That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
I don't think UKIP became eligible when Carswell & Reckless defected to them in 2014, so I think the votes are 'owned' for Short money purposes by the parties who won them at the time of the last GE.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with that - if the seat is owned by the MP rather than the party, then the electors should be owned by the MP rather than the party.
There does appear to be a slight disconnect between the allocation of short money to opposition parties and the principle that MPs are solely the elected representatives of the constituency they stood in. Not sure how long the party system has worked in this fashion, but that’s where we are now. – Short money (SM) is based on party results at the preceding general election, should there be a breakaway of MPs from Labour and the formation of a new party, I don’t think they would or should be entitled to anything in the way of SM.
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Those maps of Scotland are rubbish. Of the four, three are practically the same thing (seats the SNP won).
The fourth is the EU referendum, which the map reveals had a total of zero voters supporting Leave. Except, that's not the case, and all votes are worth the same. There's no FPTP. Yes, Scotland voted clearly to Remain, but millions of Scots did vote to Leave, a fact staggering by its total omission from the map.
Indeed. I happen to think we should have moved to some sort of FederalUK situation awhile ago (though I was opposed previously, alas) as the best way of keeping somewhat distinct nations together (the differences exist on some big issues, but are massively overplayed by people with a vested interest in making us seem different - the point about leave voters in Scotland reflects that), but those maps are more than a little misleading.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with that - if the seat is owned by the MP rather than the party, then the electors should be owned by the MP rather than the party.
Yes, it is rather anomalous if my interpretation is correct.
If there isn't any short money then SDP2 is going to be tough.
Of course @ScottP is right that the Commons could decide to change the rules. The politics of that would be interesting!
Early days, still don't even know what sort of Brexit we are getting yet!
Yes. There will be some hits, obviously, but we don't know yet how big it will be, and we certainly don't know yet how well the gains will go. Too soon to write us off, but too soon to declare it'll be fine.
Those maps of Scotland are rubbish. Of the four, three are practically the same thing (seats the SNP won).
The fourth is the EU referendum, which the map reveals had a total of zero voters supporting Leave. Except, that's not the case, and all votes are worth the same. There's no FPTP. Yes, Scotland voted clearly to Remain, but millions of Scots did vote to Leave, a fact staggering by its total omission from the map.
The SNP are delighted that the EU referendum was held, that the UK voted to Leave and that Scotland voted to Remain.
It gives them a chance to directly attack some of the few reserved powers still left at Westminster and, potentially, a window for a second referendum that they might win.
Everything to do with the SNP and nationalists has to be seen through the prism that undermining the UK and achieving full Scottish independence is all they care about.
It is in their interests to create as much English/Scottish division as possible.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with that - if the seat is owned by the MP rather than the party, then the electors should be owned by the MP rather than the party.
Yes, it is rather anomalous if my interpretation is correct.
If there isn't any short money then SDP2 is going to be tough.
Of course @ScottP is right that the Commons could decide to change the rules. The politics of that would be interesting!
Why would the Conservatives change something that splits the left and make it easier for the sane left to get a foothold in the HoC?
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with that - if the seat is owned by the MP rather than the party, then the electors should be owned by the MP rather than the party.
Yes, it is rather anomalous if my interpretation is correct.
If there isn't any short money then SDP2 is going to be tough.
SDP2 is going to be impossible without any members however much Short money it has.
This PMI is comparing peak Bremain optimism with trough Brexit pessimism. Clearly there will be a hit from general uncertainty, but this is a measure of expectations, not outcomes. Let's see what post Theresonation, sky didn't fall in, oh what a lovely heatwave August PMIs say.
Those maps of Scotland are rubbish. Of the four, three are practically the same thing (seats the SNP won).
The fourth is the EU referendum, which the map reveals had a total of zero voters supporting Leave. Except, that's not the case, and all votes are worth the same. There's no FPTP. Yes, Scotland voted clearly to Remain, but millions of Scots did vote to Leave, a fact staggering by its total omission from the map.
The SNP are delighted that the EU referendum was held, that the UK voted to Leave and that Scotland voted to Remain.
It gives them a chance to directly attack some of the few reserved powers still left at Westminster and, potentially, a window for a second referendum that they might win.
Everything to do with the SNP and nationalists has to be seen through the prism that undermining the UK and achieving full Scottish independence is all they care about.
It is in their interests to create as much English/Scottish division as possible.
Some of the powers that the SNP get with Brexit such as fishing, they would hand back to the EU.
Those maps of Scotland are rubbish. Of the four, three are practically the same thing (seats the SNP won).
The fourth is the EU referendum, which the map reveals had a total of zero voters supporting Leave. Except, that's not the case, and all votes are worth the same. There's no FPTP. Yes, Scotland voted clearly to Remain, but millions of Scots did vote to Leave, a fact staggering by its total omission from the map.
The SNP are delighted that the EU referendum was held, that the UK voted to Leave and that Scotland voted to Remain.
It gives them a chance to directly attack some of the few reserved powers still left at Westminster and, potentially, a window for a second referendum that they might win.
Everything to do with the SNP and nationalists has to be seen through the prism that undermining the UK and achieving full Scottish independence is all they care about.
It is in their interests to create as much English/Scottish division as possible.
Some of the powers that the SNP get with Brexit such as fishing, they would hand back to the EU.
A problem for another day - the first priority is getting out of the UK, problems applying for EU membership or restrictions within are for later.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Is the IMF statement about UK, French and German growth a forecast or an actual?
IMF forecasts have been previously been shown to be politically biased - and badly wrong.
Those maps of Scotland are rubbish. Of the four, three are practically the same thing (seats the SNP won).
The fourth is the EU referendum, which the map reveals had a total of zero voters supporting Leave. Except, that's not the case, and all votes are worth the same. There's no FPTP. Yes, Scotland voted clearly to Remain, but millions of Scots did vote to Leave, a fact staggering by its total omission from the map.
The SNP are delighted that the EU referendum was held, that the UK voted to Leave and that Scotland voted to Remain.
It gives them a chance to directly attack some of the few reserved powers still left at Westminster and, potentially, a window for a second referendum that they might win.
Everything to do with the SNP and nationalists has to be seen through the prism that undermining the UK and achieving full Scottish independence is all they care about.
It is in their interests to create as much English/Scottish division as possible.
Some of the powers that the SNP get with Brexit such as fishing, they would hand back to the EU.
Yes, I've said before that a post Brexit Britain will be able to make a very attractive offer to Scotland.
This PMI is comparing peak Bremain optimism with trough Brexit pessimism. Clearly there will be a hit from general uncertainty, but this is a measure of expectations, not outcomes. Let's see what post Theresonation, sky didn't fall in, oh what a lovely heatwave August PMIs say.
The trend downward long preceeded the Brexit referendum, though does look rather gloomy. There is likely to be a phoney war for a bit longer before we start to see a real effect. The impact on the nations finances in the autumn statement will be the one to watch.
At least we will have all that extra lovely lolly in the NHS though.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Is the IMF statement about UK, French and German growth a forecast or an actual?
IMF forecasts have been previously been shown to be politically biased - and badly wrong.
The PMIs by Markit have been rather accurate though.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Is the IMF statement about UK, French and German growth a forecast or an actual?
IMF forecasts have been previously been shown to be politically biased - and badly wrong.
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
Er, no - it says right at the end about seeking 'closest achievable' association with EU research programmes and things in that vein.
So the translation is 'We should have voted Remain, so for the love of God for as light a Brexit as you can.
They would be delighted if the Government ignored the result.
The undertones in that message are crystal clear.
I'm sure they would be delighted, that doesn't mean it doesn't mean what it says, however. Lots of people would be delighted if the government ignored the result, they can still be sincere when pleading for the least Brexit heavy Brexit that can be achieved.
Some things about Brexit are not as bad as expected: the fall in the pound, businesses reaffirming their commitment to the UK, and the small fall in the FTSE than expected.
Others are much better than expected: FTSE 100 reaching an 11 month high, the huge interest in trade deals and political stability inside 3 weeks
Other things are in line, or slightly worse, than expected: the opportunism of the SNP, and the PMI figures
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Is the IMF statement about UK, French and German growth a forecast or an actual?
IMF forecasts have been previously been shown to be politically biased - and badly wrong.
The PMIs by Markit have been rather accurate though.
The full survey figures are, this is the first in the series for preliminary flash PMIs for the UK, there's no telling how accurate they will be.
I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
Britain's population is less than 6% of China's, so producing 6% of China's output is nothing to be proud of, or annoyed at China for.
Or do you really mean this thing about large countries? I mean, if Scotland left the UK, would it be OK for them to start producing loads more CO2 per head than England, and loads more than they did when they were part of the UK?
F1/spreads: just idly checking the spreads (want to do so before, if, I dip my toe in). Interesting that they're suspended already. They seem a bit quick on that front. Something to consider, although my intention would likely be 1-3 bets early on and only making an intra-season bet (perhaps excepting after the first race) if value screams for attention.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Is the IMF statement about UK, French and German growth a forecast or an actual?
IMF forecasts have been previously been shown to be politically biased - and badly wrong.
The PMIs by Markit have been rather accurate though.
The full survey figures are, this is the first in the series for preliminary flash PMIs for the UK, there's no telling how accurate they will be.
Isn't it rather irresponsible to roll out a new measurement at a time like this?
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
Er, no - it says right at the end about seeking 'closest achievable' association with EU research programmes and things in that vein.
So the translation is 'We should have voted Remain, so for the love of God for as light a Brexit as you can.
They would be delighted if the Government ignored the result.
The undertones in that message are crystal clear.
I'm sure they would be delighted, that doesn't mean it doesn't mean what it says, however. Lots of people would be delighted if the government ignored the result, they can still be sincere when pleading for the least Brexit heavy Brexit that can be achieved.
They bascially want the Government to stay in the EU in all but name.
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
What a very strange comment.
Did a Leave vote mean reducing funding and support for our world class R&D and innovation base? Do you consider it unreasonable for those involved in this very important work to suggest ways in which its success can be safeguarded? I didn't have you down as a nihilist.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with that - if the seat is owned by the MP rather than the party, then the electors should be owned by the MP rather than the party.
Yes, it is rather anomalous if my interpretation is correct.
If there isn't any short money then SDP2 is going to be tough.
Of course @ScottP is right that the Commons could decide to change the rules. The politics of that would be interesting!
Why would the Conservatives change something that splits the left and make it easier for the sane left to get a foothold in the HoC?
Or perhaps more pertinently, why would they want to change the rules and risk making it easier for a future Party being formed and splitting away from the main Conservative Party?
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
Er, no - it says right at the end about seeking 'closest achievable' association with EU research programmes and things in that vein.
So the translation is 'We should have voted Remain, so for the love of God for as light a Brexit as you can.
They would be delighted if the Government ignored the result.
The undertones in that message are crystal clear.
I'm sure they would be delighted, that doesn't mean it doesn't mean what it says, however. Lots of people would be delighted if the government ignored the result, they can still be sincere when pleading for the least Brexit heavy Brexit that can be achieved.
They bascially want the Government to stay in the EU in all but name.
No they don't. They want the government to secure the best possible outcome for research and innovation institutions in the UK.
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
What a very strange comment.
Did a Leave vote mean reducing funding and support for our world class R&D and innovation base? Do you consider it unreasonable for those involved in this very important work to suggest ways in which its success can be safeguarded? I didn't have you down as a nihilist.
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
Er, no - it says right at the end about seeking 'closest achievable' association with EU research programmes and things in that vein.
So the translation is 'We should have voted Remain, so for the love of God for as light a Brexit as you can.
They would be delighted if the Government ignored the result.
The undertones in that message are crystal clear.
I'm sure they would be delighted, that doesn't mean it doesn't mean what it says, however. Lots of people would be delighted if the government ignored the result, they can still be sincere when pleading for the least Brexit heavy Brexit that can be achieved.
They bascially want the Government to stay in the EU in all but name.
No they don't. They want the government to secure the best possible outcome for research and innovation institutions in the UK.
Morning all. The PMI figure are dire, as expected. Of course, runnymede is right that this is a measure of sentiment, and we'll have to wait to see how actual economic activity is affected over the last few months, but so far this is playing out exactly as predicted by most economists.
One thing which is a slight surprise, though, is that the Eurozone figures look quite good. I'd have expected business confidence in the Eurozone to take a bigger hit from the referendum result, perhaps one comparable with that in the UK.
The UK still has higher grow than France and Germany in the latest figures
Eh?
Have you looked at the PMIs?
PMIs may be down and the UK no longer the fastest growing economy in the G8 but the UK still has slightly higher overall growth than France and Germany according to the IMF
Is the IMF statement about UK, French and German growth a forecast or an actual?
IMF forecasts have been previously been shown to be politically biased - and badly wrong.
The PMIs by Markit have been rather accurate though.
Not always. They have falsely signalled significant downturns on a couple of occasions in the UK over the last 20 years.
In November 1998 the services PMI slumped from 52.1 to 47.8 and stayed in 'negative' territory for three more months. The manufacturing PMI in that period slipped to 41.6. There was no recession. Not even close.
In Jun-Oct 2001, the services PMI slipped from 52 to 46, the manufacturing PMI was 45.5 the month after. There was no recession. Not even close.
There is a misconception out there that these surveys measure 'real' flows of business. That is not necessarily the case at all. Some of the responses, even for the supposedly contemporaneous elements, are finger-the-air stuff.
The data and surveys will be noisy for a couple of months more I suspect. That will provide ample opportunity for Continuity Remainers and others to read into individual releases whatever they want to.
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
What a very strange comment.
Did a Leave vote mean reducing funding and support for our world class R&D and innovation base? Do you consider it unreasonable for those involved in this very important work to suggest ways in which its success can be safeguarded? I didn't have you down as a nihilist.
Don't be an idiot.
One of the reasons I supported Brexit is so we could invest in science and support our R&D better with more funding and better global links. I think Cummings was onto something here.
This is just a bunch of whinging academics lamenting the EU referendum result for political reasons.
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
What a very strange comment.
Did a Leave vote mean reducing funding and support for our world class R&D and innovation base? Do you consider it unreasonable for those involved in this very important work to suggest ways in which its success can be safeguarded? I didn't have you down as a nihilist.
Just ignore the uneducated.
But that would mean no-one ever reading your posts again.
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
What a very strange comment.
Did a Leave vote mean reducing funding and support for our world class R&D and innovation base? Do you consider it unreasonable for those involved in this very important work to suggest ways in which its success can be safeguarded? I didn't have you down as a nihilist.
I'm sure some of the UK taxpayers money that the EU takes and gives to research in the UK is spent wisely.
Equally I'm sure that a fair bit isn't and the UK government will do a better job of avoiding ladelling money to troughers promoting dubious research projects.
It therefore follows that said troughers will not be at all keen on Brexit and will following a referendum result for Brexit be squealing like stuck piglets.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
So that? I thought the party needed 150,000 votes at the last election which, by definition, they wouldn't have
Short Money is made available to all opposition parties in the House of Commons that secured either two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous General Election.
A strict reading still rules out SDP2 as their seats weren't "secured ... at the previous General Election". But there's probably room for interpretation.
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
The precedent is Carswell - ukip got short money when he joined despite not securing a seat at the election.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
So that? I thought the party needed 150,000 votes at the last election which, by definition, they wouldn't have
.
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
The precedent is Carswell - ukip got short money when he joined despite not securing a seat at the election.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
So that? I thought the party needed 150,000 votes at the last election which, by definition, they wouldn't have
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
The precedent is Carswell - ukip got short money when he joined despite not securing a seat at the election.
But I will think you will find the change with Carswell was that the party now had an MP. The votes used to calculate the short money were those previously cast for UKIP, not including those (Tory) votes for Carswell.
Short Money is about funding the officers of the political parties represented in Parliament, as organisations. The amount is assessed based on the level of support each got at the last GE. It would be a nonsense for votes to "follow" MPs around as they changed parties.
Just catching up with the overnight convention commentary.
Two phrases which should send fear into the heart of conservatives and what Clinton should run with -
1) 'Midnight in America', this is why Trump doesn't understand Brexit; the speech was wall to wall fear, just without any facts to, at least, back it up. This isn't 'project fear' it's 'project terror', and leaves a wide open space for the Democrats to exploit. He is the anti Reagan.
2) as per Kasparov and a twist on the original 'I preferred it in the original Russian'. This is the Trump/Putin bromance writ large. The US really wants to become a Kremlin satellite state? Again, the Democrats need to run big on this. There are numerous connections, from Manafort working for Yanukovich, to encouragement for Putin to destabilise the Baltic states and the Ukraine further.
Logically, he should be toast, but are the electorate being logical or mired in a word of 'feels
EDIT: re: VP, I imagine Warren will be announced as the likely secretary of state or some such, something with power rather than the cheerleader job of veep.
That all depends on if the votes are 'owned' by the parties the MP represents or by the MP his/herself. And none of the googling I've done resolves that either way.
I don't think UKIP became eligible when Carswell & Reckless defected to them in 2014, so I think the votes are 'owned' for Short money purposes by the parties who won them at the time of the last GE.
Are you sure? There was a big argument with carswell and farage over short money - but was before or after may last year? It seems so long ago...
Translation: we should have voted Remain, can you ignore the result please?
What a very strange comment.
Did a Leave vote mean reducing funding and support for our world class R&D and innovation base? Do you consider it unreasonable for those involved in this very important work to suggest ways in which its success can be safeguarded? I didn't have you down as a nihilist.
Don't be an idiot.
One of the reasons I supported Brexit is so we could invest in science and support our R&D better with more funding and better global links. I think Cummings was onto something here.
This is just a bunch of whinging academics lamenting the EU referendum result for political reasons.
Got it. They are saying things you don't want to hear :-)
I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
Britain's population is less than 6% of China's, so producing 6% of China's output is nothing to be proud of, or annoyed at China for.
Or do you really mean this thing about large countries? I mean, if Scotland left the UK, would it be OK for them to start producing loads more CO2 per head than England, and loads more than they did when they were part of the UK?
Wut? Bonkers post from start to finish. I thought we cared about the absolute amount of CO2 we're collectively dumping into the atmosphere, not some race of the most virtuous in terms of per capita emissions. Or do I have this wrong?
If you want to go down that route (which I think is fucking stupid) we still do well against our peers. Our per capita emissions are less than Japan, Germany, the USA and Canada, but worse than France, Italy or Spain.
In terms of Scotland, who cares? They're 5 million people.
Those maps of Scotland are rubbish. Of the four, three are practically the same thing (seats the SNP won).
The fourth is the EU referendum, which the map reveals had a total of zero voters supporting Leave. Except, that's not the case, and all votes are worth the same. There's no FPTP. Yes, Scotland voted clearly to Remain, but millions of Scots did vote to Leave, a fact staggering by its total omission from the map.
Millions (plural) of Scots voted to leave? This comes as something of a revelation. Can you point me to a source for this amazing development?
With every passing day I become moere convinced that we will not be leaving the European Union, events such as todays economic news, are and will provide the reason to put aside the only advisory referendum.
With every passing day I become moere convinced that we will not be leaving the European Union, events such as todays economic news, are and will provide the reason to put aside the only advisory referendum.
..... We will be leaving the EU. It all depends on how May can sell an alternative deal with free movement
Comments
And good afternnon all.
UK on the slide from about 2014 seems about right, decline accelerated rather than caused by Brexit.
It gives them a chance to directly attack some of the few reserved powers still left at Westminster and, potentially, a window for a second referendum that they might win.
Everything to do with the SNP and nationalists has to be seen through the prism that undermining the UK and achieving full Scottish independence is all they care about.
It is in their interests to create as much English/Scottish division as possible.
Let's see what post Theresonation, sky didn't fall in, oh what a lovely heatwave August PMIs say.
So the translation is 'We should have voted Remain, so for the love of God for as light a Brexit as you can.
IMF forecasts have been previously been shown to be politically biased - and badly wrong.
Glazing salesman - 'v.quiet in week after referendum, back to normal now'.
UK tourism set to gain as anticipated with 25% increase in bookings;: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/staycation-boost-to-uk-economy-as-millions-of-families-shun-fore/
At least we will have all that extra lovely lolly in the NHS though.
The undertones in that message are crystal clear.
"There's some raw work done at the baptismal font, Jeeves."
You bet.
Others are much better than expected: FTSE 100 reaching an 11 month high, the huge interest in trade deals and political stability inside 3 weeks
Other things are in line, or slightly worse, than expected: the opportunism of the SNP, and the PMI figures
Or do you really mean this thing about large countries? I mean, if Scotland left the UK, would it be OK for them to start producing loads more CO2 per head than England, and loads more than they did when they were part of the UK?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/surge-in-migrant-lorry-drops-overwhelms-border-officers-vgl0gnwbx
Did a Leave vote mean reducing funding and support for our world class R&D and innovation base? Do you consider it unreasonable for those involved in this very important work to suggest ways in which its success can be safeguarded? I didn't have you down as a nihilist.
I can remember when 'off the back of a lorry' meant stolen goods.
A more innocent age.
In November 1998 the services PMI slumped from 52.1 to 47.8 and stayed in 'negative' territory for three more months. The manufacturing PMI in that period slipped to 41.6. There was no recession. Not even close.
In Jun-Oct 2001, the services PMI slipped from 52 to 46, the manufacturing PMI was 45.5 the month after. There was no recession. Not even close.
There is a misconception out there that these surveys measure 'real' flows of business. That is not necessarily the case at all. Some of the responses, even for the supposedly contemporaneous elements, are finger-the-air stuff.
The data and surveys will be noisy for a couple of months more I suspect. That will provide ample opportunity for Continuity Remainers and others to read into individual releases whatever they want to.
One of the reasons I supported Brexit is so we could invest in science and support our R&D better with more funding and better global links. I think Cummings was onto something here.
This is just a bunch of whinging academics lamenting the EU referendum result for political reasons.
Equally I'm sure that a fair bit isn't and the UK government will do a better job of avoiding ladelling money to troughers promoting dubious research projects.
It therefore follows that said troughers will not be at all keen on Brexit and will following a referendum result for Brexit be squealing like stuck piglets.
Short Money is about funding the officers of the political parties represented in Parliament, as organisations. The amount is assessed based on the level of support each got at the last GE. It would be a nonsense for votes to "follow" MPs around as they changed parties.
Two phrases which should send fear into the heart of conservatives and what Clinton should run with -
1) 'Midnight in America', this is why Trump doesn't understand Brexit; the speech was wall to wall fear, just without any facts to, at least, back it up. This isn't 'project fear' it's 'project terror', and leaves a wide open space for the Democrats to exploit. He is the anti Reagan.
2) as per Kasparov and a twist on the original 'I preferred it in the original Russian'. This is the Trump/Putin bromance writ large. The US really wants to become a Kremlin satellite state? Again, the Democrats need to run big on this. There are numerous connections, from Manafort working for Yanukovich, to encouragement for Putin to destabilise the Baltic states and the Ukraine further.
Logically, he should be toast, but are the electorate being logical or mired in a word of 'feels
EDIT: re: VP, I imagine Warren will be announced as the likely secretary of state or some such, something with power rather than the cheerleader job of veep.
If you want to go down that route (which I think is fucking stupid) we still do well against our peers. Our per capita emissions are less than Japan, Germany, the USA and Canada, but worse than France, Italy or Spain.
In terms of Scotland, who cares? They're 5 million people.