Well, I'm done with the Olympics !! Had enough, don't care anymore.
I was enjoying luncheon at my favourite café when one of the customers turned up the volume for something called the Quadruple Men's Sculls (or Skulls perhaps, who cares ?). Anyway, four men in a boat.
The commentary begins (I'm not watching as I'm reading the RP looking for a bet on tonight's evening racing) and its patriotic fervour rapidly surges to new heights, the British rowers are Gods among men, their fitness unparalleled, their skills unmatched, they are surging to victory like modern Adonii, glory awaits...he's about to break into Henry V as they surge across the line...
Fifth.
Yes, fifth, beaten by the mighty Estonians along with the Germans, Australians and someone else.
Not once did I hear any of the other nations mentioned - instead, I'm forced to endure this jingoistic poo that I'm paying for out of my licence fee - yes, I'm the one who pays it.
What happened to the great commentators of old - Glendenning, Wolstenholme, Walker (before he went mad), Alliss (ditto), Laker, Arlott, Benaud, Motson and of course the greatest of them all, the Guv'nor, O'Sullivan ?
I know, most of them are dead.
There are fine horse racing commentators like Richard Hoiles, Simon Holt and John Hunt who would do a much better job than the numbskulls currently employed by the BBC. Instead, Hoiles ends up calling selling platers round Chelmsford when he should be calling the 100m final in Rio.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
I don't think it should be discounted. But should we back somebody whose strategy is to get people who don't vote to vote for him? I think that is a question that answers itself. As was pointed out to Jeremy Corbyn, it is at best an uncertain strategy. It can work sometimes - but Trump is no Obama.
I think a lot depends on how quickly Mrs May is able to reach the outline of a deal with our neighbours. (Something that will - ideally - happen before Article 50 is invoked.) A rapid announcement on the approximate terms of Brexit, a rapid return of confidence, and the Sterling could rise.
On the other hand, a long drawn period, where the terms of exit are unclear, and it is likely that Sterling could be under severe pressure. Could it go below EUR1? Or $1.15? Yes, probably. One would hope that would catalyse demand for UK assets - however, I suspect that this would be a case of weakness begets weakness. People bought UK assets because it was perceived as a safe haven - bolstering Sterling and allowing us to run a current acount deficit.
My base assumption is that Mrs May comes out and says "Brexit is process, not a one off event. We love our continental neighbours, and plan to maintain a full and open economy, and hope our trade links will continue to be strong. We are looking to maintain EEA membership while we discuss our longer term relationship with the bloc, and while we negotiate further trade deals abroad."
The YouGov is a carbon copy of the 2015 GE result while the TMS numbers are much worse for Labour (and better for the Conservatives, LDs and Greens).
Could Labour poll 26% in a GE ? Yes, though that's pretty near their base (the Conservative base is 30%) but would still net 175 seats (East Ham wouldn't be under any threat) or thereabouts.
The question for me is whether IF he can grab the leadership (and that remains a huge IF for me) Owen Smith will be the 2010s Kinnock. Kinnock gets a lot of flak but he set Labour on the road to 1997 (with a lot of help) and I suspect Smith's first aim will be to ensure a Corbyn-like figure can never win again (though the MPs in the PLP made it happen).
A renewed Corbyn mandate makes a schism of some sort more likely and I think a combined centre-left Party with the LDs could very well poll 15-20% now. The thing to emphasise about any new party and this was true with the SDP in 1981 was not the direct switch of activists and members from other parties but the fact that the majority of new members of the new party won't have been members of any other parties in the past.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
That is definitely the Trump strategy: the win the rust belt through the promise of protectionism, the dismanteling of NAFTA and exiting the WTO.
It may be a success. It may not be. The polls currently would suggest it will not, but as you say, they may be downweighting people.
Personal view: I think Trump's comments about Hispanics will end up losing him New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Colorado. They may even bring Arizona into play. He'll win a surprising number of rust belt states (not Minnesota, probably not Wisconsin, but Pennsylvania and New Jersey are possibles, Ohio is a probable). I don't think it'll quite be enough. But it's definitely the path Trump is trying to follow.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
@Stodge - I watched some heats in the swimming the other day and the commentators literally didn't mention the British girl who came last. They were more concerned with those at the sharp end which is the way it should be.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
That is definitely the Trump strategy: the win the rust belt through the promise of protectionism, the dismanteling of NAFTA and exiting the WTO.
It may be a success. It may not be. The polls currently would suggest it will not, but as you say, they may be downweighting people.
Personal view: I think Trump's comments about Hispanics will end up losing him New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Colorado. They may even bring Arizona into play. He'll win a surprising number of rust belt states (not Minnesota, probably not Wisconsin, but Pennsylvania and New Jersey are possibles, Ohio is a probable). I don't think it'll quite be enough. But it's definitely the path Trump is trying to follow.
What I like about the hypothetical rust belt strategy is that it does accord with what Trump has set out to do (whether or not he succeeds).
You can of course manufacture some route to winning other states, but he has said nothing designed to appeal to them.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
< That is definitely the Trump strategy: the win the rust belt through the promise of protectionism, the dismanteling of NAFTA and exiting the WTO.
It may be a success. It may not be. The polls currently would suggest it will not, but as you say, they may be downweighting people.
Personal view: I think Trump's comments about Hispanics will end up losing him New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Colorado. They may even bring Arizona into play. He'll win a surprising number of rust belt states (not Minnesota, probably not Wisconsin, but Pennsylvania and New Jersey are possibles, Ohio is a probable). I don't think it'll quite be enough. But it's definitely the path Trump is trying to follow.
I'm not one of those who sees the next election through the prism of the last. The US Presidential Election is not the EU Referendum and parallels between Trump and the LEAVE campaign are for me well wide of the mark.
I'll be honest - channelling my inner Eagles, I hope Trump gets a shellacking, pounded like a dockside hooker, I want him to lose the EV 531-7 (I'll give him Oklahoma).
He won't though some of the recent State polls "suggest" there are GOP states which are in play - I'll mention Arizona, Georgia and Mississippi for three with perhaps South Carolina for a fourth. IF the debates change nothing and Trump continues to drift 5-7 points (or more) behind HRC, I suspect we'll see the momentum fade out of his campaign (Fox News can only get you so far) and the priority will be to save GOP Senate and House seats.
I'm hopecasting and Trump fans will presumably tell me I'm wrong and millions of silent Americans (an oxymoron in my experience) will come out and vote for the Donald in November.
My base assumption is that Mrs May comes out and says "Brexit is process, not a one off event. We love our continental neighbours, and plan to maintain a full and open economy, and hope our trade links will continue to be strong. We are looking to maintain EEA membership while we discuss our longer term relationship with the bloc, and while we negotiate further trade deals abroad."
I think the assumption breaks down there. The minute she gives an indication of what kind of Brexit she thinks is appropriate she will start to shed support and we'll be on the path back to Tory splits and bastards. My base assumption is that she will use empty rhetoric for as long as is politically possible.
''Could it go below EUR1? Or $1.15? Yes, probably.''
That might be a big shock to an already moribund economic area...???
Then again, I have never understood the strength of the euro.
We're not that big an export destination for the Eurozone: strength against the US Dollar would be a much more serious issue for them.
If you look at each of the 19 Eurozone countries, I think we're a top three export destination for three - Malta, Ireland and one other. Simply, Sterling's weakness will be a pain for BMW, Mercedes, and VW, but won't cause that many issues for the rest of the bloc.
As an aside, the reason the Euro is so strong is because almost all of them run current account surpluses: in fact, off the top of my head, I'm trying to think who runs a deficit except France.
My base assumption is that Mrs May comes out and says "Brexit is process, not a one off event. We love our continental neighbours, and plan to maintain a full and open economy, and hope our trade links will continue to be strong. We are looking to maintain EEA membership while we discuss our longer term relationship with the bloc, and while we negotiate further trade deals abroad."
I think the assumption breaks down there. The minute she gives an indication of what kind of Brexit she thinks is appropriate she will start to shed support and we'll be on the path back to Tory splits and bastards. My base assumption is that she will use empty rhetoric for as long as is politically possible.
Agreed. A myth of May's toughness has developed, and it may prove true (no pun intended) but there's no evidence for that as PM yet, she has not had to take on her backbenchers yet but no matter what she chooses she will have take on some, and it becomes a question of which fight does she think she will win or which fight she feels like having.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
It's a strong point worth making. Maybe things are different now - maybe - but no matter how much they see the crowds and hear the enthusiasm, the Corbynite gatherings need to be reminded that such things do not necessarily mean they are popular or on the winning path.
If they do not mind that, or choose to discount it, well, it will be on them (and if they are right about their own success, much bragging will be earned).
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I'll bite: Because it will help cure us of our Eurosceptic virus.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I don't. But I would be nervous about putting much on Hillary because it smells like a EU Ref re-run with Trump getting a significant boost from previous non-voters, and the polls are not far enough apart to discount it.
I am dubious about how protectionist the USA will be anyway unless there is a massive Trump landslide, the limits of executive power might get tested quite rapidly against a pro-business, or at least pro-profit, congress. Trump scraping over the line by a fraction of a percent won't have the mandate to carry congress with him, a Trump landslide of 60%+ might, but is vanishingly unlikely.
Personal view: I think Trump's comments about Hispanics will end up losing him New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Colorado. They may even bring Arizona into play. He'll win a surprising number of rust belt states (not Minnesota, probably not Wisconsin, but Pennsylvania and New Jersey are possibles, Ohio is a probable). I don't think it'll quite be enough. But it's definitely the path Trump is trying to follow.
Trump still loses 270/268 in your scenario even if NH goes Donald.
However NJ (Av C +11.7) and PA (AV C +9.2) for Trump is highly unlikely.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I'll bite: Because it will help cure us of our Eurosceptic virus.
I doubt it. Should it happen, and the EU start getting large bills for services rendered from the White house, the EU is going to be in the crapper, they are going to either have to cough up, or dramatically increase defense and intelligence budgets all around.
A couple of interesting methodological notes here – looking at TNS’s tables, it looks like they are including the names of the party leaders in their voting intention question (just the GB leaders in the English question, but also the Scottish and Welsh leaders in their respective areas). Based on the tables, they are also asking preferred party on the economy and preferred leader before asking voting intention.
Me: I believe this is a similar methodology to how the Crosby-Textor polling for the Tories at GE2015 was conducted. That polling was nearly spot on, and predicted a Tory majority of around 6
I am simply pointing out that being 7% adrift 15 months into a Parliament has plenty of precedents - it was also true of the Tories in the 2001 Parliament who went on to lose in May 2005 by a mere 3%.
I think if the Conservatives have a result comparable to Labour's result in 2005 at any time between now and 2020 Theresa May will be a very happy woman.
Well - a 3% Tory lead in the popular vote would almost certainly mean we were looking at a Hung Parliament! Perhaps she would be happy with that.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I'll bite: Because it will help cure us of our Eurosceptic virus.
If the US turned protectionist, and we went WTO with the EU, the UK economy would be absolutely hammered.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I'll bite: Because it will help cure us of our Eurosceptic virus.
If the US turned protectionist, and we went WTO with the EU, the UK economy would be absolutely hammered.
Which is why we'd need to rapidly rethink the idea of Brexit.
If Trump wins, triggering Article 50 would be insane.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I don't. But I would be nervous about putting much on Hillary because it smells like a EU Ref re-run with Trump getting a significant boost from previous non-voters, and the polls are not far enough apart to discount it.
I am dubious about how protectionist the USA will be anyway unless there is a massive Trump landslide, the limits of executive power might get tested quite rapidly against a pro-business, or at least pro-profit, congress. Trump scraping over the line by a fraction of a percent won't have the mandate to carry congress with him, a Trump landslide of 60%+ might, but is vanishingly unlikely.
Ultimately, though, you are rooting for Donald Trump because you want right wing insurgents to win.
That colours your entire thought process, and leads to you rationalising other things. In this case, you are forced to come to the conclusion that he (and congress) are pro-free trade, when the reality is that they are anything but. The one good thing about the Obama Presidency, IMHO, is that he has resolutely supported free trade, and led the US towards the TPP and the TTIP. Donald Trump, over many decades, has been anti-free trade.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I don't. But I would be nervous about putting much on Hillary because it smells like a EU Ref re-run with Trump getting a significant boost from previous non-voters, and the polls are not far enough apart to discount it.
I am dubious about how protectionist the USA will be anyway unless there is a massive Trump landslide, the limits of executive power might get tested quite rapidly against a pro-business, or at least pro-profit, congress. Trump scraping over the line by a fraction of a percent won't have the mandate to carry congress with him, a Trump landslide of 60%+ might, but is vanishingly unlikely.
I think the USA is going to be partly protectionist when Trump wins - there will be open trading 1st World: 1st World (Where USA jobs are not really at risk) and much more protectionist in 1st World: 3rd World - where wages are much lower.
Hasn't he already promised/ threatened a re-allocation task if money offshore isn't brought back into the USA within a certain time period? (The Clinton News Network et all glossed over his economic message as I think he sneezed half-way through it.)
My base assumption is that Mrs May comes out and says "Brexit is process, not a one off event. We love our continental neighbours, and plan to maintain a full and open economy, and hope our trade links will continue to be strong. We are looking to maintain EEA membership while we discuss our longer term relationship with the bloc, and while we negotiate further trade deals abroad."
So Brexit will mean something, sometime, but not now? I don't see how Theresa May can get away with that. Brexit is proving to be a massive trap for her. Does she realise it and will she be able to spring free?
On Trump the weird thing is that the Republican Party has always been described as an uneasy coalition between the corporate establishment, social and religious conservatives and small government partisans. Trump is hoping to win despite seriously pissing off each of those factions. (And based on polling evidence is doing better than would expect)
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I'll bite: Because it will help cure us of our Eurosceptic virus.
If the US turned protectionist, and we went WTO with the EU, the UK economy would be absolutely hammered.
Why would it be? What percentage of our exports go to the USA? What percentage of that percentage would be blocked by protectionist measures?
Do you seriously think that the USA would withdraw from the WTO?
On Trump the weird thing is that the Republican Party has always been described as an uneasy coalition between the corporate establishment, social and religious conservatives and small government partisans. Trump is hoping to win despite seriously pissing off each of those factions. (And based on polling evidence is doing better than would expect)
As I said during the primaries, if you're a partisan voter who wants a President who will stick it to the Republicans, arguably Trump has a stronger case than Clinton.
I am simply pointing out that being 7% adrift 15 months into a Parliament has plenty of precedents - it was also true of the Tories in the 2001 Parliament who went on to lose in May 2005 by a mere 3%.
I think if the Conservatives have a result comparable to Labour's result in 2005 at any time between now and 2020 Theresa May will be a very happy woman.
Well - a 3% Tory lead in the popular vote would almost certainly mean we were looking at a Hung Parliament! Perhaps she would be happy with that.
I was thinking of a 60-seat majority. But equally, a 3% lead on new boundaries with the vote on the left fracturing would almost certainly be ample for at least a small majority.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
Of the last 19 polls before the EU referendum 8 had Leave in the lead.
Of the last 19 US Presidential polls 0 have Trump in the lead.
26% for Corbyn's Labour in one poll. How low can he go, and what excuse will his supporters give for the low poll ratings?
The Cobynites are not interested in poll ratings, the hard left want to take complete control of the party first. They will then still end up as the opposition in 2020 with around 150-200 left-wing MPs and push on from there. As an ex-Labour member I have observed their tactics since the 80s -they know that ultimately the Tories will fall out of favour, governments always do, the Corbynites are in it for the long haul.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
Of the last 19 polls before the EU referendum 8 had Leave in the lead.
Of the last 19 US Presidential polls 0 have Trump in the lead.
And of the 19 polls three months before the EU referendum?
My base assumption is that Mrs May comes out and says "Brexit is process, not a one off event. We love our continental neighbours, and plan to maintain a full and open economy, and hope our trade links will continue to be strong. We are looking to maintain EEA membership while we discuss our longer term relationship with the bloc, and while we negotiate further trade deals abroad."
So Brexit will mean something, sometime, but not now? I don't see how Theresa May can get away with that. Brexit is proving to be a massive trap for her. Does she realise it and will she be able to spring free?
On Trump the weird thing is that the Republican Party has always been described as an uneasy coalition between the corporate establishment, social and religious conservatives and small government partisans. Trump is hoping to win despite seriously pissing off each of those factions. (And based on polling evidence is doing better than would expect)
An interim trading arrangement is on the near horizon to cover the period between the expiry of Article 50 and the ratification, perhaps several years hence, of a UK/EU FTA. One of two of off the shelf options is available: EEA or WTO. EEA is difficult politically as it involves payment into the EU budget, free movement and acceptance of the primacy of EU law relating to trade matters. Potentially explosive. The WTO option implies far greater uncertainty economically. It's not going to be easy.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
Of the last 19 polls before the EU referendum 8 had Leave in the lead.
Of the last 19 US Presidential polls 0 have Trump in the lead.
And of the 19 polls three months before the EU referendum?
It's always interesting to note the somewhat convoluted origins of Rasmussen polls. Today Clinton is +3 which for Rashite is little short of a landslide for Clinton and then you note they have Trump winning 20% of AA voters .....
It's always interesting to note the somewhat convoluted origins of Rasmussen polls. Today Clinton is +3 which for Rashite is little short of a landslide for Clinton and then you note they have Trump winning 20% of AA voters .....
20% is more credible than 1% - less than David Duke.
It's always interesting to note the somewhat convoluted origins of Rasmussen polls. Today Clinton is +3 which for Rashite is little short of a landslide for Clinton and then you note they have Trump winning 20% of AA voters .....
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
National vote share is far less useful guide than state polls and the Electoral College arithmetic.
It is extremely difficult to put together a winning EC path for Trump right now, may change of course but at the moment Clinton is clearly favourite by some distance.
Boycott - When Ben Stokes is fit, what a wonderful middle order - Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen Ali, and Woakes. I don't think even Australia have a middle order like that.
Just a shame about the top and bottom of the order...
For those PBers who have been arguing recently that Labour has forgotten the white, working class that was its core vote, this NYT article about Democrats makes interesting reading:
It's always interesting to note the somewhat convoluted origins of Rasmussen polls. Today Clinton is +3 which for Rashite is little short of a landslide for Clinton and then you note they have Trump winning 20% of AA voters .....
You have Platinum access?
Don't talk precious metals with Mrs JackW about !! .....
I am simply pointing out that being 7% adrift 15 months into a Parliament has plenty of precedents - it was also true of the Tories in the 2001 Parliament who went on to lose in May 2005 by a mere 3%.
I think if the Conservatives have a result comparable to Labour's result in 2005 at any time between now and 2020 Theresa May will be a very happy woman.
Well - a 3% Tory lead in the popular vote would almost certainly mean we were looking at a Hung Parliament! Perhaps she would be happy with that.
I was thinking of a 60-seat majority. But equally, a 3% lead on new boundaries with the vote on the left fracturing would almost certainly be ample for at least a small majority.
A 3% lead would imply a swing from Con to Lab of nearly 2% since 2015 and would cost the Tories 15 - 20 seats. Boundary changes are not certain to be approved and will not operate in any event at any election held before the end of 2018.
I have observed their tactics since the 80s -they know that ultimately the Tories will fall out of favour, governments always do, the Corbynites are in it for the long haul.
Except according to their own rhetoric, since 1979 we have had 18 years of Tory rule, 13 years of Blairite Tory rule, 5 years of coalition Tory rule, and we are into another 5 years of Tory rule.
An interim trading arrangement is on the near horizon to cover the period between the expiry of Article 50 and the ratification, perhaps several years hence, of a UK/EU FTA. One of two of off the shelf options is available: EEA or WTO. EEA is difficult politically as it involves payment into the EU budget, free movement and acceptance of the primacy of EU law relating to trade matters. Potentially explosive. The WTO option implies far greater uncertainty economically. It's not going to be easy.
You are absolutely right that this is not going to be easy. In fact I think you are understating the difficulty. Neither the EEA nor WTO options can be regarded as off-the-shelf options which we can rely on being available. For a start, it's far from obvious that our EEA+EU friends would accept the EEA route if it was an interim solution (and of course it would almost certainly require the unanimous consent of the EEA 3 + Switzerland + the EU 27).
What's more, even if we were to go down the EEA route (and accept freedom of movement exactly as in the EU), we'd still have the big challenge of disentangling ourselves from the EU's WTO tariff schedules, concessions and commitments, and attempting to replace at least the most important of the current EU trade agreements.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
It's always interesting to note the somewhat convoluted origins of Rasmussen polls. Today Clinton is +3 which for Rashite is little short of a landslide for Clinton and then you note they have Trump winning 20% of AA voters .....
20% is more credible than 1% - less than David Duke.
McCain 4% and Romney 5% according to Pew so I think Trump around 2-3% is about the mark.
I have observed their tactics since the 80s -they know that ultimately the Tories will fall out of favour, governments always do, the Corbynites are in it for the long haul.
Except according to their own rhetoric, since 1979 we have had 18 years of Tory rule, 13 years of Blairite Tory rule, 5 years of coalition Tory rule, and we are into another 5 years of Tory rule.
When does this "out of favour" start?
Is very true. Labour only started winning again when they crushed the hard-left.
''You are absolutely right that this is not going to be easy.''
With Russia scheming, America going native and islamist Turkey threatening to quit Nato, lets kick our friends in the UK for having the temerity to want to govern themselves.
Will Europe's leaders really be so stupidly childish? I suppose it remains to be seen.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
Ultimately, though, you are rooting for Donald Trump because you want right wing insurgents to win.
That colours your entire thought process, and leads to you rationalising other things. In this case, you are forced to come to the conclusion that he (and congress) are pro-free trade, when the reality is that they are anything but. The one good thing about the Obama Presidency, IMHO, is that he has resolutely supported free trade, and led the US towards the TPP and the TTIP. Donald Trump, over many decades, has been anti-free trade.
I think they both should lose tbh.
I want the people to get what they vote for, which they certainly don't with the Democrats, who have been selling the blue collar workers out for decades. I get that free-everything is the optimum profit position for certain sections of the finance industry, but it doesn't command popular support either here on in the USA. There seems to be a paternalist perception in the elites that special interests can continually do an end run around the feelings of the masses, because they don't really know what is good for them. I don't think it can continue forever, if the Democrats continue to shaft the blue collar workers in the USA then someone more extreme than Trump will stand and possibly win in 2020. If the City lobby in the UK gets EEA and free movement to optimise it's profit margins there is going to be a lot of discontent here as well. Still I expect the gated communities being built these days have nice high walls.
I have observed their tactics since the 80s -they know that ultimately the Tories will fall out of favour, governments always do, the Corbynites are in it for the long haul.
Except according to their own rhetoric, since 1979 we have had 18 years of Tory rule, 13 years of Blairite Tory rule, 5 years of coalition Tory rule, and we are into another 5 years of Tory rule.
When does this "out of favour" start?
I didn't say it would work, I said that is their strategy.
On the subject of bilateral free trade agreements with the US, it is worth taking a look at the Australia/ USA Free Trade Agreement of 2005. This was set up by the Howard government as a quid pro quo for Australia joining the US in Iraq. The feeling, certainly in Australia, was that USA was under an obligation, which it certainly wouldn't be for any deal with the UK. Despite that, if you Google search for AUSUS FTA, essentially everyone thinks it was a dud, with some experts reckoning it was worse than nothing - for reasons I don't fully understand to do with trade diversion.
Australia's Productivity Commission that advises the Australia's government on economic issues doesn't like preferential trade deals like AUSUS (they think multilateral deals are the best; unilateral action is better than nothing and better than bilateral arrangements):
Whether or not FTA's will bring any economic benefits, they will serve a useful political purpose for the government. Brexit is otherwise about damage limitation and salvaging as much as possible of the status quo. Government can point to future FTA's as new, shiny, different and hopeful.
It's always interesting to note the somewhat convoluted origins of Rasmussen polls. Today Clinton is +3 which for Rashite is little short of a landslide for Clinton and then you note they have Trump winning 20% of AA voters .....
20% is more credible than 1% - less than David Duke.
The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon. What are we going to about that? Much more important than worrying about the Labour Party..
Did John Howard and his cabinet really believe the free trade agreement [with the US] would help Australia? Even in the narrowly mercantilist frame in which he cast it, he won no benefits for Australia. Nothing, for instance, immediate for Australian agriculture. But perhaps his motive was electoral rather than economic
....
It also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.
A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
But short-term political benefits flow in the other direction. A bilateral meeting with a friendly leader presents many domestic political advantages. It gives the appearance of advancing the national interests and attracts intense and usually uncritical media coverage.
After bilateral meetings, leaders can sing each other's praises and hail the breakthrough their mutual brilliance has achieved. In practice, the promised benefits often fade just a little more slowly than the TV lights.
Contrast this with the inevitable messiness of global gatherings. Overwhelmingly at the end of global gatherings the news focus is on failure. With a large range of competing interests and viewpoints, there will always be unresolved issues and messy loose ends. As the media gravitate towards conflict and failure, these, rather than any consensual progress, become the staple of news reports. The domestic political interest of national leaders is more often served by distancing themselves from proceedings rather than hailing their success.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
That is precisely where my thinking is.
TBH, equivalence is much more important for most financial services than passporting. The ease of using an EU domiciled subsidiary for any retail business makes it relatively unpainful. The key is ensuring the UK remains the most attractive site for the main FS activities; control of regulation (salary cap, anyone?), CFC rules and the like are much more significant in this regard.
On the subject of bilateral free trade agreements with the US, it is worth taking a look at the Australia/ USA Free Trade Agreement of 2005. This was set up by the Howard government as a quid pro quo for Australia joining the US in Iraq. The feeling, certainly in Australia, was that USA was under an obligation, which it certainly wouldn't be for any deal with the UK. Despite that, if you Google search for AUSUS FTA, essentially everyone thinks it was a dud, with some experts reckoning it was worse than nothing - for reasons I don't fully understand to do with trade diversion.
Australia's Productivity Commission that advises the Australia's government on economic issues doesn't like preferential trade deals like AUSUS (they think multilateral deals are the best; unilateral action is better than nothing and better than bilateral arrangements):
Whether or not FTA's will bring any economic benefits, they will serve a useful political purpose for the government. Brexit is otherwise about damage limitation and salvaging as much as possible of the status quo. Government can point to future FTA's as new, shiny, different and hopeful.
A trade deal has to be a win win. If both sides aren't happy, you don't sign.
We have no trade deal at the moment with the US. We still do pretty good trade with them.
It's always interesting to note the somewhat convoluted origins of Rasmussen polls. Today Clinton is +3 which for Rashite is little short of a landslide for Clinton and then you note they have Trump winning 20% of AA voters .....
You have Platinum access?
Don't talk precious metals with Mrs JackW about !! .....
It's always interesting to note the somewhat convoluted origins of Rasmussen polls. Today Clinton is +3 which for Rashite is little short of a landslide for Clinton and then you note they have Trump winning 20% of AA voters .....
You have Platinum access?
Don't talk precious metals with Mrs JackW about !! .....
Didn't they rebrand Access as MasterCard aeons ago anyway?
The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon. What are we going to about that? Much more important than worrying about the Labour Party..
On the subject of bilateral free trade agreements with the US, it is worth taking a look at the Australia/ USA Free Trade Agreement of 2005. This was set up by the Howard government as a quid pro quo for Australia joining the US in Iraq. The feeling, certainly in Australia, was that USA was under an obligation, which it certainly wouldn't be for any deal with the UK. Despite that, if you Google search for AUSUS FTA, essentially everyone thinks it was a dud, with some experts reckoning it was worse than nothing - for reasons I don't fully understand to do with trade diversion.
Australia's Productivity Commission that advises the Australia's government on economic issues doesn't like preferential trade deals like AUSUS (they think multilateral deals are the best; unilateral action is better than nothing and better than bilateral arrangements):
Whether or not FTA's will bring any economic benefits, they will serve a useful political purpose for the government. Brexit is otherwise about damage limitation and salvaging as much as possible of the status quo. Government can point to future FTA's as new, shiny, different and hopeful.
A trade deal has to be a win win. If both sides aren't happy, you don't sign.
We have no trade deal at the moment with the US. We still do pretty good trade with them.
Trade deals with countries that have liberal trade and overseas investment policies don't bring huge gains. It's trade deals with developing nations that open up new opportunities. The US ia a classic example of the former and India could be a decent example of the latter.
On the subject of bilateral free trade agreements with the US, it is worth taking a look at the Australia/ USA Free Trade Agreement of 2005. This was set up by the Howard government as a quid pro quo for Australia joining the US in Iraq. The feeling, certainly in Australia, was that USA was under an obligation, which it certainly wouldn't be for any deal with the UK. Despite that, if you Google search for AUSUS FTA, essentially everyone thinks it was a dud, with some experts reckoning it was worse than nothing - for reasons I don't fully understand to do with trade diversion.
Australia's Productivity Commission that advises the Australia's government on economic issues doesn't like preferential trade deals like AUSUS (they think multilateral deals are the best; unilateral action is better than nothing and better than bilateral arrangements):
Whether or not FTA's will bring any economic benefits, they will serve a useful political purpose for the government. Brexit is otherwise about damage limitation and salvaging as much as possible of the status quo. Government can point to future FTA's as new, shiny, different and hopeful.
A trade deal has to be a win win. If both sides aren't happy, you don't sign.
We have no trade deal at the moment with the US. We still do pretty good trade with them.
My point is, I think they will sign. They need the FTAs, or the prospect of FTAs, as political cover.
''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
That is precisely where my thinking is.
TBH, equivalence is much more important for most financial services than passporting. The ease of using an EU domiciled subsidiary for any retail business makes it relatively unpainful. The key is ensuring the UK remains the most attractive site for the main FS activities; control of regulation (salary cap, anyone?), CFC rules and the like are much more significant in this regard.
I am not really that well informed on banking issues, but my feeling is that, at some stage EU banking regulations will be an own goal, so it is important for the City to be governed not by EU regulations, but our own so that it will be well-positioned at that point to take advantage of the EU own goals.
The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon. What are we going to about that? Much more important than worrying about the Labour Party..
A more worrying development is Erdogan suggesting that Turkey become part of the Russian sphere of influence, not NATO.
It seems that Turkey has been moving away from the EU and NATO for some time - Erdogan would seem happier that way, and the Turkish people evidently agree.
Anyone still on Owen Smith are probably unable to get out now,Jeremy Corbyn has been backed from 1-8,to 1-10,correctly in my opinion. The Unison nomination,together with Unite's yesterday pretty much clinches the deal for JC. John McDonnell was quite right in referring to the Chicken Coup plotters as useless.Jeremy Corbyn will come out of the election refreshed and strengthened.Great plan,eh?
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Busy day for american polling, 4 PPP polls in 2 days:
N.Carolina
Trump 43 Hillary 41
S.Carolina
Trump 41 Hillary 39
N.H.
Hillary 50 Trump 37
Florida
Hillary 46 Trump 43
Also 2 polls from Gravis:
Maine
Hillary 43 Trump 33
Georgia
Trump 43 Hillary 39
And one from Suffolk:
Iowa
Trump 37 Hillary 36
The very uneven picture of the Trump Collapse continues. S.Carolina and Maine join the list of states recording it, Georgia maybe moving out of the list.
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
And give the unelected Eurocrats an expeditionary force? Madness.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
That is precisely where my thinking is.
TBH, equivalence is much more important for most financial services than passporting. The ease of using an EU domiciled subsidiary for any retail business makes it relatively unpainful. The key is ensuring the UK remains the most attractive site for the main FS activities; control of regulation (salary cap, anyone?), CFC rules and the like are much more significant in this regard.
I am not really that well informed on banking issues, but my feeling is that, at some stage EU banking regulations will be an own goal, so it is important for the City to be governed not by EU regulations, but our own so that it will be well-positioned at that point to take advantage of the EU own goals.
Not just banking, but (re)insurance (particularly the major broking operations, which are potentially more exposed to the EU generally) and other FS sub-sectors are now, quietly, making just that point in the consultation exercises going on.
Anyone still on Owen Smith are probably unable to get out now,Jeremy Corbyn has been backed from 1-8,to 1-10,correctly in my opinion. The Unison nomination,together with Unite's yesterday pretty much clinches the deal for JC. John McDonnell was quite right in referring to the Chicken Coup plotters as useless.Jeremy Corbyn will come out of the election refreshed and strengthened.Great plan,eh?
Well on top of that it's the CLP nominations, plus the Mayoral elections, plus the NEC elections.
Superb century for The Beard that's Feared, now averaging 78 with the bat this summer. Very rapid scoring on a pitch (SR 71) where only one other batsman so far has made it to 50.
''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
Italy and Germany are the most delinquent amongst the large nations. No one really gives a shit about Albania .
Busy day for american polling, 4 PPP polls in 2 days:
N.Carolina
Trump 43 Hillary 41
S.Carolina
Trump 41 Hillary 39
N.H.
Hillary 50 Trump 37
Florida
Hillary 46 Trump 43
Also 2 polls from Gravis:
Maine
Hillary 43 Trump 33
Georgia
Trump 43 Hillary 39
And one from Suffolk:
Iowa
Trump 37 Hillary 36
The very uneven picture of the Trump Collapse continues. S.Carolina and Maine join the list of states recording it, Georgia maybe moving out of the list.
What these polls show despite the large national leads this race is still close as f.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
That is precisely where my thinking is.
TBH, equivalence is much more important for most financial services than passporting. The ease of using an EU domiciled subsidiary for any retail business makes it relatively unpainful. The key is ensuring the UK remains the most attractive site for the main FS activities; control of regulation (salary cap, anyone?), CFC rules and the like are much more significant in this regard.
I am not really that well informed on banking issues, but my feeling is that, at some stage EU banking regulations will be an own goal, so it is important for the City to be governed not by EU regulations, but our own so that it will be well-positioned at that point to take advantage of the EU own goals.
Not just banking, but (re)insurance (particularly the major broking operations, which are potentially more exposed to the EU generally) and other FS sub-sectors are now, quietly, making just that point in the consultation exercises going on.
FWIW, the IFS SM report put the value of UK financial services exports to the EU at £23.1 billion, split £2.4billion insurance & pensions, remainder banking and investment services. Figures are from 2014 though.
Anyone still on Owen Smith are probably unable to get out now,Jeremy Corbyn has been backed from 1-8,to 1-10,correctly in my opinion. The Unison nomination,together with Unite's yesterday pretty much clinches the deal for JC. John McDonnell was quite right in referring to the Chicken Coup plotters as useless.Jeremy Corbyn will come out of the election refreshed and strengthened.Great plan,eh?
Corbyn will win easily, but I don't think this contest has done him any favours at all. I thought Prentice's comments today about no witch hunts were very interesting. Unison has two NEC seats and will clearly not be backing major rule changes on things such as reselections. In fact, we may even see elections to shadow cabinet positions reintroduced. I'd say we are now at or close to peak-Corbyn. A lot of members will now be looking for serious signs he can deliver. How he reacts to victory will be interesting to see.
Anyone still on Owen Smith are probably unable to get out now,Jeremy Corbyn has been backed from 1-8,to 1-10,correctly in my opinion. The Unison nomination,together with Unite's yesterday pretty much clinches the deal for JC. John McDonnell was quite right in referring to the Chicken Coup plotters as useless.Jeremy Corbyn will come out of the election refreshed and strengthened.Great plan,eh?
Corbyn will win easily, but I don't think this contest has done him any favours at all. I thought Prentice's comments today about no witch hunts were very interesting. Unison has two NEC seats and will clearly not be backing major rule changes on things such as reselections. In fact, we may even see elections to shadow cabinet positions reintroduced. I'd say we are now at or close to peak-Corbyn. A lot of members will now be looking for serious signs he can deliver. How he reacts to victory will be interesting to see.
Foolish of them to rule out a witch hunt.
Magic is about the only thing that can rescue Labour from here.
Comments
Well, I'm done with the Olympics !! Had enough, don't care anymore.
I was enjoying luncheon at my favourite café when one of the customers turned up the volume for something called the Quadruple Men's Sculls (or Skulls perhaps, who cares ?). Anyway, four men in a boat.
The commentary begins (I'm not watching as I'm reading the RP looking for a bet on tonight's evening racing) and its patriotic fervour rapidly surges to new heights, the British rowers are Gods among men, their fitness unparalleled, their skills unmatched, they are surging to victory like modern Adonii, glory awaits...he's about to break into Henry V as they surge across the line...
Fifth.
Yes, fifth, beaten by the mighty Estonians along with the Germans, Australians and someone else.
Not once did I hear any of the other nations mentioned - instead, I'm forced to endure this jingoistic poo that I'm paying for out of my licence fee - yes, I'm the one who pays it.
What happened to the great commentators of old - Glendenning, Wolstenholme, Walker (before he went mad), Alliss (ditto), Laker, Arlott, Benaud, Motson and of course the greatest of them all, the Guv'nor, O'Sullivan ?
I know, most of them are dead.
There are fine horse racing commentators like Richard Hoiles, Simon Holt and John Hunt who would do a much better job than the numbskulls currently employed by the BBC. Instead, Hoiles ends up calling selling platers round Chelmsford when he should be calling the 100m final in Rio.
It's wrong, just wrong.
Who knows?
I think a lot depends on how quickly Mrs May is able to reach the outline of a deal with our neighbours. (Something that will - ideally - happen before Article 50 is invoked.) A rapid announcement on the approximate terms of Brexit, a rapid return of confidence, and the Sterling could rise.
On the other hand, a long drawn period, where the terms of exit are unclear, and it is likely that Sterling could be under severe pressure. Could it go below EUR1? Or $1.15? Yes, probably. One would hope that would catalyse demand for UK assets - however, I suspect that this would be a case of weakness begets weakness. People bought UK assets because it was perceived as a safe haven - bolstering Sterling and allowing us to run a current acount deficit.
My base assumption is that Mrs May comes out and says "Brexit is process, not a one off event. We love our continental neighbours, and plan to maintain a full and open economy, and hope our trade links will continue to be strong. We are looking to maintain EEA membership while we discuss our longer term relationship with the bloc, and while we negotiate further trade deals abroad."
The YouGov is a carbon copy of the 2015 GE result while the TMS numbers are much worse for Labour (and better for the Conservatives, LDs and Greens).
Could Labour poll 26% in a GE ? Yes, though that's pretty near their base (the Conservative base is 30%) but would still net 175 seats (East Ham wouldn't be under any threat) or thereabouts.
The question for me is whether IF he can grab the leadership (and that remains a huge IF for me) Owen Smith will be the 2010s Kinnock. Kinnock gets a lot of flak but he set Labour on the road to 1997 (with a lot of help) and I suspect Smith's first aim will be to ensure a Corbyn-like figure can never win again (though the MPs in the PLP made it happen).
A renewed Corbyn mandate makes a schism of some sort more likely and I think a combined centre-left Party with the LDs could very well poll 15-20% now. The thing to emphasise about any new party and this was true with the SDP in 1981 was not the direct switch of activists and members from other parties but the fact that the majority of new members of the new party won't have been members of any other parties in the past.
It may be a success. It may not be. The polls currently would suggest it will not, but as you say, they may be downweighting people.
Personal view: I think Trump's comments about Hispanics will end up losing him New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Colorado. They may even bring Arizona into play. He'll win a surprising number of rust belt states (not Minnesota, probably not Wisconsin, but Pennsylvania and New Jersey are possibles, Ohio is a probable). I don't think it'll quite be enough. But it's definitely the path Trump is trying to follow.
Could that be wishful thinking?
That might be a big shock to an already moribund economic area...???
Then again, I have never understood the strength of the euro.
You can of course manufacture some route to winning other states, but he has said nothing designed to appeal to them.
I'll be honest - channelling my inner Eagles, I hope Trump gets a shellacking, pounded like a dockside hooker, I want him to lose the EV 531-7 (I'll give him Oklahoma).
He won't though some of the recent State polls "suggest" there are GOP states which are in play - I'll mention Arizona, Georgia and Mississippi for three with perhaps South Carolina for a fourth. IF the debates change nothing and Trump continues to drift 5-7 points (or more) behind HRC, I suspect we'll see the momentum fade out of his campaign (Fox News can only get you so far) and the priority will be to save GOP Senate and House seats.
I'm hopecasting and Trump fans will presumably tell me I'm wrong and millions of silent Americans (an oxymoron in my experience) will come out and vote for the Donald in November.
https://twitter.com/saving_labour/status/760444182561423360
If you look at each of the 19 Eurozone countries, I think we're a top three export destination for three - Malta, Ireland and one other. Simply, Sterling's weakness will be a pain for BMW, Mercedes, and VW, but won't cause that many issues for the rest of the bloc.
As an aside, the reason the Euro is so strong is because almost all of them run current account surpluses: in fact, off the top of my head, I'm trying to think who runs a deficit except France.
If they do not mind that, or choose to discount it, well, it will be on them (and if they are right about their own success, much bragging will be earned).
I am dubious about how protectionist the USA will be anyway unless there is a massive Trump landslide, the limits of executive power might get tested quite rapidly against a pro-business, or at least pro-profit, congress. Trump scraping over the line by a fraction of a percent won't have the mandate to carry congress with him, a Trump landslide of 60%+ might, but is vanishingly unlikely.
However NJ (Av C +11.7) and PA (AV C +9.2) for Trump is highly unlikely.
http://www.270towin.com/
A couple of interesting methodological notes here – looking at TNS’s tables, it looks like they are including the names of the party leaders in their voting intention question (just the GB leaders in the English question, but also the Scottish and Welsh leaders in their respective areas). Based on the tables, they are also asking preferred party on the economy and preferred leader before asking voting intention.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9746
Me: I believe this is a similar methodology to how the Crosby-Textor polling for the Tories at GE2015 was conducted. That polling was nearly spot on, and predicted a Tory majority of around 6
If Trump wins, triggering Article 50 would be insane.
That colours your entire thought process, and leads to you rationalising other things. In this case, you are forced to come to the conclusion that he (and congress) are pro-free trade, when the reality is that they are anything but. The one good thing about the Obama Presidency, IMHO, is that he has resolutely supported free trade, and led the US towards the TPP and the TTIP. Donald Trump, over many decades, has been anti-free trade.
Hasn't he already promised/ threatened a re-allocation task if money offshore isn't brought back into the USA within a certain time period? (The Clinton News Network et all glossed over his economic message as I think he sneezed half-way through it.)
On Trump the weird thing is that the Republican Party has always been described as an uneasy coalition between the corporate establishment, social and religious conservatives and small government partisans. Trump is hoping to win despite seriously pissing off each of those factions. (And based on polling evidence is doing better than would expect)
Do you seriously think that the USA would withdraw from the WTO?
Of the last 19 US Presidential polls 0 have Trump in the lead.
National vote share is far less useful guide than state polls and the Electoral College arithmetic.
It is extremely difficult to put together a winning EC path for Trump right now, may change of course but at the moment Clinton is clearly favourite by some distance.
Just a shame about the top and bottom of the order...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/opinion/campaign-stops/is-trump-wrecking-both-parties.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Germany in new anti-terror plan to thwart Islamist militants
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37044519
BlairiteTory rule, 5 years ofcoalitionTory rule, and we are into another 5 years of Tory rule.When does this "out of favour" start?
What's more, even if we were to go down the EEA route (and accept freedom of movement exactly as in the EU), we'd still have the big challenge of disentangling ourselves from the EU's WTO tariff schedules, concessions and commitments, and attempting to replace at least the most important of the current EU trade agreements.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
Is very true. Labour only started winning again when they crushed the hard-left.
With Russia scheming, America going native and islamist Turkey threatening to quit Nato, lets kick our friends in the UK for having the temerity to want to govern themselves.
Will Europe's leaders really be so stupidly childish? I suppose it remains to be seen.
I want the people to get what they vote for, which they certainly don't with the Democrats, who have been selling the blue collar workers out for decades. I get that free-everything is the optimum profit position for certain sections of the finance industry, but it doesn't command popular support either here on in the USA. There seems to be a paternalist perception in the elites that special interests can continually do an end run around the feelings of the masses, because they don't really know what is good for them. I don't think it can continue forever, if the Democrats continue to shaft the blue collar workers in the USA then someone more extreme than Trump will stand and possibly win in 2020. If the City lobby in the UK gets EEA and free movement to optimise it's profit margins there is going to be a lot of discontent here as well. Still I expect the gated communities being built these days have nice high walls.
Australia's Productivity Commission that advises the Australia's government on economic issues doesn't like preferential trade deals like AUSUS (they think multilateral deals are the best; unilateral action is better than nothing and better than bilateral arrangements):
http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/trade-assistance/2013-14/trade-assistance-review-2013-14.pdf#page=73
More on the topic here:
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/02/08/the-costs-of-australias-free-trade-agreement-with-america/
Whether or not FTA's will bring any economic benefits, they will serve a useful political purpose for the government. Brexit is otherwise about damage limitation and salvaging as much as possible of the status quo. Government can point to future FTA's as new, shiny, different and hopeful.
It really isn't
The Fourth Crusade was monumentally delinquent.
Clinton 42 .. Trump 36 - LV
Clinton 44 .. Trump 32 - RV
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_Core_Political_8.10_.16_.pdf
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Short-circuit Hillary. A play on her alleged health issues and attitude to security protocols.
Did John Howard and his cabinet really believe the free trade agreement [with the US] would help Australia? Even in the narrowly mercantilist frame in which he cast it, he won no benefits for Australia. Nothing, for instance, immediate for Australian agriculture. But perhaps his motive was electoral rather than economic
....
It also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.
A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
But short-term political benefits flow in the other direction. A bilateral meeting with a friendly leader presents many domestic political advantages. It gives the appearance of advancing the national interests and attracts intense and usually uncritical media coverage.
After bilateral meetings, leaders can sing each other's praises and hail the breakthrough their mutual brilliance has achieved. In practice, the promised benefits often fade just a little more slowly than the TV lights.
Contrast this with the inevitable messiness of global gatherings. Overwhelmingly at the end of global gatherings the news focus is on failure. With a large range of competing interests and viewpoints, there will always be unresolved issues and messy loose ends. As the media gravitate towards conflict and failure, these, rather than any consensual progress, become the staple of news reports. The domestic political interest of national leaders is more often served by distancing themselves from proceedings rather than hailing their success.
Clinton 39 .. Trump 41
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_81116.pdf
We have no trade deal at the moment with the US. We still do pretty good trade with them.
Sochi - Invade Ukraine
Rio - ?
A more worrying development is Erdogan suggesting that Turkey become part of the Russian sphere of influence, not NATO.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
The Unison nomination,together with Unite's yesterday pretty much clinches the deal for JC.
John McDonnell was quite right in referring to the Chicken Coup plotters as useless.Jeremy Corbyn will come out of the election refreshed and strengthened.Great plan,eh?
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
*splitting hairs*
N.Carolina
Trump 43
Hillary 41
S.Carolina
Trump 41
Hillary 39
N.H.
Hillary 50
Trump 37
Florida
Hillary 46
Trump 43
Also 2 polls from Gravis:
Maine
Hillary 43
Trump 33
Georgia
Trump 43
Hillary 39
And one from Suffolk:
Iowa
Trump 37
Hillary 36
The very uneven picture of the Trump Collapse continues.
S.Carolina and Maine join the list of states recording it, Georgia maybe moving out of the list.
All of them point to a Corbyn landslide.
In which case Don Brind = Rob Brydon.
One wonders what strange things go through a commentator's head at times...
Magic is about the only thing that can rescue Labour from here.