible, reasoned argument....
I must say that Priti has a very strong effect amongst certain gentlemen in their mid 40's.
Anyway, I am off for the evening.
"In short, in what has proven to be a relatively thin week for polls (thanks perhaps in part to the bank holiday), we have had three polls that, properly interpreted, do not give any grounds to believe that a significant change has occurred at all, and just one unusual finding that has yet to be corroborated. Unfortunately, much commentary and speculation on polls is inclined to focus on the poll that is the exception rather than the rule – but it is the rule that is the better guide."
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/another-week-another-false-dawn/
Wednesday 8 June: George Osborne, the chancellor (remain)
Friday 10 June: Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader (leave)
Friday 17 June: Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions secretary (leave)
@RobBurl: If last night's excellent Sky debate with @faisalislam & @KayBurley got you in the mood tune in to #marr on Sunday for Boris and Major on EU
Line-up seems reasonable - though I am surprised they aren't alternating Remain and Leave.
Gove? 8pm
I'm sure that's no accident.
He's Leave's best.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/738792478002827264
We mainly don't have a death penalty because people are uncomfortable drawing the line. That's totally sensible, but I think its wrong to get terribly preachy on the issue. We all generally value our own lives over every other (Family stuff excepted).
a) the rebate is not guaranteed
b) it comes with strings attached
Principles are the more important truth than numbers in this case.
Yes, we have negotiated a rebate, but it's not guaranteed. It's been whittled away in the past and could be so again in future.
Makes it easier if they do win to explain why all the terrible things they said wouldn't happen are happening.
"We lied"
I would campaign on the "No" side. Vehemently.
But, if I lost, I'd accept the result and work out how best to moderate or campaign for its repeal again in future.
It has given the figure far greater airtime.
It is true to say we would have funds of £290m per week at our immediate discretion if we left.
A tight Remain win, however, means a much tougher job. A win is a win, but unifying the party is tougher and there will be more debate over its strategic direction towards the 2020 election.
https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/opinion/sean-worth-after-referendum-comes-number-10’s-game-thrones#comment-312
I noticed with some amusement that on the previous thread some were talking up Dublin as a financial centre.
Ireland has had a history of financial scandals to rival Britain's. Its regulators are weak and ineffective. They must be the only regulator which a few years ago wrote a report on ethics and couldn't even spell the word - calling it "ethitical conduct". And Germany's regulators are not much better: the BaFin is probably the weakest of all the major European regulators and has a hell of a job trying to oversee the, frankly, unregulatable, Deutsche Bank.
The regulatory system is a key part of what makes a financial centre. And the regulatory system depends in part on the government behind it. A close study of Irish political culture would not give one - well, me - enormous confidence, I have to say.
Lots of "er"s.
What we have now is not sustainable and with a growing population and a more elderly population it is not going to get any better. What was suitable for 1947 mighy, just might, not be the best for 2017 let alone 2027.
Least objective poster on here.