If an economist saw a ten pound note on the pavement he would not bother to pick it up - because if it was real someone would already have picked it up.
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
Yes because if remain were doing well they would target these areas to try and get a big enough victory to close the issue down for a generation
@David_Evershed The near-unanimous warnings of the professionals with the most expertise that "There is a palpable fear that something really quite grim for the British economy could follow a Brexit."
You can point to past prediction failures of economists but to airily wave away such unanimity about such a dangerous risk is quite something.
I think the issue for some is that this is just emoting. What risk? What probability? Can it be mitigated? How?
I would never be able to get away with a ministerial briefing where I simply said "I'm palpably afraid that something really quite grim could happen". I'd quite rightly be eaten alive.
I must congratulate remain on allowing.the Blair creature to lead tonights news telling us to vote in favour of staying iin.
That they have let him loose in such a prominent way shows that they are desperate, never mind where he went to pontificate
Right at the start of the campaign, some politician said it could cause tensions in NI if we voted Leave - I was appalled then, especially given the recent rise in reports of trouble.
I'd hoped they'd learned their lesson three months ago - alas not. I saw a bit of Blair/Major speeches and had to switch it off. It's all the wrong politics.
Mr. Llama, I'm a console player and likely Leave voter. Your analogy is wrong.
I haven't played New Vegas, but Fallout 4 is a lot better than Fallout 3. Up to you, of course, but I rather like it, especially on Survival mode.
New Vegas is awesome with some very fun, colourful DLC which no doubt is super cheap now. I've put 90 hours into Fallout4 on one playthrough, and I'll play it again, but I think I prefer New Vegas.
Mr. KLE4, Never played any DLC for New Vegas but I agree it was a fun game, with some rather good humour tucked away.
Ninety hours seems a bit short for playing a new game from start to finish, a bit more like scratching the surface. There again, each to his own and some people do like to follow the main story to the exclusion of lots of side quests, buggering about exploring and generally killing virtual things for the sheer joy of it. I also appreciate that a great many gamers are proper adults with families, jobs and so forth. Rather fewer of us are able to sit in our three monitor equipped man caves and enjoy a second teenage (well at least as far as gaming is concerned, don't have all the spots and angst about girls this time around)
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
This is the organisation that predicted a moderate slowdown in 2008. Next. (oh, and twenty years to recover to 2007 standards in 2009)
From that article by Paul Johnson IFS "After all, it was the same economic experts who told us we should have joined the euro, right? Actually, no. Monetary union happened against the advice of much of the economics profession."
What economists actually said about the UK and Euro (Daily Express, 23 February, 1999) "The National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts that 40,000 City jobs will disappear over the next 10 years if Britain follows an isolationist course… Economist Garry Young said: “By 2010 the output of the City could be 20 per cent lower than now.”
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
In your heartlands you should have a strong local presence to get your vote out. That frees you to send your 'Big Beasts' to areas that presence is lacking.
Sending your generals to do the work of the infantry means you are simply trying to stop your front collapsing.
Example from the other side: Im campaigning for Leave in Hull / E Yorks we dont need Boris or anyone here - we the infantry are doing all the work, are advancing pretty much unopposed while mopping up pockets of Remain. We have no need for reinforcements.
Well I have not seen Boris in Islington or Scotland as yet but he has been in the West Country a lot, Kipper heartland, so am not sure that follows
Eastern England is Kipper heartland. West Country used to be Lib Dem heartland swung to the Tories and seems the perfect place for Boris to pick up votes for Leave.
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
This is the organisation that predicted a moderate slowdown in 2008.
Next.
Unfair. It's actually a good article and more balanced than you might think:
" Being in the EU means that we have no control at all over immigration from the rest of the EU. Even if we avoided it, it still means being part of a club that has made mistakes as costly as introducing the euro. It means sharing some sovereignty. It means being part of the absurdly wasteful Common Agricultural Policy.
It is simply childish to suggest that there is no trade-off, that one side has all the answers. It is just untrue to say that we can control overall immigration if we stay in. It is equally untrue to say that we would have more funds to spend on the NHS if we came out — we would have less.
We are a rich country. The UK is either the fifth or ninth biggest economy in the world (depending on how you measure it). We could cope outside the EU. We can choose to accept a fall in our living standards to regain some sovereignty."
That doesn't strike me as being overly partisan, even if the headline is a tad clickbaity - let's face it, what isn't these days?
Strikes me as overly partisan. Even the very biased Treasury forecasts show the UK living standards going up (but slower) in the event of Brexit. Not falling.
When you compare UK GDP/capita to other non EU western English speaking nations (eg Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA) there is zero evidence the EU has overly inflated our GDP per capita.
I just think Leave does itself a disservice by jumping on every pronouncement and denouncing it as a conspiracy or more establishment bollox.
It's not a bad article and does get to the nub of it - that we are trading off one set of things against another. How important those trade offs are will vary from person to person.
I see my twitter timeline is full of labourites who are attacking Tony Blair over the fact he owns a lot of houses...long gone are the days when they were relaxed about being people having aspiration & getting rich.
I see my twitter timeline is full of labourites who are attacking Tony Blair over the fact he owns a lot of houses...long gone are the days when they were relaxed about being people having aspiration & getting rich.
I don't know... I suspect for a lot of them it's *THAT* person having a lot of houses...
Excellent article very well written. Shouldn't need to be said but does seem to be.
It has often been said that for evil to prosper all it takes is good men to do nothing. It may bit be pleasant but Hussein was truly evil and I am glad we belatedly did something. Though it would be better if the job had been finished in Gulf War I.
@David_Evershed The near-unanimous warnings of the professionals with the most expertise that "There is a palpable fear that something really quite grim for the British economy could follow a Brexit."
You can point to past prediction failures of economists but to airily wave away such unanimity about such a dangerous risk is quite something.
Because of the way this has been presented, there is, I imagine, a pretty large overlapping centre of a fenn diagram between : a) people who don't believe the dire warnings b) people who find the dire warnings intangible c) people who don't care about the warnings d) people who would be insulated from the worst of the dire warnings and e) people who think that economics is less important than other issues.
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
This is the organisation that predicted a moderate slowdown in 2008. Next. (oh, and twenty years to recover to 2007 standards in 2009)
From that article by Paul Johnson IFS "After all, it was the same economic experts who told us we should have joined the euro, right? Actually, no. Monetary union happened against the advice of much of the economics profession."
What economists actually said about the UK and Euro (Daily Express, 23 February, 1999) "The National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts that 40,000 City jobs will disappear over the next 10 years if Britain follows an isolationist course… Economist Garry Young said: “By 2010 the output of the City could be 20 per cent lower than now.”
Excellent article very well written. Shouldn't need to be said but does seem to be.
It has often been said that for evil to prosper all it takes is good men to do nothing. It may bit be pleasant but Hussein was truly evil and I am glad we belatedly did something. Though it would be better if the job had been finished in Gulf War I.
It is a huge piece of ahistorical guff. The idea that all of those things would have happened is ridiculous. Not least because the US would probably have gone in anyway.
I see my twitter timeline is full of labourites who are attacking Tony Blair over the fact he owns a lot of houses...long gone are the days when they were relaxed about being people having aspiration & getting rich.
I don't know... I suspect for a lot of them it's *THAT* person having a lot of houses...
Yes him saying Vote In isnt exactly going to help Remain persuade Labour supporters to turn up and vote for him.
Not quite as bad as if leave were to send Nick Griffin to Brixton with IDS to tell them to vote Leave but not far off it This is another huge error of Judgement by Remain.
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
This is the organisation that predicted a moderate slowdown in 2008.
Next.
Unfair. It's actually a good article and more balanced than you might think:
" Being in the EU means that we have no control at all over immigration from the rest of the EU. Even if we avoided it, it still means being part of a club that has made mistakes as costly as introducing the euro. It means sharing some sovereignty. It means being part of the absurdly wasteful Common Agricultural Policy.
It is simply childish to suggest that there is no trade-off, that one side has all the answers. It is just untrue to say that we can control overall immigration if we stay in. It is equally untrue to say that we would have more funds to spend on the NHS if we came out — we would have less.
We are a rich country. The UK is either the fifth or ninth biggest economy in the world (depending on how you measure it). We could cope outside the EU. We can choose to accept a fall in our living standards to regain some sovereignty."
That doesn't strike me as being overly partisan, even if the headline is a tad clickbaity - let's face it, what isn't these days?
Strikes me as overly partisan. Even the very biased Treasury forecasts show the UK living standards going up (but slower) in the event of Brexit. Not falling.
When you compare UK GDP/capita to other non EU western English speaking nations (eg Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA) there is zero evidence the EU has overly inflated our GDP per capita.
I just think Leave does itself a disservice by jumping on every pronouncement and denouncing it as a conspiracy or more establishment bollox.
It's not a bad article and does get to the nub of it - that we are trading off one set of things against another. How important those trade offs are will vary from person to person.
I think Remain sprouting absolute bollocks that is unsupported by any evidence not even the incredibly biased Treasury report is a disservice to anyone capable of intelligent thought of their own.
I think ignore the weight of serious people in business who back Leave as just crackpots is a disservice
Excellent article very well written. Shouldn't need to be said but does seem to be.
It has often been said that for evil to prosper all it takes is good men to do nothing. It may bit be pleasant but Hussein was truly evil and I am glad we belatedly did something. Though it would be better if the job had been finished in Gulf War I.
It is a huge piece of ahistorical guff. The idea that all of those things would have happened is ridiculous. Not least because the US would probably have gone in anyway.
So the only reason not invading Iraq would be alright is because Iraq may still have been invaded?
What pathetic moral ambiguity. Ought to be ashamed.
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
Note the 'could' - in other words bunkum.
I don't believe it will be as bad as they say, but the use of 'could' hardly means it must automatically be bunkum. Unless you can be 100% certain, which no one can, could is the only word you could use, surely?
Well I think Brexit could lead to a massive increase in the standards of living of the UK worker with higher wages , cheaper food and a reduction in tariffs on imports from non EU countries (which are over 50%).
The 2014 Euro elections are a reasonable guide as to how each region will vote, across the UK won 27%, by regions its total was:
E Midlands 32% East 34% London 16% North East 29% North West 27% South East 32% South West 32% West Midlands 31% Yorkshire and Humber 31% Scotland 10% Wales 27%
So if the result was 50-50 UK wide you would expect the East and West Midlands, the East, the North East, the South and South West and Yorkshire to vote Leave, Scotland and London to vote Remain with Wales and the North West being the key swing regions http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results
I must congratulate remain on allowing.the Blair creature to lead tonights news telling us to vote in favour of staying iin.
That they have let him loose in such a prominent way shows that they are desperate, never mind where he went to pontificate
Right at the start of the campaign, some politician said it could cause tensions in NI if we voted Leave - I was appalled then, especially given the recent rise in reports of trouble.
I'd hoped they'd learned their lesson three months ago - alas not. I saw a bit of Blair/Major speeches and had to switch it off. It's all the wrong politics.
Why oh why did they do that today?
After the fantastic efforts of the two men over the years in securing peace in NI, they turn up together to lob a (metaphorical, thankfully) bomb into the place and use up a lot of hard earned goodwill. Don't understand it, really don't.
You are such a short termist Scott. Don't you want your children to be able freely trade with the entire world ?
We trade with the entire World now
So there we have it. Scott thinks we can trade without a free trade deals so.we have zero. Reason to seek one. The logic of your position is we may as well Leave since we will be able to trade without one just as we can now.
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
This is the organisation that predicted a moderate slowdown in 2008.
Next.
Unfair. It's actually a good article and more balanced than you might think:
" Being in the EU means that we have no control at all over immigration from the rest of the EU. Even if we avoided it, it still means being part of a club that has made mistakes as costly as introducing the euro. It means sharing some sovereignty. It means being part of the absurdly wasteful Common Agricultural Policy.
It is simply childish to suggest that there is no trade-off, that one side has all the answers. It is just untrue to say that we can control overall immigration if we stay in. It is equally untrue to say that we would have more funds to spend on the NHS if we came out — we would have less.
We are a rich country. The UK is either the fifth or ninth biggest economy in the world (depending on how you measure it). We could cope outside the EU. We can choose to accept a fall in our living standards to regain some sovereignty."
That doesn't strike me as being overly partisan, even if the headline is a tad clickbaity - let's face it, what isn't these days?
Strikes me as overly partisan. Even the very biased Treasury forecasts show the UK living standards going up (but slower) in the event of Brexit. Not falling.
When you compare UK GDP/capita to other non EU western English speaking nations (eg Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA) there is zero evidence the EU has overly inflated our GDP per capita.
The small print often doesn't match the headlines.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Brexit reduced growth by 0.8% in 2017, as the National Institute predicts, 3% by 2020, as the IFS predicts, or 7% by 2030 as the Treasury predicts, I would consider such risks as being worth running, in return for enhanced self-government.
We'd still be getting richer, just not quite so fast.
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
Note the 'could' - in other words bunkum.
I don't believe it will be as bad as they say, but the use of 'could' hardly means it must automatically be bunkum. Unless you can be 100% certain, which no one can, could is the only word you could use, surely?
Well I think Brexit could lead to a massive increase in the standards of living of the UK worker with higher wages , cheaper food and a reduction in tariffs on imports from non EU countries (which are over 50%).
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
You are right the chances of a Remain landslide are close to zero now, it is going to the wire
Well I think Brexit could lead to a massive increase in the standards of living of the UK worker with higher wages , cheaper food and a reduction in tariffs on imports from non EU countries (which are over 50%).
If that is the prevailing view of people voting Leave there will be riots
How does "dissolving" the largest free trade area on the planet improve that?
Because it prevents us by law from making our own trade deals with the remaining 93% of the planet and only allowing deals unanimously agreeable (ie virtually none outside our continent) to some of the most protectionist nations on the planet. Next.
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
Note the 'could' - in other words bunkum.
I don't believe it will be as bad as they say, but the use of 'could' hardly means it must automatically be bunkum. Unless you can be 100% certain, which no one can, could is the only word you could use, surely?
Well I think Brexit could lead to a massive increase in the standards of living of the UK worker with higher wages , cheaper food and a reduction in tariffs on imports from non EU countries (which are over 50%).
Particularly for the bottom deciles.
My guess is thst the bottom deciles will do quite well out of it but a lot of folk in upper deciles will have quite a hit. Hence project fear
@John_M It's a newspaper article not a ministerial briefing. It's trying to explain to lay readers the risks.
The IFS have already given their detailed economic analysis. For their pains Vote Leave accused them of being in the pay of the EU.
Well, given that the front page of the report acknowledged that it was funded by the ESRC through the 'UK in a changing Europe', it's at least a point.
I think we'll have to disagree; it doesn't quantify the risks in any meaningful way, lay reader or not. It just asserts there are risks.
I don't have a particular issue with the IFS report per se. My concern is that modelling has an inglorious record (to save others trawling through the report, the forecasts for Britains GDP in 2030 range from -9.5% to +0.6% compared to noBrexit, ie the opportunity cost ranges from ~.75% p.a. to very slightly positive). If financial models were better, I'd have more confidence in them.
I notice that Paul Johnson in his article predicts a fall in the stock market. This is a bit puzzling as most of the largest stocks get most of their earnings in foreign currencies, so if the £ (which he also predicts) falls then the reported profits in pounds will rise bringing more value in the price of shares... Paul Johnson lacks joined up analysis. shocked:
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
You are right the chances of a Remain landslide are close to zero now, it is going to the wire
"Paul Johnson: Leavers may not like economists but we are right about Brexit
While few can predict how Britain would fare long-term, if we go it alone the immediate impact could be seismic"
Note the 'could' - in other words bunkum.
I don't believe it will be as bad as they say, but the use of 'could' hardly means it must automatically be bunkum. Unless you can be 100% certain, which no one can, could is the only word you could use, surely?
Well I think Brexit could lead to a massive increase in the standards of living of the UK worker with higher wages , cheaper food and a reduction in tariffs on imports from non EU countries (which are over 50%).
Particularly for the bottom deciles.
My guess is thst the bottom deciles will do quite well out of it but a lot of folk in upper deciles will have quite a hit. Hence project fear
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
You are right the chances of a Remain landslide are close to zero now, it is going to the wire
The vote leave types locally appear to have virtually ignored rural Bedfordshure and commuted into Luton and Dunstable to campaign there is quite interesting in that context
I see my twitter timeline is full of labourites who are attacking Tony Blair over the fact he owns a lot of houses...long gone are the days when they were relaxed about being people having aspiration & getting rich.
I don't know... I suspect for a lot of them it's *THAT* person having a lot of houses...
Yes him saying Vote In isnt exactly going to help Remain persuade Labour supporters to turn up and vote for him.
Not quite as bad as if leave were to send Nick Griffin to Brixton with IDS to tell them to vote Leave but not far off it This is another huge error of Judgement by Remain.
News looks very bad for REMAIN tonight with Blair and Major descending from the ivory towers to warn Northern Ireland that a return to civil unrest is possible if we vote LEAVE...
Given NI is one of REMAIN'S strongest areas why have they risked PR a disaster? Surely it's so strong they can only lose voters to LEAVE?
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
In your heartlands you should have a strong local presence to get your vote out. That frees you to send your 'Big Beasts' to areas that presence is lacking.
Sending your generals to do the work of the infantry means you are simply trying to stop your front collapsing.
Example from the other side: Im campaigning for Leave in Hull / E Yorks we dont need Boris or anyone here - we the infantry are doing all the work, are advancing pretty much unopposed while mopping up pockets of Remain. We have no need for reinforcements.
Well I have not seen Boris in Islington or Scotland as yet but he has been in the West Country a lot, Kipper heartland, so am not sure that follows
Eastern England is Kipper heartland. West Country used to be Lib Dem heartland swung to the Tories and seems the perfect place for Boris to pick up votes for Leave.
North East 16.7 Eastern 16.2 Yorks+Hum 16.0 E Mids 15.8 W Mids 15.7 South East 14.7 North West 13.6 459 100 votes South West 13.6 384 500 votes London 8.1
Mr. Monksfield, disagree entirely. There's no democratic mandate for Scotland to separate because the First Minister unilaterally decides it.
A Leave success (if Scotland votes Remain) could lead to a second referendum. It would not lead to automatically breaking up the UK.
Do you seriously think Sindy wouldn't go through at the second iteration? I would expect Scottish Labour and SLD to join SNP in campaigning for Sindy in that circumstance and I could see it going through 60-40.
If YES couldn't win with the possibility of the £ and $100 a barrel , do you really think they could win at $50 a barrel and having to join the € ?
Not a chance.
I for one as a Scot by birth would have voted no first time round but would vote for independence from a post Brexit England.
If Scotland genuinely wanted independence they would allow a vote for the English. The Scottish really do seem to labour under the misapprehension that the English are desperate to hang on to them.
I wasn't aware that it was within the Scots' power to withold or allow 'a vote for the English'.
Any misapprehension probably stems from looking at the polls, mad fools that we are.
'Do you think that Scottish independence, if it were to happen, would be good or bad for the rest of the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland and Wales?
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
You are right the chances of a Remain landslide are close to zero now, it is going to the wire
The fact that vote leave types locally have virtually ignored rural Bedfordshure and commuted into Luton and Dunstable to campaign there is quite interesting in that context
According to Dr. Hanratty, Luton should deliver a big lead for Leave. Dunstable is sure to. I think the view is that rural Bedfordshire will turn out to vote Leave in any case.
I shall be delivering leaflets for Labour Leave next week.
Mr. Monksfield, disagree entirely. There's no democratic mandate for Scotland to separate because the First Minister unilaterally decides it.
A Leave success (if Scotland votes Remain) could lead to a second referendum. It would not lead to automatically breaking up the UK.
Do you seriously think Sindy wouldn't go through at the second iteration? I would expect Scottish Labour and SLD to join SNP in campaigning for Sindy in that circumstance and I could see it going through 60-40.
If YES couldn't win with the possibility of the £ and $100 a barrel , do you really think they could win at $50 a barrel and having to join the € ?
Not a chance.
I for one as a Scot by birth would have voted no first time round but would vote for independence from a post Brexit England.
If Scotland genuinely wanted independence they would allow a vote for the English. The Scottish really do seem to labour under the misapprehension that the English are desperate to hang on to them.
I wasn't aware that it was within the Scots' power to withold or allow 'a vote for the English'.
Any misapprehension probably stems from looking at the polls, mad fools that we are.
'Do you think that Scottish independence, if it were to happen, would be good or bad for the rest of the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland and Wales?
So there we have it. Scott thinks we can trade without a free trade deals
Not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.
Exactly what you said. You were asked why you don't want new trade deals and you replied that we trade already. So which is it?
Is our existing trade deal with 7% of the world useless because trade deals are useless? Or are trade deals useful but you're willing to sacrifice trade with 93% of the world to keep the 7% happy?
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
You are right the chances of a Remain landslide are close to zero now, it is going to the wire
The fact that vote leave types locally have virtually ignored rural Bedfordshure and commuted into Luton and Dunstable to campaign there is quite interesting in that context
According to Dr. Hanratty, Luton should deliver a big lead for Leave. Dunstable is sure to. I think the view is that rural Bedfordshire will turn out to vote Leave in any case.
I shall be delivering leaflets for Labour Leave next week.
Given that it is solid Labour with huge Irish and South Asian minoritie) remain ought to be doing better than that to have a good chance of winning
Well I think Brexit could lead to a massive increase in the standards of living of the UK worker with higher wages , cheaper food and a reduction in tariffs on imports from non EU countries (which are over 50%).
If that is the prevailing view of people voting Leave there will be riots
It's the truth.
Leave and we can cut the CAP, cut tariffs. Or are you ignoring the 93% of the world outside the EU we largely apply tariffs to again?
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
In your heartlands you should have a strong local presence to get your vote out. That frees you to send your 'Big Beasts' to areas that presence is lacking.
Sending your generals to do the work of the infantry means you are simply trying to stop your front collapsing.
Example from the other side: Im campaigning for Leave in Hull / E Yorks we dont need Boris or anyone here - we the infantry are doing all the work, are advancing pretty much unopposed while mopping up pockets of Remain. We have no need for reinforcements.
Well I have not seen Boris in Islington or Scotland as yet but he has been in the West Country a lot, Kipper heartland, so am not sure that follows
Eastern England is Kipper heartland. West Country used to be Lib Dem heartland swung to the Tories and seems the perfect place for Boris to pick up votes for Leave.
North East 16.7 Eastern 16.2 Yorks+Hum 16.0 E Mids 15.8 W Mids 15.7 South East 14.7 North West 13.6 459 100 votes South West 13.6 384 500 votes London 8.1
Seems Leave are very confident if Boris is campaigning in UKIPs joint second worse region..
The 2015 elections simply saw eurosceptic voters in the SW voting Tory to get rid of the Europhile LDs, 2014 is a far more accurate assessment of their support and the UKIP total in the South West was still 0.7% above their UK wide total in 2015 even allowing for tactical Tory voting (I notice you omitted Scotland!)
@John_M It's a newspaper article not a ministerial briefing. It's trying to explain to lay readers the risks.
The IFS have already given their detailed economic analysis. For their pains Vote Leave accused them of being in the pay of the EU.
Well, given that the front page of the report acknowledged that it was funded by the ESRC through the 'UK in a changing Europe', it's at least a point.
I think we'll have to disagree; it doesn't quantify the risks in any meaningful way, lay reader or not. It just asserts there are risks.
I don't have a particular issue with the IFS report per se. My concern is that modelling has an inglorious record (to save others trawling through the report, the forecasts for Britains GDP in 2030 range from -9.5% to +0.6% compared to noBrexit, ie the opportunity cost ranges from ~.75% p.a. to very slightly positive). If financial models were better, I'd have more confidence in them.
The intro tickled me where he basically says we all got the 2008 crash wrong, but we all agree now, so listen to us this time.
Paul Johnson has spent his whole career in the civil service, think-tanks, or academia, including several big papers during the New Labour years.
I'm not saying he's been bought, or paid for, but that does breed a certain kind of thinking. And the IFS, in particular, has a real hold over Government, despite reaching questionable conclusions in the past. For example, it has came out basically saying marriage doesn't matter a few years ago.
The Spectator was right in 2011:
"There is no great conspiracy here, but a simple truth: organisations which rely on tax money will always make the case for higher taxes. The ‘institutes’ funded by research grants (which means, usually, tax money) will always argue for more expensive meddling by the state. These groups dislike the idea that society will be better and stronger if people are given greater freedom, and allowed to keep more of their money. Freedom, to the institutes, is messy and chaotic. There must be projects, judged by complicated spreadsheets, with billions in taxpayers’ money behind them.
The most striking example is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It has tremendous influence over government life, and in the era where Gordon Brown was concealing basic facts from the people whose money he was spending, it was relied upon to give a clearer picture. But the sheer volume and quality of its reports gave it power over the government that is not, even now, understood. Its device for measuring poverty — to calculate how many millions were above and below a ‘poverty line’ — took over the entire debate. Instead of tackling poverty, Brown tried to manipulate the IFS spreadsheets, so those just beneath the poverty line could be nudged above it and described as being ‘lifted out of poverty’. Those affected would be amazed to find themselves so described."
Excellent article very well written. Shouldn't need to be said but does seem to be.
It has often been said that for evil to prosper all it takes is good men to do nothing. It may bit be pleasant but Hussein was truly evil and I am glad we belatedly did something. Though it would be better if the job had been finished in Gulf War I.
It is a huge piece of ahistorical guff. The idea that all of those things would have happened is ridiculous. Not least because the US would probably have gone in anyway.
So the only reason not invading Iraq would be alright is because Iraq may still have been invaded?
What pathetic moral ambiguity. Ought to be ashamed.
Wow, you're really touchy about this aren't you.
Since when does 'not least' become 'the only reason'.
If you want moral certainty, I suggest that international relations is not for you...
I notice that Paul Johnson in his article predicts a fall in the stock market. This is a bit puzzling as most of the largest stocks get most of their earnings in foreign currencies, so if the £ (which he also predicts) falls then the reported profits in pounds will rise bringing more value in the price of shares... Paul Johnson lacks joined up analysis. shocked:
FTSE Mid 250 and FTSE Small Cap will likely move very differently to FTSE 100 for that very reason.
O/T. A prominent Euro myth peddled by the Remain campaign is that Cameron's renegotiation on child benefit will be enough to curtail the level of immigration from EU countries.
If people only realised that 0.3% of child benefit claims were for children living elsewhere in the EU, wouldn't they also realise that it is a total sham for Cameron to claim that the volume of migration from the EU will be significantly reduced by his having negotiated for the UK a right to cease these payments (for a limited period)? If the figure the was 14% then there would be some basis for Cameron's claim.
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
You are right the chances of a Remain landslide are close to zero now, it is going to the wire
Who knows, the pollsters could be wrong!
Not that wrong, even if all the undecideds went Remain it would not be a landslide
Excellent article very well written. Shouldn't need to be said but does seem to be.
It has often been said that for evil to prosper all it takes is good men to do nothing. It may bit be pleasant but Hussein was truly evil and I am glad we belatedly did something. Though it would be better if the job had been finished in Gulf War I.
It is a huge piece of ahistorical guff. The idea that all of those things would have happened is ridiculous. Not least because the US would probably have gone in anyway.
So the only reason not invading Iraq would be alright is because Iraq may still have been invaded?
What pathetic moral ambiguity. Ought to be ashamed.
Wow, you're really touchy about this aren't you.
Since when does 'not least' become 'the only reason'.
If you want moral certainty, I suggest that international relations is not for you...
Yes I think it is truly vile to turn a blind eye to evil atrocities being commited across the globe and to suggest if only we stand back and do nothing then evil will abate. If that's your attitude then international relations is not for you either.
I'm no Blair fan but still respect him for standing up to the idiots in Stop The War and doing the right thing.
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
You are right the chances of a Remain landslide are close to zero now, it is going to the wire
The fact that vote leave types locally have virtually ignored rural Bedfordshure and commuted into Luton and Dunstable to campaign there is quite interesting in that context
According to Dr. Hanratty, Luton should deliver a big lead for Leave. Dunstable is sure to. I think the view is that rural Bedfordshire will turn out to vote Leave in any case.
I shall be delivering leaflets for Labour Leave next week.
Luton has a high ethnic minority vote, it is 55% non-white and 2 Labour MPs, Leave might win it but I cannot see it being a big lead
Haven't seen it. Do you have a link? I like to give my completely neutral and unbiased opinion as you know...
Basically, no problems in A&E if we Leave. Immediate attention for OAP who should have gone to GP in the first place..
As someone posted earlier, there are going to be a lot of VERY disappointed people if the result is Leave.
Just as there are going to be loads of disappointed Remain supporters, when they realise Cameron's "renegotiation" opt-outs are worthless and the chances of reforming the EU from within are zero.
Copy of John Major's letter to Jacques Santer reproduced below. And yet he still campaigns to Remain.
Letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:
"ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act.
This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118A.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied. (of course it never has been, it has simply become even worse, witness hospital patienrs now dying because of working time rules applied to doctors Idris, 22 Oct 09)
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118A cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118A which properly belong under the other Members States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Heads of State or Governments of European Union Member States.
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
The Home Counties will vote Leave, yougov this week had Leave ahead in the South but Remain 1% ahead overall, if there is a swing area it is the North West and maybe Wales not the Home Counties
That's my point. If Remain were on course for a solid win the stockbroker belt would be getting attention as well as the core cities.
You are right the chances of a Remain landslide are close to zero now, it is going to the wire
The fact that vote leave types locally have virtually ignored rural Bedfordshure and commuted into Luton and Dunstable to campaign there is quite interesting in that context
According to Dr. Hanratty, Luton should deliver a big lead for Leave. Dunstable is sure to. I think the view is that rural Bedfordshire will turn out to vote Leave in any case.
I shall be delivering leaflets for Labour Leave next week.
Given that it is solid Labour with huge Irish and South Asian minoritie) remain ought to be doing better than that to have a good chance of winning
Luton still has a 40% right wing vote. It's a very lower middle class/working class town, which skews the right wing vote further to Leave than nationally.
Kelvin Hopkins (who is immensely popular locally) probably carries a lot of Labour voters into the Leave camp.
@John_M It's a newspaper article not a ministerial briefing. It's trying to explain to lay readers the risks.
The IFS have already given their detailed economic analysis. For their pains Vote Leave accused them of being in the pay of the EU.
Well, given that the front page of the report acknowledged that it was funded by the ESRC through the 'UK in a changing Europe', it's at least a point.
I think we'll have to disagree; it doesn't quantify the risks in any meaningful way, lay reader or not. It just asserts there are risks.
I don't have a particular issue with the IFS report per se. My concern is that modelling has an inglorious record (to save others trawling through the report, the forecasts for Britains GDP in 2030 range from -9.5% to +0.6% compared to noBrexit, ie the opportunity cost ranges from ~.75% p.a. to very slightly positive). If financial models were better, I'd have more confidence in them.
The intro tickled me where he basically says we all got the 2008 crash wrong, but we all agree now, so listen to us this time.
Paul Johnson has spent his whole career in the civil service, think-tanks, or academia, including several big papers during the New Labour years.
I'm not saying he's been bought, or paid for, but that does breed a certain kind of thinking. And the IFS, in particular, has a real hold over Government, despite reaching questionable conclusions in the past. For example, it has came out basically saying marriage doesn't matter a few years ago.
The Spectator was right in 2011:
"There is no great conspiracy here, but a simple truth: organisations which rely on tax money will always make the case for higher taxes. The ‘institutes’ funded by research grants (which means, usually, tax money) will always argue for more expensive meddling by the state. These groups dislike the idea that society will be better and stronger if people are given greater freedom, and allowed to keep more of their money. Freedom, to the institutes, is messy and chaotic. There must be projects, judged by complicated spreadsheets, with billions in taxpayers’ money behind them.
The most striking example is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It has tremendous influence over government life, and in the era where Gordon Brown was concealing basic facts from the people whose money he was spending, it was relied upon to give a clearer picture. But the sheer volume and quality of its reports gave it power over the government that is not, even now, understood. Its device for measuring poverty — to calculate how many millions were above and below a ‘poverty line’ — took over the entire debate. Instead of tackling poverty, Brown tried to manipulate the IFS spreadsheets, so those just beneath the poverty line could be nudged above it and described as being ‘lifted out of poverty’. Those affected would be amazed to find themselves so described."
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
In your heartlands you should have a strong local presence to get your vote out. That frees you to send your 'Big Beasts' to areas that presence is lacking.
Sending your generals to do the work of the infantry means you are simply trying to stop your front collapsing.
Example from the other side: Im campaigning for Leave in Hull / E Yorks we dont need Boris or anyone here - we the infantry are doing all the work, are advancing pretty much unopposed while mopping up pockets of Remain. We have no need for reinforcements.
Well I have not seen Boris in Islington or Scotland as yet but he has been in the West Country a lot, Kipper heartland, so am not sure that follows
Eastern England is Kipper heartland. West Country used to be Lib Dem heartland swung to the Tories and seems the perfect place for Boris to pick up votes for Leave.
North East 16.7 Eastern 16.2 Yorks+Hum 16.0 E Mids 15.8 W Mids 15.7 South East 14.7 North West 13.6 459 100 votes South West 13.6 384 500 votes London 8.1
Seems Leave are very confident if Boris is campaigning in UKIPs joint second worse region..
The 2015 elections simply saw eurosceptic voters voting Tory to get rid of the Europhile LDs, 2014 is a far more accurate assessment of the result and the UKIP total in the South West was still 0.7% above their UK wide total even allowing for tactical Tory voting (I notice you omitted Scotland!)
Scotland and N Ireland are remain strongholds which was my original point. If remain is campaigning there then they are losing. Likewise if Leave was spending time in Lincs and Essex they would be losing too.
You counted that Boris was in the SW 'kipper heartland.' I've just shown you that in 2015, with a similar turnout to what we can expect in the EU ref, it was actually UKIPs 2nd worse area so hardly 'kipper heartland.'
Perhaps 'potential Leave heartland' summarises the SW better. Which is why it makes sense for Boris to be there if Leave think they are winning.
Conversely 'potential remain heartland' is where a confident remain campaign would be sending Osbourne / Blair / Major. That they are not makes it logical to assume they think they are losing.
@PickardJE: Apparently the Labour MP joining the Out campaign is none other than....John Cryer, chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Very credible.
O/T. A prominent Euro myth peddled by the Remain campaign is that Cameron's renegotiation on child benefit will be enough to curtail the level of immigration from EU countries.
If people only realised that 0.3% of child benefit claims were for children living elsewhere in the EU, wouldn't they also realise that it is a total sham for Cameron to claim that the volume of migration from the EU will be significantly reduced by his having negotiated for the UK a right to cease these payments (for a limited period)? If the figure the was 14% then there would be some basis for Cameron's claim.
Bit of a logic fail there, given that there are far more children of natives than children of EU migrants in the UK. Depending on the numbers, this 0.3% of all child benefit claims could correspond to a significant percentage of migrant claims.
Haven't seen it. Do you have a link? I like to give my completely neutral and unbiased opinion as you know...
Basically, no problems in A&E if we Leave. Immediate attention for OAP who should have gone to GP in the first place..
As someone posted earlier, there are going to be a lot of VERY disappointed people if the result is Leave.
Are you a doctor? Respiratory problems seem to me to be a very good reason to go to A and E. Especially as emergency GP appointments are a chimera nowadays.
@PickardJE: Apparently the Labour MP joining the Out campaign is none other than....John Cryer, chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Very credible.
Excellent article very well written. Shouldn't need to be said but does seem to be.
It has often been said that for evil to prosper all it takes is good men to do nothing. It may bit be pleasant but Hussein was truly evil and I am glad we belatedly did something. Though it would be better if the job had been finished in Gulf War I.
It is a huge piece of ahistorical guff. The idea that all of those things would have happened is ridiculous. Not least because the US would probably have gone in anyway.
So the only reason not invading Iraq would be alright is because Iraq may still have been invaded?
What pathetic moral ambiguity. Ought to be ashamed.
Wow, you're really touchy about this aren't you.
Since when does 'not least' become 'the only reason'.
If you want moral certainty, I suggest that international relations is not for you...
Yes I think it is truly vile to turn a blind eye to evil atrocities being commited across the globe and to suggest if only we stand back and do nothing then evil will abate. If that's your attitude then international relations is not for you either.
I'm no Blair fan but still respect him for standing up to the idiots in Stop The War and doing the right thing.
Are there really people who still think that launching an unprovoked attack on Iraq that resulted in millions of casualties and sowed the seeds for the germination of ISIS was doing the right thing?
I notice that Paul Johnson in his article predicts a fall in the stock market. This is a bit puzzling as most of the largest stocks get most of their earnings in foreign currencies, so if the £ (which he also predicts) falls then the reported profits in pounds will rise bringing more value in the price of shares... Paul Johnson lacks joined up analysis. shocked:
FTSE Mid 250 and FTSE Small Cap will likely move very differently to FTSE 100 for that very reason.
Haven't seen it. Do you have a link? I like to give my completely neutral and unbiased opinion as you know...
Basically, no problems in A&E if we Leave. Immediate attention for OAP who should have gone to GP in the first place..
As someone posted earlier, there are going to be a lot of VERY disappointed people if the result is Leave.
Just as there are going to be loads of disappointed Remain supporters, when they realise Cameron's "renegotiation" opt-outs are worthless and the chances of reforming the EU from within are zero.
Copy of John Major's letter to Jacques Santer reproduced below. And yet he still campaigns to Remain.
Letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:
"ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act.
This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118A.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied. (of course it never has been, it has simply become even worse, witness hospital patienrs now dying because of working time rules applied to doctors Idris, 22 Oct 09)
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118A cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118A which properly belong under the other Members States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Heads of State or Governments of European Union Member States.
Yours sincerely,
John Major" ;
Ive never had any problem with the idea that Cameron’s “opt outs” are worthless. He’s all wind no substance.
I'm surprised the LEAVE "PPB" concentrated 100% on the NHS, instead of mentioning other ways in which the much disputed £350 million per week figure might be spent. I though the split screen style was clumsy and unconvincing. On the plus side, it's clever to focus on the £350m per week figure to which people can relate (or if they can't, they are told that this equates to one general hospital every week) rather than the equivalent £18.2 billion figure which is meaningless to most people. It was also interesting that it was clearly targeted at the WWC middle aged (daughter) and elderly (mother).
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
In your heartlands you should have a strong local presence to get your vote out. That frees you to send your 'Big Beasts' to areas that presence is lacking.
Sending your generals to do the work of the infantry means you are simply trying to stop your front collapsing.
Example from the other side: Im campaigning for Leave in Hull / E Yorks we dont need Boris or anyone here - we the infantry are doing all the work, are advancing pretty much unopposed while mopping up pockets of Remain. We have no need for reinforcements.
Well I have not seen Boris in Islington or Scotland as yet but he has been in the West Country a lot, Kipper heartland, so am not sure that follows
Eastern England is Kipper heartland. West Country used to be Lib Dem heartland swung to the Tories and seems the perfect place for Boris to pick up votes for Leave.
North East 16.7 Eastern 16.2 Yorks+Hum 16.0 E Mids 15.8 W Mids 15.7 South East 14.7 North West 13.6 459 100 votes South West 13.6 384 500 votes London 8.1
Seems Leave are very confident if Boris is campaigning in UKIPs joint second worse region..
The 2015 elections simply saw eurosceptic voters voting Tory to get rid of the Europhile LDs, 2014 is a far more accurate assessment of the result and the UKIP total in the South West was still 0.7% above their UK wide total even allowing for tactical Tory voting (I notice you omitted Scotland!)
Scotland and N Ireland are remain strongholds which was my original point. If remain is campaigning there then they are losing. Likewise if Leave was spending time in Lincs and Essex they would be losing too.
You counted that Boris was in the SW 'kipper heartland.' I've just shown you that in 2015, with a similar turnout to what we can expect in the EU ref, it was actually UKIPs 2nd worse area so hardly 'kipper heartland.'
Perhaps 'potential Leave heartland' summarises the SW better. Which is why it makes sense for Boris to be there if Leave think they are winning.
Conversely 'potential remain heartland' is where a confident remain campaign would be sending Osbourne / Blair / Major. That they are not makes it logical to assume they think they are losing.
This doesn't really make total sense I think - it's not a General Election where votes only actually count if they will change the outcome in seats. Every vote counts equally so squeezing additional votes from areas of strength is important. Especially as areas of strength might foster low turnout because people aren't aware of the real close state of the campaign.
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
Yes, but as in any election there are swing areas that could go either way.
If Remain were confident, I'd expect to see much more activity in the Home Counties.
Very few people are going to be converted this referendum. Concentrating on getting your vote out seems a sadly sensible strategy.
I'm not so sure: look at the polling trend since February.
Remain had solid 20-30% leads last year.
If you just look at a single pollster - YouGov - you can see the biggest Remain lead was perhaps 12%. See:
@PickardJE: So Cryer poised to come out for Labour Leave. Skinner doing Out intervention overnight. But mystery 3rd Labour MP still to be unveiled tmrw.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
In your heartlands you should have a strong local presence to get your vote out. That frees you to send your 'Big Beasts' to areas that presence is lacking.
Sending your generals to do the work of the infantry means you are simply trying to stop your front collapsing.
Example from the other side: Im campaigning for Leave in Hull / E Yorks we dont need Boris or anyone here - we the infantry are doing all the work, are advancing pretty much unopposed while mopping up pockets of Remain. We have no need for reinforcements.
Well I have not seen Boris in Islington or Scotland as yet but he has been in the West Country a lot, Kipper heartland, so am not sure that follows
Eastern England is Kipper heartland. West Country used to be Lib Dem heartland swung to the Tories and seems the perfect place for Boris to pick up votes for Leave.
North East 16.7 Eastern 16.2 Yorks+Hum 16.0 E Mids 15.8 W Mids 15.7 South East 14.7 North West 13.6 459 100 votes South West 13.6 384 500 votes London 8.1
Seems Leave are very confident if Boris is campaigning in UKIPs joint second worse region..
The 2015 elections simply saw eurosceptic voters voting Tory to get rid of the Europhile LDs, 2014 is a far more accurate assessment of the result and the UKIP total in the South West was still 0.7% above their UK wide total even allowing for tactical Tory voting (I notice you omitted Scotland!)
Scotland and N Ireland are remain strongholds which was my original point. If remain is campaigning there then they are losing. Likewise if Leave was spending time in Lincs and Essex they would be losing too.
You counted that Boris was in the SW 'kipper heartland.' I've just shown you that in 2015, with a similar turnout to what we can expect in the EU ref, it was actually UKIPs 2nd worse area so hardly 'kipper heartland.'
Perhaps 'potential Leave heartland' summarises the SW better. Which is why it makes sense for Boris to be there if Leave think they are winning.
Conversely 'potential remain heartland' is where a confident remain campaign would be sending Osbourne / Blair / Major. That they are not makes it logical to assume they think they are losing.
I presumed that Boris had started the campaign in Cornwall as it's one of the big recipients of EU-bungs, and needed reassuring.
Haven't seen it. Do you have a link? I like to give my completely neutral and unbiased opinion as you know...
Basically, no problems in A&E if we Leave. Immediate attention for OAP who should have gone to GP in the first place..
As someone posted earlier, there are going to be a lot of VERY disappointed people if the result is Leave.
Are you a doctor? Respiratory problems seem to me to be a very good reason to go to A and E. Especially as emergency GP appointments are a chimera nowadays.
I’m not a doctor, I’m a pharmacist with a lot of experience in supplying health care. Properly managed, and I do understand your point about problems with accessing some GP’s, respiratory problems should NOT normally need to be a reason to go to A&E
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
In your heartlands you should have a strong local presence to get your vote out. That frees you to send your 'Big Beasts' to areas that presence is lacking.
Sending your generals to do the work of the infantry means you are simply trying to stop your front collapsing.
Example from the other side: Im campaigning for Leave in Hull / E Yorks we dont need Boris or anyone here - we the infantry are doing all the work, are advancing pretty much unopposed while mopping up pockets of Remain. We have no need for reinforcements.
Well I have not seen Boris in Islington or Scotland as yet but he has been in the West Country a lot, Kipper heartland, so am not sure that follows
Eastern England is Kipper heartland. West Country used to be Lib Dem heartland swung to the Tories and seems the perfect place for Boris to pick up votes for Leave.
North East 16.7 Eastern 16.2 Yorks+Hum 16.0 E Mids 15.8 W Mids 15.7 South East 14.7 North West 13.6 459 100 votes South West 13.6 384 500 votes London 8.1
Seems Leave are very confident if Boris is campaigning in UKIPs joint second worse region..
The 2015 elections simply saw eurosceptic voters voting Tory to get rid of the Europhile LDs, 2014 is a far more accurate assessment of the result and the UKIP total in the South West was still 0.7% above their UK wide total even allowing for tactical Tory voting (I notice you omitted Scotland!)
Scotland and N Ireland are remain strongholds which was my original point. If remain is campaigning there then they are losing. Likewise if Leave was spending time in Lincs and Essex they would be losing too.
You counted that Boris was in the SW 'kipper heartland.' I've just shown you that in 2015, with a similar turnout to what we can expect in the EU ref, it was actually UKIPs 2nd worse area so hardly 'kipper heartland.'
Perhaps 'potential Leave heartland' summarises the SW better. Which is why it makes sense for Boris to be there if Leave think they are winning.
Conversely 'potential remain heartland' is where a confident remain campaign would be sending Osbourne / Blair / Major. That they are not makes it logical to assume they think they are losing.
I'm surprised the LEAVE "PPB" concentrated 100% on the NHS, instead of mentioning other ways in which the much disputed £350 million per week figure might be spent. I though the split screen style was clumsy and unconvincing. On the plus side, it's clever to focus on the £350m per week figure to which people can relate (or if they can't, they are told that this equates to one general hospital every week) rather than the equivalent £18.2 billion figure which is meaningless to most people. It was also interesting that it was clearly targeted at the WWC middle aged (daughter) and elderly (mother).
I'm surprised the LEAVE "PPB" concentrated 100% on the NHS, instead of mentioning other ways in which the much disputed £350 million per week figure might be spent. I though the split screen style was clumsy and unconvincing. On the plus side, it's clever to focus on the £350m per week figure to which people can relate (or if they can't, they are told that this equates to one general hospital every week) rather than the equivalent £18.2 billion figure which is meaningless to most people. It was also interesting that it was clearly targeted at the WWC middle aged (daughter) and elderly (mother).
Leave are targeting WC areas for sure. Am spending the weekend canvassing some of the most WC areas of Hull. Hopefully that will give a better idea if its working or not.
A completely off topic question for the PB brains trust. Was the legal age for buying cigarettes or tobacco ever lower than 16? Wikipedia doesn't seem to offer any info on this.
A completely off topic question for the PB brains trust. Was the legal age for buying cigarettes or tobacco ever lower than 16? Wikipedia doesn't seem to offer any info on this.
There was probably a time when there wasn't any limit.
'if you want to know who's winning look at where they are campaigning.'
Remains efforts today in N Ireland and Scotland would be like a Tory focus in Surrey or Labour in Liverpool during a GE. Remain think they are losing. Thats todays big story.
Precisely.
NI, Canary Wharf, Scotland.
Look where Remain are campaigning and what they are doing, not what they are saying.
I would expect Leave to be campaigning in English and Welsh rural areas and market towns now above all too, this is not a FPTP election won by a few suburban marginals in the Midlands and Essex, it is a referendum decided by the winner of the popular vote so maximising turnout in your heartlands is key
In your heartlands you should have a strong local presence to get your vote out. That frees you to send your 'Big Beasts' to areas that presence is lacking.
Sending your generals to do the work of the infantry means you are simply trying to stop your front collapsing.
Example from the other side: Im campaigning for Leave in Hull / E Yorks we dont need Boris or anyone here - we the infantry are doing all the work, are advancing pretty much unopposed while mopping up pockets of Remain. We have no need for reinforcements.
Well I have not seen Boris in Islington or Scotland as yet but he has been in the West Country a lot, Kipper heartland, so am not sure that follows
Eastern England is Kipper heartland. West Country used to be Lib Dem heartland swung to the Tories and seems the perfect place for Boris to pick up votes for Leave.
In the 2014 Euro elections UKIP won 32% in ths
In 2015 GE the SW was UKIPs 2nd worse region:
2015 English regions % voting UKIP
North East 16.7 Eastern 16.2 Yorks+Hum 16.0 E Mids 15.8 W Mids 15.7 South East 14.7 North West 13.6 459 100 votes South West 13.6 384 500 votes London 8.1
Seems Leave are very confident if Boris is campaigning in UKIPs joint second worse region..
The 2015
Scotland and N Ireland are remain strongholds which was my original point. If remain is campaigning there then they are losing. Likewise if Leave was spending time in Lincs and Essex they would be losing too.
You counted that Boris was in the SW 'kipper heartland.' I've just shown you that in 2015, with a similar turnout to what we can expect in the EU ref, it was actually UKIPs 2nd worse area so hardly 'kipper heartland.'
Perhaps 'potential Leave heartland' summarises the SW better. Which is why it makes sense for Boris to be there if Leave think they are winning.
Conversely 'potential remain heartland' is where a confident remain campaign would be sending Osbourne / Blair / Major. That they are not makes it logical to assume they think they are losing.
Leave could win the South West and still lose UK wide by several percentage points, Leave has to win there, if Boris was campaigning in the NW which is a real swing region then you may have more of a point.
As I have just showed you in 2014 UKIP won 5% more in the SW than they got nationally and even in 2015 despite eurosceptics tactically voting for the Tories UKIP still got 0.7% more in the SouthWest than they did nationally so it is fair to say it clearly leans Leave
A completely off topic question for the PB brains trust. Was the legal age for buying cigarettes or tobacco ever lower than 16? Wikipedia doesn't seem to offer any info on this.
My Dad used to send me to the local shops to buy cigarettes for him at the age of 5! And they would sell them to me. (This would be early 1970s).
@John_M It's a newspaper article not a ministerial briefing. It's trying to explain to lay readers the risks.
The IFS have already given their detailed economic analysis. For their pains Vote Leave accused them of being in the pay of the EU.
Well, given that the front page of the report acknowledged that it was funded by the ESRC through the 'UK in a changing Europe', it's at least a point.
I think we'll have to disagree; it doesn't quantify the risks in any meaningful way, lay reader or not. It just asserts there are risks.
I don't have a particular issue with the IFS report per se. My concern is that modelling has an inglorious record (to save others trawling through the report, the forecasts for Britains GDP in 2030 range from -9.5% to +0.6% compared to noBrexit, ie the opportunity cost ranges from ~.75% p.a. to very slightly positive). If financial models were better, I'd have more confidence in them.
The intro tickled me where he basically says we all got the 2008 crash wrong, but we all agree now, so listen to us this time.
Paul Johnson has spent his whole career in the civil service, think-tanks, or academia, including several big papers during the New Labour years.
I'm not saying he's been bought, or paid for, but that does breed a certain kind of thinking. And the IFS, in particular, has a real hold over Government, despite reaching questionable conclusions in the past. For example, it has came out basically saying marriage doesn't matter a few years ago.
The Spectator was right in 2011:
"There is no great conspiracy here, but a simple truth: organisations which rely on tax money will always make the case for higher taxes. The ‘institutes’ funded by research grants (which means, usually, tax money) will always argue for more expensive meddling by the state. These groups dislike the idea that society will be better and stronger if people are given greater freedom, and allowed to keep more of their money. Freedom, to the institutes, is messy and chaotic. There must be projects, judged by complicated spreadsheets, with billions in taxpayers’ money behind them.
The most striking example is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It has tremendous influence over government life, and in the era where Gordon Brown was concealing basic facts from the people whose money he was spending, it was relied upon to give a clearer picture. But the sheer volume and quality of its reports gave it power over the government that is not, even now, understood. Its device for measuring poverty — to calculate how many millions were above and below a ‘poverty line’ — took over the entire debate. Instead of tackling poverty, Brown tried to manipulate the IFS spreadsheets, so those just beneath the poverty line could be nudged above it and described as being ‘lifted out of poverty’. Those affected would be amazed to find themselves so described."
Excellent article very well written. Shouldn't need to be said but does seem to be.
It has often been said that for evil to prosper all it takes is good men to do nothing. It may bit be pleasant but Hussein was truly evil and I am glad we belatedly did something. Though it would be better if the job had been finished in Gulf War I.
It is a huge piece of ahistorical guff. The idea that all of those things would have happened is ridiculous. Not least because the US would probably have gone in anyway.
So the only reason not invading Iraq would be alright is because Iraq may still have been invaded?
What pathetic moral ambiguity. Ought to be ashamed.
Wow, you're really touchy about this aren't you.
Since when does 'not least' become 'the only reason'.
If you want moral certainty, I suggest that international relations is not for you...
Yes I think it is truly vile to turn a blind eye to evil atrocities being commited across the globe and to suggest if only we stand back and do nothing then evil will abate. If that's your attitude then international relations is not for you either.
I'm no Blair fan but still respect him for standing up to the idiots in Stop The War and doing the right thing.
Are there really people who still think that launching an unprovoked attack on Iraq that resulted in millions of casualties and sowed the seeds for the germination of ISIS was doing the right thing?
It would appear so.
I supported the initial invasion - which I regret bitterly.
A completely off topic question for the PB brains trust. Was the legal age for buying cigarettes or tobacco ever lower than 16? Wikipedia doesn't seem to offer any info on this.
There was probably a time when there wasn't any limit.
I was sent to the shop to buy my Dad's B&H at age six back in the 60s .
I'm surprised the LEAVE "PPB" concentrated 100% on the NHS, instead of mentioning other ways in which the much disputed £350 million per week figure might be spent. I though the split screen style was clumsy and unconvincing. On the plus side, it's clever to focus on the £350m per week figure to which people can relate (or if they can't, they are told that this equates to one general hospital every week) rather than the equivalent £18.2 billion figure which is meaningless to most people. It was also interesting that it was clearly targeted at the WWC middle aged (daughter) and elderly (mother).
I quite liked it.
For once, I actually agreed with Roge.
It was ok, and marginally better than the dull dull dull Remain one.
A completely off topic question for the PB brains trust. Was the legal age for buying cigarettes or tobacco ever lower than 16? Wikipedia doesn't seem to offer any info on this.
My Dad used to send me to the local shops to buy cigarettes for him at the age of 5! And they would sell them to me. (This would be early 1970s).
And I used to get sent to the village shop to buy an ounce of Digger tobacco (and spend the change on sweets) on a regular basis when I was about 6 or 7 years old. Nobody thought anything of selling it to me. Also early 70s.
Edit: Not sure if it was illegal or not, but nobody seemed bothered.
Comments
I would never be able to get away with a ministerial briefing where I simply said "I'm palpably afraid that something really quite grim could happen". I'd quite rightly be eaten alive.
I'd hoped they'd learned their lesson three months ago - alas not. I saw a bit of Blair/Major speeches and had to switch it off. It's all the wrong politics.
Ninety hours seems a bit short for playing a new game from start to finish, a bit more like scratching the surface. There again, each to his own and some people do like to follow the main story to the exclusion of lots of side quests, buggering about exploring and generally killing virtual things for the sheer joy of it. I also appreciate that a great many gamers are proper adults with families, jobs and so forth. Rather fewer of us are able to sit in our three monitor equipped man caves and enjoy a second teenage (well at least as far as gaming is concerned, don't have all the spots and angst about girls this time around)
What economists actually said about the UK and Euro (Daily Express, 23 February, 1999)
"The National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts that 40,000 City jobs will disappear over the next 10 years if Britain follows an isolationist course…
Economist Garry Young said: “By 2010 the output of the City could be 20 per cent lower than now.”
Maybe Paul was too young to remember?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results
It's not a bad article and does get to the nub of it - that we are trading off one set of things against another. How important those trade offs are will vary from person to person.
The IFS have already given their detailed economic analysis. For their pains Vote Leave accused them of being in the pay of the EU.
It has often been said that for evil to prosper all it takes is good men to do nothing. It may bit be pleasant but Hussein was truly evil and I am glad we belatedly did something. Though it would be better if the job had been finished in Gulf War I.
Might just be 50% + 1 worth...
It is disgraceful.
Not quite as bad as if leave were to send Nick Griffin to Brixton with IDS to tell them to vote Leave but not far off it This is another huge error of Judgement by Remain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_MzHFiu-6Y
I think ignore the weight of serious people in business who back Leave as just crackpots is a disservice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiJ-lxa2pk4
What pathetic moral ambiguity. Ought to be ashamed.
E Midlands 32%
East 34%
London 16%
North East 29%
North West 27%
South East 32%
South West 32%
West Midlands 31%
Yorkshire and Humber 31%
Scotland 10%
Wales 27%
So if the result was 50-50 UK wide you would expect the East and West Midlands, the East, the North East, the South and South West and Yorkshire to vote Leave, Scotland and London to vote Remain with Wales and the North West being the key swing regions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results
After the fantastic efforts of the two men over the years in securing peace in NI, they turn up together to lob a (metaphorical, thankfully) bomb into the place and use up a lot of hard earned goodwill. Don't understand it, really don't.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Brexit reduced growth by 0.8% in 2017, as the National Institute predicts, 3% by 2020, as the IFS predicts, or 7% by 2030 as the Treasury predicts, I would consider such risks as being worth running, in return for enhanced self-government.
We'd still be getting richer, just not quite so fast.
I think we'll have to disagree; it doesn't quantify the risks in any meaningful way, lay reader or not. It just asserts there are risks.
I don't have a particular issue with the IFS report per se. My concern is that modelling has an inglorious record (to save others trawling through the report, the forecasts for Britains GDP in 2030 range from -9.5% to +0.6% compared to noBrexit, ie the opportunity cost ranges from ~.75% p.a. to very slightly positive). If financial models were better, I'd have more confidence in them.
Better journos than me might dig into how much Brexit would affect the profitability of Sir John Major's friends at Carlyle
Given NI is one of REMAIN'S strongest areas why have they risked PR a disaster? Surely it's so strong they can only lose voters to LEAVE?
2015 English regions % voting UKIP
North East 16.7
Eastern 16.2
Yorks+Hum 16.0
E Mids 15.8
W Mids 15.7
South East 14.7
North West 13.6 459 100 votes
South West 13.6 384 500 votes
London 8.1
From Parliamentary Briefings http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7186
Seems Leave are very confident if Boris is campaigning in UKIPs joint second worse region..
Any misapprehension probably stems from looking at the polls, mad fools that we are.
'Do you think that Scottish independence, if it were to
happen, would be good or bad for the rest of the
United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland and
Wales?
Eng/Wales
TOTAL GOOD 19%
TOTAL BAD 49%'
http://tinyurl.com/z7feapa
I shall be delivering leaflets for Labour Leave next week.
Is our existing trade deal with 7% of the world useless because trade deals are useless?
Or are trade deals useful but you're willing to sacrifice trade with 93% of the world to keep the 7% happy?
As someone posted earlier, there are going to be a lot of VERY disappointed people if the result is Leave.
Leave and we can cut the CAP, cut tariffs. Or are you ignoring the 93% of the world outside the EU we largely apply tariffs to again?
Paul Johnson has spent his whole career in the civil service, think-tanks, or academia, including several big papers during the New Labour years.
I'm not saying he's been bought, or paid for, but that does breed a certain kind of thinking. And the IFS, in particular, has a real hold over Government, despite reaching questionable conclusions in the past. For example, it has came out basically saying marriage doesn't matter a few years ago.
The Spectator was right in 2011:
"There is no great conspiracy here, but a simple truth: organisations which rely on tax money will always make the case for higher taxes. The ‘institutes’ funded by research grants
(which means, usually, tax money) will always argue for more expensive meddling by the state. These groups dislike the idea that society will be better and stronger if people are given greater freedom, and allowed to keep more of their money. Freedom, to the institutes, is messy and chaotic. There must be projects, judged by complicated spreadsheets, with billions in taxpayers’ money behind them.
The most striking example is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It has tremendous influence over government life, and in the era where Gordon Brown was concealing basic facts from the people whose money he was spending, it was relied upon to give a clearer picture. But the sheer volume and quality of its reports gave it power over the government that is not, even now, understood. Its device for measuring poverty — to calculate how many millions were above and below a ‘poverty line’ — took over the entire debate. Instead of tackling poverty, Brown tried to manipulate the IFS spreadsheets, so those just beneath the poverty line could be nudged above it and described as being ‘lifted out of poverty’. Those affected would be amazed to find themselves so described."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2011/07/leading-article-the-power-of-ideas/
Since when does 'not least' become 'the only reason'.
If you want moral certainty, I suggest that international relations is not for you...
If people only realised that 0.3% of child benefit claims were for children living elsewhere in the EU, wouldn't they also realise that it is a total sham for Cameron to claim that the volume of migration from the EU will be significantly reduced by his having negotiated for the UK a right to cease these payments (for a limited period)? If the figure the was 14% then there would be some basis for Cameron's claim.
Hardly a surprise, although the timing might be.
The endorsement was by video, filmed on Tuesday.
He's campaigning with Hillary next week in Green Bay WI - Title Town.
I'm no Blair fan but still respect him for standing up to the idiots in Stop The War and doing the right thing.
Copy of John Major's letter to Jacques Santer reproduced below. And yet he still campaigns to Remain.
Letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His Excellency
Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:
"ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act.
This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118A.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied. (of course it never has been, it has simply become even worse, witness hospital patienrs now dying because of working time rules applied to doctors Idris, 22 Oct 09)
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118A cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118A which properly belong under the other Members States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Heads of State or Governments of European Union Member States.
Yours sincerely,
John Major"
;
Kelvin Hopkins (who is immensely popular locally) probably carries a lot of Labour voters into the Leave camp. Strange times.
You counted that Boris was in the SW 'kipper heartland.' I've just shown you that in 2015, with a similar turnout to what we can expect in the EU ref, it was actually UKIPs 2nd worse area so hardly 'kipper heartland.'
Perhaps 'potential Leave heartland' summarises the SW better. Which is why it makes sense for Boris to be there if Leave think they are winning.
Conversely 'potential remain heartland' is where a confident remain campaign would be sending Osbourne / Blair / Major. That they are not makes it logical to assume they think they are losing.
I though the split screen style was clumsy and unconvincing.
On the plus side, it's clever to focus on the £350m per week figure to which people can relate (or if they can't, they are told that this equates to one general hospital every week) rather than the equivalent £18.2 billion figure which is meaningless to most people.
It was also interesting that it was clearly targeted at the WWC middle aged (daughter) and elderly (mother).
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/eu-referendum-remain-lead-one/
I’m not a doctor, I’m a pharmacist with a lot of experience in supplying health care. Properly managed, and I do understand your point about problems with accessing some GP’s, respiratory problems should NOT normally need to be a reason to go to A&E
Was the legal age for buying cigarettes or tobacco ever lower than 16?
Wikipedia doesn't seem to offer any info on this.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/740977368815284224
As I have just showed you in 2014 UKIP won 5% more in the SW than they got nationally and even in 2015 despite eurosceptics tactically voting for the Tories UKIP still got 0.7% more in the SouthWest than they did nationally so it is fair to say it clearly leans Leave
Just put £20 on Andrea Leadsom as next Tory leader at 40/1 with Paddy Power.
(helped by Mike Smithson, I might add)
I supported the initial invasion - which I regret bitterly.
It was ok, and marginally better than the dull dull dull Remain one.
Edit: Not sure if it was illegal or not, but nobody seemed bothered.